All Your P2P are Belong to RIAA

Citrix · 14th January 2003, 16:46

Anybody else read this??

/. read

apollos · 14th January 2003, 17:01

wow, the RIAA really are off the plot

Where there is a will there is a way, the RIAA will never succeed.

Quote:

Things to keep in mind:
1) If you participate in illegal file-sharing networks, your
computer now belongs to the RIAA.
2) Your BlackIce Defender(tm) firewall will not help you.
3) Snort, RealSecure, Dragon, NFR, and all that other crap
cannot detect this attack, or this type of attack.
4) Don't fuck with the RIAA again, scriptkids.
5) We have our own private version of this hydra actively
infecting p2p users, and building one giant ddosnet.

Yeah, they sounded REALLY convincing with point 4...
Maybe we should send an email to Bin Laden's men and say that the RIAA insulted Islam...bye bye RIAA

Vie · 14th January 2003, 17:07

Do the RIAA know that by doing this they are breaking international law, there duristiction is purly US based, so if they infect a computer in britan, that user could sue them for criminal damages.

Go Gobbles topple the RIAA from the inside.

Gonzotek · 14th January 2003, 17:28

So they make a worm that can affect any random mp3. What about uncopyrighted audio or audio in which the copyright owner has given permission for it to be freely redistributed? Just because my client has joined the Gnutella network it does not automatically follow that I am pirating their music. This smells very fishy to me. One thing the RIAA has plenty of is lawyers. Any reasonably competent lawyer would be able to spot the serious legal problems with a scheme like this. Not to mention that if the 95% figure is correct then some of the smartest coders I know must be infected and unaware of it, or they would have made this public already.

-=Gonzotek=-

zootm · 14th January 2003, 17:50

hey cool, they're enforcing a prospective law by breaking an existing one! that's a great idea! with all this corporate vigilanteism, the internet'll be back on track in no time!

i seriously doubt that to be true. if it is, the RIAA are more stupid than we even joked about...

Oni-Dracula · 14th January 2003, 18:04

*cough* hoax *cough* fake *cough*

damn I'm startin to get sick...

If it were true, the message wouldn't be so elaborate and well thought out.

Caretaker · 14th January 2003, 20:41

I don't know how accurate this is, but I saw a link to it at Slashdot:

http://212.100.234.54/content/6/28842.html

Jay · 14th January 2003, 20:51

highly unlikely that it will be effective seeing as it couldn't possibly stay hidden from view forever. It smells of hoax.

to those who say that what the RIAA is doing is illegal, that may be but what you are doing is illegal as well so who are you to complain?

If I stole something from someone, and they stole it back, what rights would I have in a court of law?

m0e · 14th January 2003, 21:29

Actually, by law they are just as guilty as you. But who would be charged with a crime depends entirely on your locale.

henry3k56 · 14th January 2003, 21:34

Technically RIAA cannot take your private information. That is your own. Thus meaning that RIAA will become sued for the fact that they are invading someone's private property.
As mentioned earlier, the RIAA defends only the Recording Industry. Not the music artists, which are the losers same as the listener. The benefactor of the music media are the industries who produce the cds.

Now if they are threatening to take computers away, many of the public will retaliate with such an uproar. The thing is that people are sharing their music which they are NOT getting a cent back in sharing it. There is practically no profit, but a loss.

The RIAA will also have a hard time confiscating computers because that is your own property. Whatever is on the computer is intellectual property. Which is fairly easy to debate your use of "fair use". If they do do this, they will end up taking away school servers at many campuses across the United States where in student folders do contain mp3s, and other means of information such as programs. Then if they do this, the RIAA will be accused of obstructing education.

Also the RIAA is not being helpful to those that compose their own music, and have it distributed through these P2P networks. The artists will sue the RIAA for behaving recklessly and against the technology that enables unknown artists to get more user base.

The RIAA is NOT the police. It is a watchdog group which is only in the interests of their industry which will not figure out that using technology actually will help them succeed more. If they gave away music free, they could find other ways to reap in more money. Sell a brand of items for the artist, do touring which encourages a lot to attend.

