Honeypots would be avoidable if they became known. The RIAA is setting up fake sites for people to grab torrents from, or is sending around poisoned files that they then track. Its pretty basic stuff, and is also a way that malware authors distribute their identity theft software.

So really, one might say, the RIAA uses the same techniques as the identity thieves, sets up fake sites to entrap stupid people into visiting, then nails them for lots of money. Thus, the RIAA is doing business the same as the Russian Business Network.

Bet neither of them ever does any criminal time.

So if it smells like a crook, looks like a crook, acts like a crook, and tastes like a crook but has as corporate charter - it's NOT a crook?

Weaver95: So if it smells like a crook, looks like a crook, acts like a crook, and tastes like a crook but has as corporate charter - it's NOT a crook?

Pretty much, yeah.

King Something: Weaver95: So if it smells like a crook, looks like a crook, acts like a crook, and tastes like a crook but has as corporate charter - it's NOT a crook?

Pretty much, yeah.

Corporate Charter Revocation!

A corporation is a "legal fiction" who relies on government for existence.

d23: A corporation is a "legal fiction" who relies on government for existence.

So are things such as the illegality of murder. What's your point?

It's two or three links in, but here's the jist of it:

In a stinging rebuke to the RIAA's opposition papers, and in further support of the motion by the University of Oregon to quash the RIAA's subpoena seeking the identities of the students, in Arista v. Does 1-17, the Oregon Attorney General has filed reply papers which call for immediate discovery into the RIAA's tactics, and which point out to the Court that

--Carlos Linares, upon whose declaration the subpoena was issued, had no first hand information whatsoever;
--the RIAA's "data mining" investigation does not reveal how the files were obtained or whether they were ever shared with anyone;
--the RIAA papers did not show that any infringing activity actually took place;
--MediaSentry appears to have been conducting an investigation without an investigator's license, in violation of ORS 703.405 and ORS 703.993(s), which is a crime;
--in Atlantic v. Andersen, based on the same theories and investigative techniques as those used here, they had been found by the Court to have stalled and resisted discovery, before abandoning their case rather than oppose Ms. Andersen's summary judgment motion;
--the RIAA appears to have been abusing the judicial process by obtaining information through subpoenas which it then hands over to "collection firms" using them "to leverage payment of arbitrary sums of money, based on threats and evidence from the data mining";
--the RIAA concealed a material fact from its original ex parte motion papers, which sought to create the aura of an emergency and the need for immediate ex parte action -- the fact that the University had informed the RIAA in July that the requested information had been gathered and would be preserved;
--the RIAA lawyers falsely implied that the Attorney General's office had failed to "meet and confer" with them prior to making the motion to quash, even though the AG's office had in fact conferred with the RIAA's lawyers;
--the deposition testimony of the RIAA's expert witness Doug Jacobson in UMG v. Lindor tends to indicate that the RIAA has already accessed private information on the computers of University of Oregon students; and
--the RIAA has failed to provide an affidavit of the individual who actually conducted the 'investigation'.

The AG also pointed out that

Because Plaintiffs routinely obtain ex parte discovery in their John Doe infringement suits, as they themselves have pointed out, their factual assertions supporting their good cause argument are never challenged by an adverse party and their investigative methods remain free of scrutiny. They often settle their cases quickly before defendants obtain legal representation and begin to conduct discovery, as Mr. Rothman attested they did in the 2003 Portland State University case, and have dropped cases, such as their case against Tanya Andersen, in which their methods and practices have been challenged through counterclaims. Opposition, Exhibit 4, p. 2,76 &Affidavit of von Ter Stegge, Exhibit C, p. 12 ("In poker terms, defendant didn't call; plaintiffs folded").

While the University is not a party to the case, Plaintiffs' subpoena affects the university's rights and obligations. Plaintiffs may be spying on students who use the University's computer system and may be accessing much more than IP addresses. The University seeks the Court's permission to serve the attached interrogatories on Plaintiffs and conduct telephonic depositions of the individuals who investigated the seventeen John Does named in this lawsuit to determine 1) what their investigative practices are and 2) whether they have any additional information with which to identify the John Does. Plaintiffs have refused to provide the University with answers to these basic questions. If Plaintiffs have nothing to hide, they should be able to agree to these reasonable requests. Since Plaintiffs have declined to share any information about what they know and how they know it, the University seeks the assistance of the Court to obtain it.

It would have been nice to read a coherent report on this, rather than blurbs linking to blurbs linking to blurbs with a dash of PDFs thrown in.

real shaman: It would have been nice to read a coherent report on this, rather than blurbs linking to blurbs linking to blurbs with a dash of PDFs thrown in.

