All Info about RIAA

A month after the record industry proposed a bill that would give it the power to use hacker tactics to take down file-sharing networks, the hackers have given the suits a taste of their own medicine. A denial of service (DoS) attack knocked the Recording Industry Association of America's (Riaa) website off the net over the weekend.

Coming soon to a computer near you -- Hollywood Hackers.

Watch as they rifle through your files, dismantle your network, and delete all those songs and movies you can't prove have a legal right to exist on your hard drive. Hope the special effects don't include the accidental destruction of your data when your computer becomes a stunt double in Hollywood's latest blockbuster attempt to protect its copyrighted material.

California Congressman Howard Berman introduced his "Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention" Act in the House of Representatives Thursday. If the bill (PDF) passes, copyright owners could -- at least conceptually -- employ a variety of technological tools to prevent the illegal distribution of their copyrighted works over a P2P network such as Kazaa or LimeWire. "Basically, Berman is going to legalize all of the antisocial Internet activities that we have been trying to stamp out for the last decade," said Paul McNabb, chief technical officer of security firm Argus Systems Group. The tools Berman specifically suggested that companies might use include "interdiction" -- flooding a P2P file server with fake requests in order to slow or stop the system; "spoofing" -- providing slews of corrupt, damaged or incomplete files to P2P servers; and "redirection" -- faking the location of files to force traders to perform many futile system-resource-wasting searches.

But media companies wouldn't be limited to just those options.

Smith guessed that, at minimum, media companies could overwhelm P2P servers with "ghost files," tying up the servers' resources as people try to download files that don't really exist.
"Another possibility would be to overload someone's computer by repeatedly requesting the same illegal file to be downloaded," Smith added. Denial-of-service attacks, flooding servers with many requests for nonexistent files in order to crash or dramatically slow network performance, is specifically permitted under the bill. But P2P networks are created on the fly from whatever computers are logged on at any given time, so experts fear that innocent bystanders could also be smacked in a service attack. "Berman is opening the door to massive denial-of-service attacks against perceived pirates, without the attacker having to get prior authorization to launch the attack," Argus' McNabb said. "This could have devastating effects on computers on the same network or in the line of fire. "For instance, if everyone on your block has a cable modem, and someone is thought to be a pirate, a denial-of-service attack against that perceived pirate could take the entire neighborhood cable network down."
Security experts also wondered how Hollywood would come up with a battalion of skilled hack attackers. Would the pirate-battling forces be unassuming programmers, now ordered to come up with malicious programs to foil file traders? Or would Hollywood soon be hiring real hackers?

Under the "Hollywood Hacking law," computer criminals could probably make the case that any malicious programs they wrote and released were actually intended to scour the Net to enforce copyrights. What a wonderful cover-your-arse law this will be for script kiddies and other cyber-cretins,

wondered whether network administrators and computer owners would eventually be penalized for running secure systems......

Good info but next time you need to add more info just edit it into your last post don't double post

well i already got hacked .....................no i tell a lie

I am a big internet trader, have well over 120gb of movies, music, etc. All of which I own and would not like for anyone to be lawfuly able to come into my PC and do damage. This bill is like letting people into your home without a search warnet to do what ever they feel. I think it is complete bs and no one will stand for such actions. Did you know that the RIAA wants to sue stores that deal used CD, that they call buying and selling CDs you own piratcy. Basicaly I think they just want more money. It makes me sick. 20 bucks for a shitty CD, where the artist gets maybe 1-2 bucks of it. I've download music and then sent artists money directly. Fuck the RIAA!

Well All this makes me wonder about our constitutional rights, nobody can come on a search and destroy mission without evidence or a warrent to do, it is called invassion of privacy, now if some boso was to say to a fed that yeah he has illeagel stuff on his PC then the police could take his computer and what not, but in my oppinion these acts will not stand in this country, and if this does happen, the US citizens will strike back with law suits over this matter

I've already burnt my 14MP3 Gb into CD's...So i did with my Divx but...Can anyone please Bomb the RIAA????

PS: Actually (at least in Spain) the artist gets a 2% (0,4bucks???) of the CD sold

yes this is gayy, anyways if they do get away with doing this, hackers willl also be on our side, they fuck with us, we fuck with them... eventually they wont be able to get into our computer

Their laws can't exist worldwide, so if people started the havoc in a country such as Sweden, Hollywood could be sued for billions.