The RIAA gets away with being the police is that they have strong lobbying power in Congress. But there is opposition in this ridiculous thing that the RIAA is doing.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c107H0DqDg::

Legislation is on its way folks to fix this.

Citrix · 14th January 2003, 21:38

The thing is MP3's are not illegal. They make it sound like that If i have any MP3's on my PC they have the right to hack into my shi*. S

liquidmotion · 14th January 2003, 21:42

is this legal?

m0e · 14th January 2003, 21:50

The RIAA is also promoting legislation to take away our rights to sue for any damage done by copyright holders to an individual computer. I don't have a reference and don't remember exactly how it is worded but I think it basicaly protects copyright holders from being prosecuted for damaging (hacking) any computer with copyrighted material. In the article I read last fall the legislation was very vaguely written. It basicaly said if a copyright holder found reference to copywrighted material on a computer and then hacked into the computer the computer owner had no legal recourse for the damage done.

Caretaker · 14th January 2003, 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by liquidmotion
is this legal?

Quote:

"That's for the courts to decide."
Homer Jay Simpson
The Simpsons
Mom and Pop Art

henry3k56 · 14th January 2003, 22:02

Nope. Also you can BS your way out of the DMCA Bill. Simply by reading between the lines.

Section 1201(d) states that:
EXEMPTION FOR NONPROFIT LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES, AND EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS.—(1) A nonprofit library, archives, or educational
institution which gains access to a commercially exploited
copyrighted work solely in order to make a good faith determination
of whether to acquire a copy of that work for the sole purpose
of engaging in conduct permitted under this title shall not be
in violation of subsection (a)(1)(A). A copy of a work to which
access has been gained under this paragraph—
‘‘(A) may not be retained longer than necessary to make
such good faith determination; and
‘‘(B) may not be used for any other purpose.
‘‘(2) The exemption made available under paragraph (1) shall
only apply with respect to a work when an identical copy of that
work is not reasonably available in another form.
‘‘(3) A nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution
that willfully for the purpose of commercial advantage or financial
gain violates paragraph (1)—
‘‘(A) shall, for the first offense, be subject to the civil
remedies under section 1203; and
‘‘(B) shall, for repeated or subsequent offenses, in addition
to the civil remedies under section 1203, forfeit the exemption
provided under paragraph (1).
‘‘(4) This subsection may not be used as a defense to a claim
under subsection (a)(2) or (b), nor may this subsection permit a
nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution to manufacture,
import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in
any technology, product, service, component, or part thereof, which
circumvents a technological measure.
‘‘(5) In order for a library or archives to qualify for the exemption
under this subsection, the collections of that library or archives
shall be—
‘‘(A) open to the public; or
‘‘(B) available not only to researchers affiliated with the
library or archives or with the institution of which it is a
part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized
field.

So technically the RIAA cannot stop you due to the fact that you are exempted as a NONPROFIT LIBRARY which is "open to the public"

Also the RIAA is breaking the DMCA in other forms as well. Stopping P2P for the Title III of the DMCA which states:

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ‘‘Computer Maintenance Competition
Assurance Act’’.

SEC. 302. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS; COMPUTER PROGRAMS.
Section 117 of title 17, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘Notwithstanding’’ and inserting the following:
‘‘(a) MAKING OF ADDITIONAL COPY OR ADAPTATION BY OWNER
OF COPY.—Notwithstanding’’;
(2) by striking ‘‘Any exact’’ and inserting the following:
‘‘(b) LEASE, SALE, OR OTHER TRANSFER OF ADDITIONAL COPY
OR ADAPTATION.—Any exact’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(c) MACHINE MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR.—Notwithstanding the
provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner
or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a
copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue
of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized
copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance
or repair of that machine, if—
‘‘(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is
destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed;
and
‘‘(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof
that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such
program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than
to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the
machine.
‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) the ‘maintenance’ of a machine is the servicing of
the machine in order to make it work in accordance with
its original specifications and any changes to those specifications
authorized for that machine; and
‘‘(2) the ‘repair’ of a machine is the restoring of the machine
to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications
and any changes to those specifications authorized for
that machine.’’.