Welcome to the land of Slashdot. I'm not even sure why anybody bothers to link to their site ;)

ElLoco: It's two or three links in, but here's the jist of it

Wow. In a just world, some RIAA folk would be seeing some jail time.

My cynicism reminds me that I'm better off getting worked up about what I'm going to have for lunch, however.

IANAL, so I am guaranteed not to make any money off this.

Fark the RIAA.

Hey, right on, PDF files.

eh... does anyone know what the law is on granting those subpoenas? do you have to prove that the person involved is actually doing something wrong or can you just 'request' it?

its a civil suit so i'm not sure what they can actually request... and i only say this because if it weren't for the subpoenas they are seeking, i actually AGREE with the RIAA (as much as i would like to say otherwise)... if i sue someone in a civil court i don't have to prove to anyone that the person is guilty of such until i'm actually in court... but like i said, the fact that they are asking for these subpoenas changes everything...

personally, i want to see what will come of all this... its nice to see anyone questioning their tactics in a position that can do something about it.

Our State AG may be a snake, but for once he's actually doing his thing for *good*, rather than evil.

But as for the headline, the first thing that popped into my head was "Motion for Discovery". Problem solved.

It'll be fun watching this play out.

SwiftFox: IANAL...

You Anal? You must be popular at parties.

I wish the RIAA would get slapped with a big Sherman Act section 2 lawsuit that would succeed for treble damages, and bankrupt them.

They're a farking cartel that's almost as bad as De Beers is with Diamonds; the difference is that they somehow get away with it while De Beers just acts through subsidiaries to avoid the antitrust laws.

Whatever happened to the woman who was fined tens of thousands for a few songs?

She was challenging the verdict or summat. What happened? Anyone?

The RIAA is a just and fair organization seeking to protect its assets in a professional and honest manner.

Generation_D: So really, one might say, the RIAA uses the same techniques as the identity thieves, sets up fake sites to entrap stupid people into visiting, then nails them for lots of money. Thus, the RIAA is doing business the same as the Russian Business Network.

Bank robbers use cars. Michael schumacher uses a car. Therefore, Michael Schumacher is a bank robber. Have I mastered your particular variant of bizarro world logic now?

While the RIAA's tactics are legally debatable (not to me mind you, I think it's pretty clear that they have acted unlawfully), there seems to be no question in anyone's mind (except perhaps the RIAA's) that their heavy-handed use of the legal system, private investigators, spyware/malware "data mining" operations and collection agency harassment against "little guy" citizens is clearly unethical. Why are people not going crazy about this stuff?

Chummer45: I wish the RIAA would get slapped with a big Sherman Act section 2 lawsuit that would succeed for treble damages, and bankrupt them.

They're a farking cartel that's almost as bad as De Beers is with Diamonds; the difference is that they somehow get away with it while De Beers just acts through subsidiaries to avoid the antitrust laws.

I agree 100% that I want to see RIAA taken down. However, that subsidiary jump is an ENORMOUS loophole in US law. Go take a look at the SCO vs Novel case that is still going on, and watch just how many Microsoft subsidiaries show up under magic names (cattleback, acacia)....as well as the keyboard company that is trying to sue OLPC (yes, microsoft owned subsidiary). Basically the problem is the only place people see subsidiary information is in 8k and 10ks, and people can't just search those and look up every single person that is related to them. But if you pick apart any part of Microsoft's 10K/8K and traced em, you'd vomit.

corley989: The RIAA is a just and fair organization seeking to protect its assets in a professional and honest manner.

/FIFY

I for one welcome our shady music company overlords. Transparency is for pussies.

SpinStopper: real shaman: It would have been nice to read a coherent report on this, rather than blurbs linking to blurbs linking to blurbs with a dash of PDFs thrown in.

Welcome to the land of Slashdot. I'm not even sure why anybody bothers to link to their site ;)

THIS

At least they're saving water by not water-boarding . . . or so they say.


//RIAA is the law and above the law -- simulataneously
//A true miracle

So if they dont have to show how or where they got the information, they can pretty much say they have that info on anyone and prosecute them. They just point a gnarled corpulent finger at someone and the guards take them to the torture chambers to remove their bank book via the anus.

Is that it? Im not a lawyer and I am rather slow at these things..

ksac3: corley989: The RIAA is a just and fair organization seeking to protect its assets in a professional and honest manner.

/FIFY

Don't look now but the sarcasm blimp just flew overhead.

The RIAA doesn't want the courts to even ask how its investigating the people it's accusing

Close, subby, but no cigar.