I do not think downloading music is hurting the RIAA.
I think consumers, once the industry starts making product they want to buy, will still buy even though they can download it.
Why?
Water is free, but a lot of us drink bottled water because it tastes better.
You can get coffee at the office, but you're likely to go to Starbucks or the local espresso place, because it tastes better. When record companies start making CD's that offer consumers a reason to buy them, we will buy them.
The songs may be free on line, but the CD's will taste better.

So why are the record labels taking such a hard line? My guess is that it's all about protecting their internet-challenged business. Their profit comes from blockbuster artists. If the industry moved to a more varied ecology, independent labels and artists would thrive.
There are, as I see it, two operative issues that explain the entertainment industry's heavy-handed response to the concept of downloading music from the Internet:
1. Control. The music industry is no different from any other huge corporation, be it Mobil Oil or the Catholic church. When faced with a new technology or a new product that will revolutionize their business, their response is predictable:
a. Destroy it. And if they cannot,
b. Control it. And if they cannot,
c. Control the consumer who wishes to use it, and the legislators and laws that are supposed to protect that consumer.
This is not unique to the entertainment industry. This mind-set is part of the fabric of our daily lives. Movie companies sued over VCR manufacturing and blank video sales, with Jack Valenti (Motion Picture Association of America chairman) testifying to Congress that the VCR is to the movie industry what the Boston Strangler is to a woman alone at night - and yet, video sales now account for more industry profit than movies themselves.
2. Ennui. The industry is still operating under laws and concepts developed during the 1930's and 1940's, before cassettes, before boom boxes, before MP3 and file-sharing and the Internet. It's far easier to insist that all new technologies be judged under old laws, than to craft new laws that embrace all existing technologies. It's much easier to find a scapegoat, than to examine your own practices.

I read a report recently showing that in the heyday of Napster, if record companies had agreed to charge just a nickel a download, they would have been splitting $500,000 a day.

Our representatives are not in Congress or the Senate because they want to make a better living. They're there because they want power, and influence. Without the office, they have neither.
If they believe their actions will cause large amounts of the population to vote against them, no amount of money will be sufficient to buy their cooperation. If you let your representatives know, en masse, that you will not vote for them if they support ridiculous measures such as the bill allowing media companies to spread viruses on the computer of anyone "suspected" of file-sharing, and if enough of you tell them so, they will NOT work hand in glove with the RIAA.
We cannot possibly match the monies the record companies can devote to litigation, but we CAN threaten to vote those representatives who are in bed with them out of office. And ultimately, it's the votes they care about.

FUCK RIAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Friday the major record labels initiated a lawsuit against the leading Internet service providers (ISP) for contributory copyright infringement. The ISPs, the suit contends, are allowing free access to websites throughout the world that allow the free trading of copyrighted material. This, they claim, make the ISPs accomplices in music piracy."

Reports MP3NewsWire.Net. They continue,

"The labels are looking to legally force these providers to block all international traffic that they don't approve of. The goal is to get the courts to agree that import/export laws can apply to digital goods transferred over the Internet just like goods brought in by sea and air. If the labels can set a precedent here, any digital transfer of information can be regulated and blocked when native industries feel threatened."

The ISPs named in the suit are Sprint, AT&T Broadband, Cable & Wireless, Advanced Network Services, and WorldCom subsidiery UUNet Technologies. All of these corporations have far far bigger concerns right now than file trading, solvency being the most prominent of them.

Old news but, on the way to work this morning National Public Radio announced that a company in Arizona called "Integrated Information Systems Inc.", had a dedicated MP3 server permitting employees to access and distribute thousands of music files over the company network. Because of this, the RIAA filed suit against them and they agreed to pay the Recording Industry Association of America $1 million rather than go to court.

Fucking RIAA...

When I worked at OWOL (a dot.com) we had THREE MP3 servers with around 60 gigs of MP3's online. 90% of it was CD's that we ourselves brought in and burned onto the Network so we could listen to music all day while programming. Even where I work I have around 6-7 gigs worth of my favorite music burned to MP3 so I can listen to it without shuffling CD's around. I also have it shared so others can listen in. What chances am I taking with the RIAA police that my company may be sued? If I have a CD shared on my network, can the RIAA police sue my company?

If any of you have a company MP3 server, I would suggest being EXTREAMLY careful right now. The GREEDY FUCKING RIAA is on the lookout for anyone and everyone.

*merged

ok....

canadians watch out!! http://www.p2pnet.net/news/mediaforce1.html

Originally posted by Sirpullido (0,4bucks???)

in the US they use . (points or periods) instead of comma for decimals


another example of US's gayness :O) still safest country tho