Some people lose their paid software, a p2p program can retrieve it for them. So the RIAA is going to get stopped by the same act they helped create.

m0e · 14th January 2003, 22:43

Once again I have no reference for this (I definitly need to find a legal library I can access) but US copyright law states any copyies of copyrighted material have to be destroyed if you no longer possess the original. This is to stop people from buying something, copying it and then giving the original away to do the same thing again.

BeerBaron · 14th January 2003, 23:10

the RIAA wont go away, but it will damn sure make us stronger. For instance i never knew about these laws and these certain rights they try to take away. They are the cause of my furthore education in the field of "Shit that pisses me off".

THANKS RIAA!

henry3k56 · 15th January 2003, 02:14

Its also our fault that most of the population isn't that intelligent. What the police say is law. What the president says is law. Damn, just a bunch of gullible dubyas out there. The thing is that people just care about their lives, they really don't know whats out there that they are doing illegal, or can do legally. But when it affects people, then most of the population will hear them out.

Also RIAA is taking advantage of these "retards", and making gaps in the system to benefit themselves.

m0e · 15th January 2003, 02:25

Quote:

Originally posted by henry3k56
Its also our fault that most of the population isn't that intelligent. What the police say is law. What the president says is law. Damn, just a bunch of gullible dubyas out there. The thing is that people just care about their lives, they really don't know whats out there that they are doing illegal, or can do legally. But when it affects people, then most of the population will hear them out.

Also RIAA is taking advantage of these "retards", and making gaps in the system to benefit themselves.

See my tag line

White Raven · 15th January 2003, 02:38

Yeah, I get mp3's. BUT, I also occasionally buy CD's when I get enough money for them. They're accusing me of piracy when they charge me 28.00$ for a CD with maybe 10 songs on it?? Give me a fucking break. I can listen to music if I want to. Downloading one particular song from an artist does not stop me from buying the album. (A typical album has maybe 18-25 songs on it.) If I like that song, I may want more, and if I have money, I will pay for it.

And don't feed me bullshit like the music artists themselves have never downloaded and listened to an mp3 file before. Give me a break there, too.

And yeah, the article does 'smell of hoax.' I read the first few paragraphs and almost took a flying leap flailing my arms to that conclusion. A representative would not use 'fuck' in a formal letter to the public. Even in an informal letter. Come on.

And the lawyers the RIAA has would be able to recognize that it violates the laws of privacy, and the international laws, since the corporation is based within the U.S.
Fuck them. I'm not listening to that kind of crap.
95%?? What the fuck kind of fake statistic is that? That would be at least 11.5 million or so people. Suuure. Ninety-five percent my ass. This whole letter, my ass.
Fuck the RIAA. I want my music, and I will buy CD's when they JACK THE PRICES DOWN A FEW BUCKS. Jeezus.

henry3k56 · 15th January 2003, 02:50

Enrich yourselves! Read this book!!!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

Some1 · 15th January 2003, 02:50

Quote:

to those who say that what the RIAA is doing is illegal, that may be but what you are doing is illegal as well so who are you to complain?

That's just crazy...majority rules, plain and simple. Number of people stealing stuff on Kazza-lite right now? ~4 milion. Number of people working to do something about this theft? (maybe) 4 thousand. The 4 million group is the CLEAR winner, end of story.

dlinkwit27 · 15th January 2003, 11:46

Well, using me extensive legal, ethical, and computer knowledge (

) I ahve come to this conlusion that his is BULL SHIT! Keep your paws off my fucking computer RIAA! You'r looking to get pwn3d , again!

<edit>
has teh staff at winamp found a way to secure winamp to this? (assumiig there is one)
</edit>

binary hero · 15th January 2003, 11:55

it's a hoax, started by the riaa to activley discourage people from using p2p networks.

Some1 · 15th January 2003, 12:11

Quote:

has teh staff at winamp found a way to secure winamp to this?