They should both be IT'S, as they both mean "it is".

TheGreatKordino: Why are people not going crazy about this stuff?

Same reason no one's flinging Molotov cocktails over the President's grossly unconstitutional wiretap program, I suspect.

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: TheGreatKordino: Why are people not going crazy about this stuff?

Same reason no one's flinging Molotov cocktails over the President's grossly unconstitutional wiretap program, I suspect.

They are drinking all the alcohol?

Nerdlinger: So are things such as the illegality of murder. What's your point?

shh. never try to inject logic into a threat involving piracy rationalizers. they don't like that. heaven help you if you call copyright infringement "stealing", as that will lead to around 400 posts of irrelevant sideshow meant to further distract from the actual issues at hand.

haven't you figured it out already? what our brave p2p anti-corporate heroes are doing is giving the power to the people and to the aritsts by shifting the "artificial" burdens of cost from the upper-middle class college-educated crowd to the working masses.

downloaded that copy of shrek 3 yet?

don't worry - it's the bus driver who takes his kids to an actual cinema who is footing the bill for you.

downloaded skye sweetnam's latest single because it's commercialized crap that nobody in their right mind would pay for?

that 13 year old girl washed dishes so that both you and she could listen to it.

but it's ok, because the record companies make big profits.

right, and that's why it's ok to steal from Best Buy, too.

Oh, but best buy sells THINGS! This is "intellectual property" we're talking about.

The value of plastic and metal in your PC is roughly equivalent to the proportional cost of making a physical CD to its price - everything else is human work. Otherwise, you'd pay the same if not more for today for a 286 as the latest pentium. And, in the larger context, the value of the physical component approaches ZERO.

Oh, but I don't deprive anybody of anything if I pirate.

Right, except that you both turn people who did pay for things into suckers (only a sucker would pay for something that everybody else is getting for free) and in a wider sense depleting the profit motive which ultimately leads to more creative works and more choice.

Ah, but I don't like things created for profit. I like "pure art".

Then why are you downloading all those commercial movies, music, and software in the first place?

Have i covered it all?

oh no, i forgot the all important and ever so logical fallback argument: F*** the RIAA!

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: TheGreatKordino: Why are people not going crazy about this stuff?

Same reason no one's flinging Molotov cocktails over the President's grossly unconstitutional wiretap program, I suspect.

A couple words to look up as to why.

Ignorance.
Apathy.

Then add in that most people assume the government and large corporations are on their side, that and they are too busy working to make a living to do anything about any wrongs incurred by either entity.

It's good when two threads collide.

I download all my pr0n to help in the fight against Climate Change.

/yes that'll do.

Eh, they're just raising a legalistic defense to what sounds like sloppy work by the Oregon AG's office.

This is why I just use one of my many neighbor's unsecured wireless networks for downloading music and porn from the Internets.

See? There are advantages to living in an apartment complex. 28 wireless networks, 19 if them unsecured. I wonder how many "linksys" networks there really are...

this is all a bunch of crazy hippie crap. I hate the RIAA, what kind business plan is it to sue your own customers any way. But I do see that we are just passing on the burden of the cost to every one else. Yet there must be some way to find a happy medium the path of least resistance if you will. Its how the whole universe works we just need to look.

Bomb Head Mohammed: shh. never try to inject logic into a threat involving piracy rationalizers. they don't like that. heaven help you if you call copyright infringement "stealing", as that will lead to around 400 posts of irrelevant sideshow meant to further distract from the actual issues at hand.

A thread of piracy rationalizers? Did you even bother reading the thread before writing that too-long rant? Most people in here are just annoyed over the fact that the RIAA uses legally-unsound methods to catch their pirates, and yet they still rarely get slapped on the wrist by the legal system.

Bomb Head Mohammed: Generation_D: So really, one might say, the RIAA uses the same techniques as the identity thieves, sets up fake sites to entrap stupid people into visiting, then nails them for lots of money. Thus, the RIAA is doing business the same as the Russian Business Network.

Bank robbers use cars. Michael schumacher uses a car. Therefore, Michael Schumacher is a bank robber. Have I mastered your particular variant of bizarro world logic now?

that'd be more like saying bank robbers steal money. i punched an old lady and stole her money. therefore i also am a thief.

Bomb Head Mohammed: shh. never try to inject logic into a threat involving piracy rationalizers.

i don't download music illegally. i'm not a piracy rationalizer. i'm also not a rationalizer of the things the RIAA does, like you appear to be.

they are doing a lot of things that are of questionable legality, and some things where it isn't even a question. the fact that no one has had the power, money, or tactics to properly challenge and call them on it yet does not imply that what they are doing is legally acceptable.

