RIAA Versus the Internet: PART III - A New Hope

http://www.dailytech.com/RIAA+S
ets+Gunsights+on+Binary+Newsgroups/article9330.htm


Protected by FormShield The first rule about newsgroup
lawsuits is,
you do not talk about newsgroup lawsuits

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is
taking aim at
Usenet newsgroup providers, though has only targeted one
particular
company so far.  The RIAA filed a lawsuit against Usenet.com
on
Oct. 12, claiming the newsgroups harbors "millions of
copyrighted sound
recordings."

Usenet is a relatively centralized method for users to
distribute files
and messages created before the Internet or peer-to-peer
technology
was created.  Unlike traditional peer-to-peer networks,
Usenet hosts
its files on hub servers at Internet backbones instead of
client nodes.
This advantage gives newsgroups extremely fast download
speeds, but steep
learning curve and limitted access keeps the userbase
relatively low.

The protocol has stayed relatively "under the
radar" in the wake of
Napster, Kazaa and other P2P networks. Even though the
popularity of
Usenet has been on the decline since the late 1990s, the
service never
fully died out, and remains popular for images, videos and
binary file
sharing.

According to the legal brief, the defendant, Usenet,
"provides essentially
the same functionality that P2P services such as Napster,
Aimster,
Grokster and Kazaa did (prior to being enjoined by the
federal courts)
-- knowingly providing the site and facilities for users to
upload and
download copyrighted works -- except that defendant goes
further than
even the P2P services to facilitate and encourage copyright
infringement
by its users."

A copy of the lawsuit can be found by on Wired.com (PDF).

The RIAA seeks unspecified monetary damages and
"injunctive relief for
copyright infringement."

Marketing on the Usenet.com web site likely does not help
its case
against the RIAA:  "Shh... Quiet! We believe it’s no
one’s business
but your own what you do on the Internet or in Usenet.	We
don't track
user activity."

The RIAA's up-and-down battle against file sharing
continues, both with
battle victories and losses.  The RIAA won a civil court
battle over
a Minnesota woman, who must now pay $222,000 worth of
damages to the
record industry.

In addition, more than 400 "prelitigation" letters
have been sent by the
RIAA to 19 U.S. universities across the country. An example
of a letter
sent to an alleged filesharer is available on EDUCAUSE
(PDF).
-- 
http://www.mrbrklyn.com -
Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com -
Leadership Development in Free Software

So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that
Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in
the mind of the world  - RI Safir 1998

http://fairuse.nylxs.com
 DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002

"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"

"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming
sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the
ability to participate in our own society."

"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the
job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and
technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st
dynasty in Ancient Egypt.  I guess you missed that
one."

© Copyright for the Digital Millennium
_______________________________________________
linux-elitists mailing list
linux-elitistszgp.org
http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linu
x-elitists

On 21-Oct-2007, Ruben Safir wrote:
> Usenet is a relatively centralized method for users to
distribute 
> files and messages [...]
> The protocol has stayed relatively "under the
radar" [...]

Okay, so Usenet is a "relatively decentralised
method" and a 
"protocol". Sounds close enough.

> According to the legal brief, the defendant, Usenet,
[...]

Er? How is an information-distribution method or a network
protocol 
able to be "the defendant" in a lawsuit? In fact,
it's "Usenet.com" 
that is the defendant, not Usenet itself.

> This advantage gives newsgroups extremely fast download
speeds, but 
> steep learning curve and limitted access keeps the
userbase 
> relatively low.

Rubbish. The learning curve is no steeper than with e-mail,
and that 
hasn't stopped e-mail from being the most heavily-used
network service 
for decades. Whatever it is that keeps the Usenet userbase
low, it 
isn't "steep learning curve".

> The protocol has stayed relatively "under the
radar" in the wake of 
> Napster, Kazaa and other P2P networks. Even though the
popularity of 
> Usenet has been on the decline since the late 1990s,
the service 
> never fully died out, and remains popular for images,
videos and 
> binary file sharing.

With technical help forums conspicuously omitted by the
author, 
leaving the impression that Usenet is only for binary file
sharing. 
Yet a large number of Usenet providers *don't* provide the
binary 
groups at all, feeding only the text discussion groups.

Even more than for the file-sharing networks, it's clear
that Usenet 
has "substantial non-infringing uses".

> The RIAA filed a lawsuit against Usenet.com on Oct. 12,
claiming the 
> newsgroups harbors "millions of copyrighted sound
recordings." [...]

The Library of Congress also harbours a great deal of
copyrighted 
sound recordings. Just because a work is copyrighted doesn't
mean it's 
illegal to download it.

> According to the legal brief, the defendant, Usenet,
"provides 
> essentially the same functionality that P2P services
such as 
> Napster, Aimster, Grokster and Kazaa did (prior to
being enjoined by 
> the federal courts)

Plus a huge range of text-only discussion groups, which
makes the 
service fundamentally *unlike* those P2P file-sharing
services.