I'm pretty sure that there's no way to embed virii into audio files like that crazy text document suggests...if you tried the best you'd get is either an MP3 that wouldn't play, or one that had skips and/or garbled sound...what they claim to be able to do is similar to saying "look, I found a way to make a WAV file such that it will format a computer's HDD if the user attempts to compress it to MP3!!!" It might be a good way to scare the technically illiterate into compliance, but it is little more than that. The very nature of how audio decoding/encoding works makes trying to place malicious code inside of an audio file an exercise in futility...at best they could put a URL to one of those annoying Xupiter.com style places in the ID3 tag and hope that you open the file with an app that automatically loads URL's specified in Id3 tags (I've actually had WMP do this to me a few times, though never with an MP3, and never to a page that was anything worse than just plain annoying)...but still, even that is unlikely to have any affect.

raydream · 15th January 2003, 13:10

all your RIAA can go fuck yourselves for all i care, i'll buy a cd when i feel like it, i'll download an album when i feel like it too, RIAA or some fanboy posted that because their site got pwned, lamers.

binary hero · 15th January 2003, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Some1
I'm pretty sure that there's no way to embed virii into audio files like that crazy text document suggests...if you tried the best you'd get is either an MP3 that wouldn't play, or one that had skips and/or garbled sound...what they claim to be able to do is similar to saying "look, I found a way to make a WAV file such that it will format a computer's HDD if the user attempts to compress it to MP3!!!" It might be a good way to scare the technically illiterate into compliance, but it is little more than that. The very nature of how audio decoding/encoding works makes trying to place malicious code inside of an audio file an exercise in futility...at best they could put a URL to one of those annoying Xupiter.com style places in the ID3 tag and hope that you open the file with an app that automatically loads URL's specified in Id3 tags (I've actually had WMP do this to me a few times, though never with an MP3, and never to a page that was anything worse than just plain annoying)...but still, even that is unlikely to have any affect.

with winamp, it is impossible to embed a virus in a song, winamp ONLY decodes the song (it totally ignores anything else, so it remains encoded, and won't do anything). dunno about the others.

m0e · 15th January 2003, 14:44

It is possible to infect mp3's and skins with virus, trojan, or worm which could then be used to exploit any vulnerabilities in your system. It is also possible to hijack a download link and redirect someone to an altered copy of the file or program they were trying to download.

zootm · 15th January 2003, 14:45

i'm sure there's something you can do regarding to ID3 tags etc. that can screw it up... look at the insecurity patch they just released, that was for hacks of mp3 files...

Jay · 15th January 2003, 15:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Some1
That's just crazy...majority rules, plain and simple. Number of people stealing stuff on Kazza-lite right now? ~4 milion. Number of people working to do something about this theft? (maybe) 4 thousand. The 4 million group is the CLEAR winner, end of story.

oh so speeding is legal? a majority do it. Beyond that I don't see how what you say relates to what you quoted from my post.

Some1 · 15th January 2003, 15:42

Quote:

oh so speeding is legal? a majority do it.

*should* be legal, just like downloading MP3's *should* be legal, and just like alcohol IS legal now despite the fact that it was once banned. Public opinion is what counts, and if the majority of the public wants something to be legal, eventually it will be.

m0e · 15th January 2003, 15:58

Quote:

Originally posted by KXRM

If I stole something from someone, and they stole it back, what rights would I have in a court of law?

About ten years ago I lived in the Puget Sound area of Washington state. There was a series of car prowls in our area. One night a man heard something outside his house and looked to see what it was. He saw two men attempting to break into his sons truck. He took his shotgun with and confronted the men. As the two men fled he fired the shotgun. One man was incapacitated and the other was arrested at a hospital later. If this had happened in Seattle, 40 miles south of there, the shooter would have been arrested, had all of his firearms confiscated and been charged with attempted manslaughter, probably convicted and sent to prison. Since this happened in a rural area, much more tolerent of vigilante justice, the man wasn't even arrested. An inquery into the incident by local officials decided the use of force to protect property was justified. the two men that had been shot were sent to prison for numerous counts of theft. So like I said before the laws are different depending on who you are and where you are prosecuted.