Nerdlinger: d23: A corporation is a "legal fiction" who relies on government for existence.

So are things such as the illegality of murder. What's your point?

No actually. The reason corporations are considered legal fictions is because the assertion that a 'corporation is a person' is patently false. But useful for legal purposes.

Murder is illegal, is not a fiction since it is in fact true. When you pass a law making murder illegal, murder becomes illegal. Passing a law making a corporation a person, does not in fact turn it into a person, but it is useful to consider it that way. Thus its a legal fiction...

I bought more CDs during the Kazaa days than I did before/ now.

I was exposed to more music and bought the CDs I actually liked. I don't buy much music anymore because I don't get exposed to much outside of what bands I already listen to and the few songs I catch when I flip on the radio for a few minutes...and those are only the songs that clearchannel wants me to hear.

RIAA just doesn't get it.

Bomb Head Mohammed: Generation_D: So really, one might say, the RIAA uses the same techniques as the identity thieves, sets up fake sites to entrap stupid people into visiting, then nails them for lots of money. Thus, the RIAA is doing business the same as the Russian Business Network.

Bank robbers use cars. Michael schumacher uses a car. Therefore, Michael Schumacher is a bank robber. Have I mastered your particular variant of bizarro world logic now?

This is the stupidest thing I have read this week. Congratulations.

Bomb Head Mohammed: downloaded that copy of shrek 3 yet?

don't worry - it's the bus driver who takes his kids to an actual cinema who is footing the bill for you.

Technically, no. The impact on the rest of society is minimal, because the rest of society has a low opportunity cost. Whether that bus driver has a route which goes by the movie theater or one which goes by the grocery store doesn't really effect him.

Same goes for the set designers/lighting crews/etc. they all have jobs which they can easily transfer into other careers which pay roughly the same amount of money. The actual cost to them is low.

The people it does effect are those who have high opportunity costs, such as actors who have large contracts. If say, Harrison Ford wasn't an actor his next best job likely would not pay as well.

The next group of people it hurts are the consumer, because while you get that item free today, if the studios aren't pulling in enough money they won't make the movies, and most likely the movies you will see are the type which are best enjoyed in a movie theater, such as the summer blockbusters which really benefit from the theatrical presentation. So if in the future you ever want that well written comedy or insightful drama, you'll be less likely to be able to get it.

/Your argument is stronger when you don't simply make things up

Ooooh ya, something about how only Law Enforcement agencies can search and investigate citizens, and only with a warrent. Right?

wyltoknow: A thread of piracy rationalizers? Did you even bother reading the thread before writing that too-long rant? Most people in here are just annoyed over the fact that the RIAA uses legally-unsound methods to catch their pirates, and yet they still rarely get slapped on the wrist by the legal system.

Oh stop with the church lady routine already.

It's clear in the RIAA-vs-Piracy problem that the current balance of power is currently massively shifted in favor of the pirates. The RIAA and related entities are flailing about trying to find some reasonable solution and in doing so they have at times both looked like arseholes and overstepped legal limits.

But for your statement to be true, then we'd expect an equal amount of outrage over the far more common problem, which is that it's become socially acceptable to commit what can basically be qualified, I believe, as criminal level copyright infringement (over $1000's worth in a year, but IANAL so I may have bungled that). Where' the outrage over this? Where's the outrage that says "look, while we like the fact that the university of oregon or whoever is not letting the RIAA access specific student records on basic legal principle, the fact is that you have a bunch of generally well-to-do college kids who are basically having their entertainment subsidized by poorer families without access to such technologies."

Oh but no. That would be uncool.

Really, unless I see the same people biatching about the RIAA's occasional overreaches biatching about the far larger problem of casual piracy, I'll just file your comment under "more bla bla bla smokescreen verbiage."

ThematicDevice: Technically, no. The impact on the rest of society is minimal, because the rest of society has a low opportunity cost. Whether that bus driver has a route which goes by the movie theater or one which goes by the grocery store doesn't really effect him.

It does occur to you that people of lower classes can have their own children and take them to the movie theaters, right? But that's thinking 'outside the box', isn't it?

the real problem i have with the RIAA, beyond their obviously devious tactics, is that i believe in a free market.

the market is pushing, more and more insistently, to push the entertainment industry back down to the equilibrium point. organizations like the RIAA were formed for no other purpose than to strong arm the market above that equilibrium point. illegal downloading is the reaction. neither side is right, but it is very clear which side started (and will eventually lose) the conflict.

Thinks the RIAA is a bunch of pussies.