> knowingly providing the site and facilities for users
to upload and 
> download copyrighted works

Every website in the world provides copyrighted works to be

downloaded, and the hosting providers allow those to be
uploaded by at 
least some people. Copyrighted does not yet equate to
inaccessible — 
much though the RIAA would prefer otherwise.

> Marketing on the Usenet.com web site likely does not
help its case 
> against the RIAA:  "Shh... Quiet! We believe
it’s no one’s business 
> but your own what you do on the Internet or in Usenet.
We don't 
> track user activity."

If proclaiming a lack of invasive tracking is enough to mar
one's 
defense against extortion, that implies the court is already
firmly 
against the civil liberties espoused by that statement.

> The RIAA's up-and-down battle against file sharing
continues, both 
> with battle victories and losses.  The RIAA won a civil
court battle 
> over a Minnesota woman, who must now pay $222,000 worth
of damages 
> to the record industry.

Which they'll never see more than a fraction of, I'm
betting. 
Individuals struggle their whole lives to pay that much off
on 
something they *own*, much less a copyright extortion
settlement.

I'm of the opinion this attack on the service providers is
an attempt 
to deflect anger against exactly this kind of "sue your
customers" 
activity that has been such a PR disaster.

-- 
       "For mad scientists who keep brains in jars,
here's a tip: why |
  `    not add a slice of lemon to each jar, for
freshness?"  -- Jack |
_o__)                                                       
   Handey |
Ben Finney <benbenfinney.id.au>

_______________________________________________
linux-elitists mailing list
linux-elitistszgp.org
http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linu
x-elitists

> 
> I'm of the opinion this attack on the service providers
is an attempt 
> to deflect anger against exactly this kind of "sue
your customers" 
> activity that has been such a PR disaster.
> 


I of course agree with most of what you write except that
I'm not convinced 
they've sued enough people yet.  I'm hoping they sue
everyone until the public
gets outraged enough to actually do something about this and
puts the heat on
congress.  i encourage the RIAA to sue EVERYONE.  I want
them to have a real
shooting war with the entire population of the US.

In fact, I was thinking we should have a "SUE ME"
campaign for the RIAA.
And this is one of the reasons that the Freedom-It
conference is focusing
on Free Software Media this year.

And that is also why we need FreeSoftware research and
Development papers .

Ruben

> -- 
>        "For mad scientists who keep brains in
jars, here's a tip: why |
>   `    not add a slice of lemon to each jar, for
freshness?"  -- Jack |
> _o__)                                                  
        Handey |
> Ben Finney <benbenfinney.id.au>



> _______________________________________________
> linux-elitists mailing list
> linux-elitistszgp.org
> http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linu
x-elitists


-- 
http://www.mrbrklyn.com -
Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com -
Leadership Development in Free Software

So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that
Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in
the mind of the world  - RI Safir 1998

http://fairuse.nylxs.com
 DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002

"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"

"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming
sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the
ability to participate in our own society."

"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the
job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and
technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st
dynasty in Ancient Egypt.  I guess you missed that
one."

© Copyright for the Digital Millennium
_______________________________________________
linux-elitists mailing list
linux-elitistszgp.org
http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linu
x-elitists

begin Ben Finney quotation of Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at
11:07:38AM +1000:

> Okay, so Usenet is a "relatively decentralised
method" and a 
> "protocol". Sounds close enough.
> 
> > According to the legal brief, the defendant,
Usenet, [...]
> 
> Er? How is an information-distribution method or a
network protocol 
> able to be "the defendant" in a lawsuit? In
fact, it's "Usenet.com" 
> that is the defendant, not Usenet itself.

The Usenet model is what Congress had in mind
when it put "safe harbor" into the DMCA.   Using
a
Napster-style lawsuit against Usenet would seem hard.
But the RIAA is pointing out that this particular
Usenet provider is actually marketing the service as
a way to make infringing copies, which makes it an
"inducer" under _Grokster_.  (This Usenet access
sold
for your enjoyment of fine tobacco products only.)

> Even more than for the file-sharing networks, it's
clear that Usenet 
> has "substantial non-infringing uses".

Not part of the _Grokster_ test.  If your marketing
department runs its mouth about stuff that sounds
like infringement, you lose.

> > The RIAA's up-and-down battle against file sharing
continues, both 
> > with battle victories and losses.  The RIAA won a
civil court battle 
> > over a Minnesota woman, who must now pay $222,000
worth of damages 
> > to the record industry.
> 
> Which they'll never see more than a fraction of, I'm
betting. 
> Individuals struggle their whole lives to pay that much
off on 
> something they *own*, much less a copyright extortion
settlement.
> 
> I'm of the opinion this attack on the service providers
is an attempt 
> to deflect anger against exactly this kind of "sue
your customers" 
> activity that has been such a PR disaster.

Suing end users works better than most of the other
ideas.  Expect to see more of it.

Handy clip-and-save guide to record company online
strategies:

1. Lobby for a DRM mandate: Possibly highly effective,
but only works because it would destroy the rest
of civilization.  Didn't work last time.

2. Lobby against DMCA reform: Counterproductive --
works in the interest of device and service lock-in,
not for the record company.