Jay · 15th January 2003, 16:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Some1
*should* be legal, just like downloading MP3's *should* be legal, and just like alcohol IS legal now despite the fact that it was once banned. Public opinion is what counts, and if the majority of the public wants something to be legal, eventually it will be.

Well I for one disagree that speeding should be legal, that is rediculous. You are asking me to believe that I should have to deal with unsafe drivers on the road without protection? The one great thing about america is that it is not completely democratic. If it were we would have a much different society then this. I like the fact that the minority can win against the majority, look at civil rights for example. It's the minority who insighted change. You are not going to win this based on arguing that the majority do it. You must have an ethical and moral reason for believing in what you are doing.

I am not siding either way in the p2p war, I think both parties have done wrong things.

Some1 · 15th January 2003, 16:21

Quote:

You are asking me to believe that I should have to deal with unsafe drivers on the road without protection?

If you don't like it, the you are perfectly free to stay off MY road. And besides, fast != unsafe driving (in the sense that "unsafe" means "likely to cause a crash"), it simply means that your odds of survival IF there is a crash go down drastically.

Quote:

You are not going to win this based on arguing that the majority do it. You must have an ethical and moral reason for believing in what you are doing.

I'm not trying to win, I'm just playing around, and as for "morals and ethics," I'm not going there (at least not until some RIAA supporter tries to go there first).

Quote:

The one great thing about america is that it is not completely democratic.

Great AND terrible...while it does help to ensure that minority groups don't get needlessly oppressed, it doesn't always manage to pull this off...look how long slavery remained in place after the formation of the country, and look how long segregation remained the law of the land. Were it not for a small number of important court cases, then various minorities might STILL be without rights, representative democracy or not.

I contend that a direct democracy would be more fun...while it may lead to the oppression of various minority groups, if oppressing 200,000 people makes 200,000,000 people happy, isn't it worth it by some twisted form of logic? And happily, as a white male age 18 to 25, I don't need to worry about being in a minority group, so it's win-win for me.

Jay · 15th January 2003, 16:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Some1
If you don't like it, the you are perfectly free to stay off MY road. And besides, fast != unsafe driving (in the sense that "unsafe" means "likely to cause a crash"), it simply means that your odds of survival IF there is a crash go down drastically.

You should come down to texas some time and drive down a freeway and tell me how safe you feel going the speed limit. I am not willing to get a ticket nor risk my life to allow you to get somewhere 2 seconds faster. And if YOU don't like it you can stay off OUR road.

Some1 · 15th January 2003, 16:37

American freeways need to be like their European counterparts, with no speed limits and people who understand that if you're going to drive the speed limit you DO NOT use the leftmost lane...the left lane is reserved for whomever happens to be going the fastest.

Jay · 15th January 2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Some1
American freeways need to be like their European counterparts, with no speed limits and people who understand that if you're going to drive the speed limit you DO NOT use the leftmost lane...the left lane is reserved for whomever happens to be going the fastest.

While this is the generally accepted rule, it is not in fact the law that you are allowed to speed in the left lane, it is just for faster traffic. Technically the left lane is reserved for those who wish to pass those going below the speed limit. And no you are not supposed to cruise in the left lane at any speed. But people do it all the time.

14th January 2003, 16:46	#1
Citrix Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2	All Your P2P are Belong to RIAA Anybody else read this?? /. read

14th January 2003, 17:07	#3
Vie Forum King Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Thoron fields and Duranium shadows. Posts: Crap mostly Posts: 8,003	Do the RIAA know that by doing this they are breaking international law, there duristiction is purly US based, so if they infect a computer in britan, that user could sue them for criminal damages. Go Gobbles topple the RIAA from the inside. Member most in need of SpellCheck Lifetime Achievement Award I'm a Twitch Streamer these days, it's weird.

14th January 2003, 17:28	#4
Gonzotek Gunslinger Join Date: May 2000 Location: Terminus Posts: 4,693	So they make a worm that can affect any random mp3. What about uncopyrighted audio or audio in which the copyright owner has given permission for it to be freely redistributed? Just because my client has joined the Gnutella network it does not automatically follow that I am pirating their music. This smells very fishy to me. One thing the RIAA has plenty of is lawyers. Any reasonably competent lawyer would be able to spot the serious legal problems with a scheme like this. Not to mention that if the 95% figure is correct then some of the smartest coders I know must be infected and unaware of it, or they would have made this public already. -=Gonzotek=- I was away for a while. But I'm feeling much better now.

14th January 2003, 20:51	#8
Jay Moderator Alumni Join Date: May 2000 Location: Next Door Posts: 8,942	highly unlikely that it will be effective seeing as it couldn't possibly stay hidden from view forever. It smells of hoax. to those who say that what the RIAA is doing is illegal, that may be but what you are doing is illegal as well so who are you to complain? If I stole something from someone, and they stole it back, what rights would I have in a court of law? -Jay \| Radio Toolbox.com

14th January 2003, 21:29	#9
m0e This Space For Rent (Major Dude) Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The great north wasteland of the States Posts: 1,458	Actually, by law they are just as guilty as you. But who would be charged with a crime depends entirely on your locale. KEXP

14th January 2003, 17:50	#5
zootm Forum King Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland Posts: 13,375	hey cool, they're enforcing a prospective law by breaking an existing one! that's a great idea! with all this corporate vigilanteism, the internet'll be back on track in no time! i seriously doubt that to be true. if it is, the RIAA are more stupid than we even joked about...

14th January 2003, 18:04	#6
Oni-Dracula Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 1,590	cough hoax cough fake cough damn I'm startin to get sick... If it were true, the message wouldn't be so elaborate and well thought out.

14th January 2003, 20:41	#7
Caretaker Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 11	I don't know how accurate this is, but I saw a link to it at Slashdot: http://212.100.234.54/content/6/28842.html

14th January 2003, 21:34	#10
henry3k56 Forum King Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: The Internet Posts: 3 Trillion Posts: 4,241	Technically RIAA cannot take your private information. That is your own. Thus meaning that RIAA will become sued for the fact that they are invading someone's private property. As mentioned earlier, the RIAA defends only the Recording Industry. Not the music artists, which are the losers same as the listener. The benefactor of the music media are the industries who produce the cds. Now if they are threatening to take computers away, many of the public will retaliate with such an uproar. The thing is that people are sharing their music which they are NOT getting a cent back in sharing it. There is practically no profit, but a loss. The RIAA will also have a hard time confiscating computers because that is your own property. Whatever is on the computer is intellectual property. Which is fairly easy to debate your use of "fair use". If they do do this, they will end up taking away school servers at many campuses across the United States where in student folders do contain mp3s, and other means of information such as programs. Then if they do this, the RIAA will be accused of obstructing education. Also the RIAA is not being helpful to those that compose their own music, and have it distributed through these P2P networks. The artists will sue the RIAA for behaving recklessly and against the technology that enables unknown artists to get more user base. The RIAA is NOT the police. It is a watchdog group which is only in the interests of their industry which will not figure out that using technology actually will help them succeed more. If they gave away music free, they could find other ways to reap in more money. Sell a brand of items for the artist, do touring which encourages a lot to attend. The RIAA gets away with being the police is that they have strong lobbying power in Congress. But there is opposition in this ridiculous thing that the RIAA is doing. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c107H0DqDg:: Legislation is on its way folks to fix this. henry3k56 \| Summer is here. My Flickr Page & Frontierra \| Posting Since September 2001.