3. Offer DRM-based downloads: Counterproductive --
makes Steve Jobs "the most powerful man in music"
and makes the player and service the centerpiece and
the music the commodity.

4. Sell DRM-free copies online: Would have worked
better earlier, still potentially useful.

5. Sue device manufacturers: Could have worked
if the suit made device manufacturers adopt a
record-company-driven distribution system.  But no
such thing, so pointless.

6. Sue service providers: Would have worked better
if barriers to switching were lower, but useful in
that this deters Yahoo and Facebook from offering
music sharing and recommendations.

7. Sue end users: Useful since if done consistently,
it increases the mental cost of an infringing copy
(like Clay Shirky's problem with micropayments).
Works in combination with an alternative.  Would work
better if infringer crawlers weren't hopelessly
outclassed in their math skills, and smarter about
taking out well-connected users.  ("hey, that IP
address is in a frat house at Expensive U.")

-- 
Don Marti                    
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
dmartizgp.org

_______________________________________________
linux-elitists mailing list
linux-elitistszgp.org
http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linu
x-elitists

> 
> 1. Lobby for a DRM mandate: Possibly highly effective,
> but only works because it would destroy the rest
> of civilization.  Didn't work last time.
> 


This is the big one.  If they get this it is game over.  We
sucessfully beat this back last time, and I was just
listening
to the radio show that NYLXS made after the DRM Department
of
Commerce ruckus.  Its worth listening to that show again
and
far more educating then any slashdot article or High School
civics class.

> 2. Lobby against DMCA reform: Counterproductive --
> works in the interest of device and service lock-in,
> not for the record company.
> 
> 3. Offer DRM-based downloads: Counterproductive --
> makes Steve Jobs "the most powerful man in
music"
> and makes the player and service the centerpiece and
> the music the commodity.
> 
> 4. Sell DRM-free copies online: Would have worked
> better earlier, still potentially useful.
> 
> 5. Sue device manufacturers: Could have worked
> if the suit made device manufacturers adopt a
> record-company-driven distribution system.  But no
> such thing, so pointless.
> 
> 6. Sue service providers: Would have worked better
> if barriers to switching were lower, but useful in
> that this deters Yahoo and Facebook from offering
> music sharing and recommendations.
> 
> 7. Sue end users: Useful since if done consistently,
> it increases the mental cost of an infringing copy
> (like Clay Shirky's problem with micropayments).
> Works in combination with an alternative.  Would work
> better if infringer crawlers weren't hopelessly
> outclassed in their math skills, and smarter about
> taking out well-connected users.  ("hey, that IP
> address is in a frat house at Expensive U.")
> 


This is our best hope.  The electorate is still sleep
walking
through an obvious moral issue.  If they sue 500,000 people
I'd be happy as a lark.  That would cause Congress to just
shread
the DMCA.

The RIAA's stratergy is very long term.  It is to put
America
through a brain washing campaign, until people actually do
believe
that downloading a song and playing it is imoral, and then
to use that
as leverage to force DRM through hardware on everyone.

They of DEAD SERIOUS about this and relentless.  Just today
Viacom responded to Google's Copyright sniffer by rejecting
it
and demanding a universal DRM scheme.  ALL THEY WANT IS A
UNIVERSAL
DRM SCEEM.  They don't care about another god damn thing. 
They don't give
a shit about Kazaar, itunes, usenet, profits, or anything
else.  All they
want is unversal DRM at their control.

And the lawyers, even the EFF make it WORSE because they
regurgitate legal
arguments devoid of "DRM is THEFT"

And I REPEAT.  That is why Freedom-ITs program which focuses
on Free Software
multimedia is VITAL as a success.  It needs papers, press,
participation.  It
must show off the best freesoftware multimedia research and
businesses, 
producing DRM FREE spetacular and desirable media, on
display, paraded around 
until it rots away at the core of the empire.  This is an
all out war.  Either the
RIAA will win and Free Software (along with libraries and
public discourse) 
will be dead, or the RIAA will be dead and Free Software and
Libraries will
be protected for our lifetime.

Ruben


> -- 
> Don Marti                    
> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
> dmartizgp.org



> _______________________________________________
> linux-elitists mailing list
> linux-elitistszgp.org
> http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linu
x-elitists


-- 
http://www.mrbrklyn.com -
Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com -
Leadership Development in Free Software

So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that
Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in
the mind of the world  - RI Safir 1998

http://fairuse.nylxs.com
 DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002

"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"

"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming
sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the
ability to participate in our own society."

"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the
job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and
technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st
dynasty in Ancient Egypt.  I guess you missed that
one."

© Copyright for the Digital Millennium
_______________________________________________
linux-elitists mailing list
linux-elitistszgp.org
http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linu
x-elitists

On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 07:14 -0700, Don Marti wrote:

> (This Usenet access sold
> for your enjoyment of fine tobacco products only.)

There's another kind of Usenet? 

Jon.


_______________________________________________
linux-elitists mailing list
linux-elitistszgp.org
http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linu
x-elitists