14th January 2003, 21:38	#11
Citrix Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2	The thing is MP3's are not illegal. They make it sound like that If i have any MP3's on my PC they have the right to hack into my shi*. S

14th January 2003, 21:42	#12
liquidmotion Smokes Two Joints Beta Team Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: SFBA Posts: 3,680	is this legal? For a good time: shup \| stashbox \| my homepage

14th January 2003, 21:50	#13
m0e This Space For Rent (Major Dude) Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The great north wasteland of the States Posts: 1,458	The RIAA is also promoting legislation to take away our rights to sue for any damage done by copyright holders to an individual computer. I don't have a reference and don't remember exactly how it is worded but I think it basicaly protects copyright holders from being prosecuted for damaging (hacking) any computer with copyrighted material. In the article I read last fall the legislation was very vaguely written. It basicaly said if a copyright holder found reference to copywrighted material on a computer and then hacked into the computer the computer owner had no legal recourse for the damage done. KEXP

14th January 2003, 22:02	#15
henry3k56 Forum King Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: The Internet Posts: 3 Trillion Posts: 4,241	Nope. Also you can BS your way out of the DMCA Bill. Simply by reading between the lines. Section 1201(d) states that: EXEMPTION FOR NONPROFIT LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES, AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.—(1) A nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution which gains access to a commercially exploited copyrighted work solely in order to make a good faith determination of whether to acquire a copy of that work for the sole purpose of engaging in conduct permitted under this title shall not be in violation of subsection (a)(1)(A). A copy of a work to which access has been gained under this paragraph— ‘‘(A) may not be retained longer than necessary to make such good faith determination; and ‘‘(B) may not be used for any other purpose. ‘‘(2) The exemption made available under paragraph (1) shall only apply with respect to a work when an identical copy of that work is not reasonably available in another form. ‘‘(3) A nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution that willfully for the purpose of commercial advantage or financial gain violates paragraph (1)— ‘‘(A) shall, for the first offense, be subject to the civil remedies under section 1203; and ‘‘(B) shall, for repeated or subsequent offenses, in addition to the civil remedies under section 1203, forfeit the exemption provided under paragraph (1). ‘‘(4) This subsection may not be used as a defense to a claim under subsection (a)(2) or (b), nor may this subsection permit a nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, component, or part thereof, which circumvents a technological measure. ‘‘(5) In order for a library or archives to qualify for the exemption under this subsection, the collections of that library or archives shall be— ‘‘(A) open to the public; or ‘‘(B) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field. So technically the RIAA cannot stop you due to the fact that you are exempted as a NONPROFIT LIBRARY which is "open to the public" Also the RIAA is breaking the DMCA in other forms as well. Stopping P2P for the Title III of the DMCA which states: SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ‘‘Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act’’. SEC. 302. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS; COMPUTER PROGRAMS. Section 117 of title 17, United States Code, is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘Notwithstanding’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘(a) MAKING OF ADDITIONAL COPY OR ADAPTATION BY OWNER OF COPY.—Notwithstanding’’; (2) by striking ‘‘Any exact’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘(b) LEASE, SALE, OR OTHER TRANSFER OF ADDITIONAL COPY OR ADAPTATION.—Any exact’’; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(c) MACHINE MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if— ‘‘(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and ‘‘(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine. ‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section— ‘‘(1) the ‘maintenance’ of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and ‘‘(2) the ‘repair’ of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.’’. Some people lose their paid software, a p2p program can retrieve it for them. So the RIAA is going to get stopped by the same act they helped create. henry3k56 \| Summer is here. My Flickr Page & Frontierra \| Posting Since September 2001.

14th January 2003, 22:43	#16
m0e This Space For Rent (Major Dude) Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The great north wasteland of the States Posts: 1,458	Once again I have no reference for this (I definitly need to find a legal library I can access) but US copyright law states any copyies of copyrighted material have to be destroyed if you no longer possess the original. This is to stop people from buying something, copying it and then giving the original away to do the same thing again. KEXP

14th January 2003, 23:10	#17
BeerBaron Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My Brewery Posts: 388	the RIAA wont go away, but it will damn sure make us stronger. For instance i never knew about these laws and these certain rights they try to take away. They are the cause of my furthore education in the field of "Shit that pisses me off". THANKS RIAA! Sympathy, prayer... Crew of the space Shuttle Columbia, do i need to say more?

15th January 2003, 02:14	#18
henry3k56 Forum King Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: The Internet Posts: 3 Trillion Posts: 4,241	Its also our fault that most of the population isn't that intelligent. What the police say is law. What the president says is law. Damn, just a bunch of gullible dubyas out there. The thing is that people just care about their lives, they really don't know whats out there that they are doing illegal, or can do legally. But when it affects people, then most of the population will hear them out. Also RIAA is taking advantage of these "retards", and making gaps in the system to benefit themselves. henry3k56 \| Summer is here. My Flickr Page & Frontierra \| Posting Since September 2001.

15th January 2003, 02:38	#20
White Raven Little Winged One Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada, now UK Posts: 4,174	Yeah, I get mp3's. BUT, I also occasionally buy CD's when I get enough money for them. They're accusing me of piracy when they charge me 28.00$ for a CD with maybe 10 songs on it?? Give me a fucking break. I can listen to music if I want to. Downloading one particular song from an artist does not stop me from buying the album. (A typical album has maybe 18-25 songs on it.) If I like that song, I may want more, and if I have money, I will pay for it. And don't feed me bullshit like the music artists themselves have never downloaded and listened to an mp3 file before. Give me a break there, too. And yeah, the article does 'smell of hoax.' I read the first few paragraphs and almost took a flying leap flailing my arms to that conclusion. A representative would not use 'fuck' in a formal letter to the public. Even in an informal letter. Come on. And the lawyers the RIAA has would be able to recognize that it violates the laws of privacy, and the international laws, since the corporation is based within the U.S. Fuck them. I'm not listening to that kind of crap. 95%?? What the fuck kind of fake statistic is that? That would be at least 11.5 million or so people. Suuure. Ninety-five percent my ass. This whole letter, my ass. Fuck the RIAA. I want my music, and I will buy CD's when they JACK THE PRICES DOWN A FEW BUCKS. Jeezus. just as feathery as ever \| portfolio \| a poignant quote

15th January 2003, 02:50	#21
henry3k56 Forum King Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: The Internet Posts: 3 Trillion Posts: 4,241	Enrich yourselves! Read this book!!! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846 henry3k56 \| Summer is here. My Flickr Page & Frontierra \| Posting Since September 2001.

15th January 2003, 11:46	#23
dlinkwit27 has no CT (Forum King) Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 13,236	Well, using me extensive legal, ethical, and computer knowledge () I ahve come to this conlusion that his is BULL SHIT! Keep your paws off my fucking computer RIAA! You'r looking to get pwn3d , again! <edit> has teh staff at winamp found a way to secure winamp to this? (assumiig there is one) </edit> ::Deviant Me::Last.fm::WhatPulse Stats::Folding @ Home

15th January 2003, 11:55	#24
binary hero Banned Join Date: Jun 2001 Posts: 7,004	it's a hoax, started by the riaa to activley discourage people from using p2p networks.

15th January 2003, 13:10	#26
raydream Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 867	all your RIAA can go fuck yourselves for all i care, i'll buy a cd when i feel like it, i'll download an album when i feel like it too, RIAA or some fanboy posted that because their site got pwned, lamers.

15th January 2003, 14:44	#28
m0e This Space For Rent (Major Dude) Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The great north wasteland of the States Posts: 1,458	It is possible to infect mp3's and skins with virus, trojan, or worm which could then be used to exploit any vulnerabilities in your system. It is also possible to hijack a download link and redirect someone to an altered copy of the file or program they were trying to download. KEXP Last edited by m0e; 15th January 2003 at 16:10.

15th January 2003, 14:45	#29
zootm Forum King Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland Posts: 13,375	i'm sure there's something you can do regarding to ID3 tags etc. that can screw it up... look at the insecurity patch they just released, that was for hacks of mp3 files...

15th January 2003, 16:37	#36
Some1 Forum King Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: 14th Street Posts: (-1)^ï¿½ Posts: 2,236	American freeways need to be like their European counterparts, with no speed limits and people who understand that if you're going to drive the speed limit you DO NOT use the leftmost lane...the left lane is reserved for whomever happens to be going the fastest. some1 grew up, published a book about being young and stupid, got married, and moved to Australia.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode