RIAA

[aricandover]

Comcast doesn't even allow anyone to share anymore. I can download all i want but i can't upload any torrents at all. i've got enough ratio room that i can download about another 70 gigs before oink kicks me off.

 

I have comcast, and I have no problems seeding files.

[Analogman]

They are throttling - which is why I am not going to use the cable deal.

[bjorn_skurj]

Yeah, Cablevision throttles too.

[ponch1028]

so is the RIAA targeting specific music sites, P2P sites or bittorrent sites? anyone know?

[Sir Stewart]

so is the RIAA targeting specific music sites, P2P sites or bittorrent sites? anyone know?

They're everywhere. Get out whilst you can.

[deepseacatfish]

RIAA Wins File-Sharing Suit, Woman Fined $222,000

Now they can buy 222,000 Radiohead albums

 

$9,250 per song. According to the New York Times, that is how much Brainerd, Minnesota's Jammie Thomas will have to shell out for each of the 24 disputed tracks she reportedly shared on the Kazaa network. This is due to a decision made by a federal jury in a Duluth, Minnesota court yesterday, ruling in the favor of lead plaintiff Capitol Records, along with Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, and Warner Music Group.

 

Thomas is the first person in the United States to be convicted of music sharing copyright infringement in a jury trial, and the decision sets a startling new legal precedent and serves as a major symbolic victory for the RIAA.

 

Thomas' case is particularly interesting, as she was convicted of having copyrighted material in her Kazaa shared folder, but not necessarily sharing them herself. The Times reports, "Earlier, the judge in the case, Michael J. Davis of Federal District Court, ruled that for jurors to find her liable, the record labels did not have to prove that songs on Ms. Thomas's computer had actually been transmitted to others online. Rather, the act of making them available could be viewed as infringement."

 

In the last four years, the labels have brought around 30,000 lawsuits against file sharers, but Thomas is the first to be found guilty in a jury trial. Most opt for a settlement, with an average payout in the $4,000 range. The Times points out that "the verdict is likely to reinforce the notion that computer users who do become targets of lawsuits-- a small fraction of the population using file-swapping networks-- are better off settling." Thomas maintained her innocence throughout the proceedings, claiming she'd never even had a Kazaa account, but evidence was presented that she had replaced her hard drive in order to eradicate the files.

 

According to the Chicago Tribune, Thomas shared files by such artists as AFI, Aerosmith, Green Day, Journey, and Guns n' Roses. Thankfully, now these struggling entertainers will be able to feed their families.

 

In other RIAA news, they recently sent a back-to-school present to 22 U.S. universities in the form of 403 "pre-litigation settlement letters," which, with this new decision, just became a lot more serious. Be careful out there, folks.

[ction]

so is the RIAA targeting specific music sites, P2P sites or bittorrent sites? anyone know?

 

I would imagine p2p'ing any leaked (or recently released) major label or RIAA member albums would have some risk associated with it, regardless of whether it is through soulseek, oink, whatever. My guess is the risk gets lower when you are talking about older or less popular albums, but there's still risk. I've seen the oink invite threads on this board, and its not like you need a secret handshake to get an invite...to think that RIAA types are not members of private trackers is silly.

 

That's just my impression though. I have no facts or anything to back that up.

[Spawn's dad]

Yeah, Cablevision throttles too.

 

ah. no wonder I could never get oink to work right.

[Analogman]

I have also heard that the RIAA is posting fake torrents in order to snag people.

[bjorn_skurj]

I hate Cablevision, but hope the Rangers do well this year.

[ction]

I have also heard that the RIAA is posting fake torrents in order to snag people.

 

Are they going after downloaders now? I thought they had pretty much been going after people sharing files.

[yermom]

So, we're safe if we are only working with music released by non-RIAA members, right?

[cryptique]

So, we're safe if we are only working with music released by non-RIAA members, right?

Actually, yeah. I would think so.

 

Those other labels probably don't have the legal muscle to come after people, or are smart enough not to.

[mjpuczko]

is there some sort of RIAA list?

[ction]

is there some sort of RIAA list?

 

There's actually a site, I think it's called RIAAradar or something like that. You enter an artist and album and it'll tell you. The IndieTorrents tracker had a link to it, since you can only upload non RIAA stuff there.

[Synthesizer Patel]

is there some sort of RIAA list?

 

yeah

 

Interesting that all the best music released this year is non-RIAA. I think they need to start spending their money a bit more wisely in the future - some good A&R men might help for a start.

[Analogman]

Are they going after downloaders now? I thought they had pretty much been going after people sharing files.

 

Good question

[howdjadoo]

http://www.slyck.com/story1585_OiNK_Infilt...nder_Leak_Shows

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Are they going after downloaders now? I thought they had pretty much been going after people sharing files.

There's not much of a distinction with torrents.

[Analogman]

Comcast blocks some Internet traffic

 

By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer 2 hours, 27 minutes ago

 

NEW YORK - Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

 

The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.

 

If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.

 

The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.

 

Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers.

 

Comcast, the nation's largest cable TV operator and No. 2 Internet provider, would not specifically address the practice, but spokesman Charlie Douglas confirmed that it uses sophisticated methods to keep Net connections running smoothly.

 

"Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent," he said.

 

Douglas would not specify what the company means by "access"

[Analogman]

October 25, 2007 11:06 AM PDT

Congressman to Comcast: Stop interfering with BitTorrent

Posted by Chris Soghoian

 

While a class action lawsuit is definitely one way to get Comcast to behave, another perhaps more productive way to do so is to have politicians step in and regulate.

 

On Tuesday, I discussed the issue of Comcast's anti-BitTorrent "network management" with Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., who is a strong supporter of consumer rights and has led the battle to undo the damage caused by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA.

 

He was named Politician of the Year for 2006 by Library Journal, largely due to his efforts to protect the fair-use doctrine and expand Internet technologies to rural areas.

 

"Comcast has made a major mistake in attempting to hinder peer-to-peer file sharing as an aspect of its network management," Boucher said. "The inability of customers to (share files) significantly diminishes their ability to utilize the Internet for one of its most important applications, which is user-to-user content." He also noted that "file sharing is already being used for a wide variety of perfectly lawful and appropriate applications."

 

Net neutrality nightmare ad

(Credit: Rikomatic / Flickr)

 

Discussing the realities of limited resources that the company faces, Boucher said, "Comcast obviously needs to engage in some aspect of network management. The company has limited bandwidth, and there are times when there is more demand for service than the infrastructure can support." However, the congressman stressed that "(the) management needs to occur in a more evenhanded way" and that "(Comcast) should not engage in a blanket disqualification of any category of lawful applications."

 

Until last month, the opponents of Net neutrality were doing just great. The issue, which had become one of national importance in 2006, had shrunk to a mere footnote in the annals of tech policy history.

 

CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh wrote about the death of Net neutrality last month, stating that "(the issue) went from being the political equivalent of a first-run Broadway show, with accompanying street protests and high-profile votes in Congress, to a third-rate performance with no budget and slumping attendance."

 

Luckily for fans of a free Internet, the telecommunications companies are extremely shortsighted. Thanks to a number of their boneheaded moves, Net neutrality has gone from being all but dead to a major news story--all in just a matter of weeks.

 

Respect BitTorrent

(Credit: Hetemeel.com)

 

The first company to breathe life back into the Net neutrality debate was Verizon Wireless, which decided in late September to block a SMS text message campaign by a pro-choice group.

 

Within one day (and after having its censorship techniques compared to those of the Chinese government in a New York Times article), Verizon quickly flip-flopped.

 

While Verizon should be commended for realizing that it needed to do the right thing, and quickly, the damage was already done. Net neutrality was back on the tech policy radar.

 

In mid-August, user reports began to surface alleging that Comcast was filtering the BitTorrent connections of its broadband cable customers.

 

While the story got a bit of press in some tech news outlets, it was ignored by the national media, primarily due to the flat-out denials issued by Comcast.

 

Fast-forward one month. This past Friday, the Associated Press and the Electronic Frontier Foundation both released investigative reports, documenting the fact that Comcast is actively engaged in anti-BitTorrent behavior.

 

In spite of Comcast's best efforts to yet again spin the story, the truth seems to have come out, and major news outlets have picked it up: Comcast is actively sending out false data onto its network, which impersonates its customers' computers and deceitfully convinces them to terminate BitTorrent connections. Not only does the company have a major PR disaster on its hands, but it has in a matter of days become the poster child for Net neutrality.

 

Comcast's name is surely to come up in any future discussion of Net neutrality - which has gone from a theoretical "what if companies did this kind of thing" debate to something more akin to "do you want every Internet company to start acting like Comcast?"

 

In my blog post on the subject this past Tuesday, I explored some of the potential legal risks that Comcast faces. I spoke to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Fred von Lohmann, who revealed that "(the EFF has) already been contacted by attorneys, who are considering legal action against Comcast."

 

I asked Boucher what he would do if Comcast stuck to its guns and kept discriminating against BitTorrent. In particular, I asked him if he would propose legislation compelling the company to treat all traffic fairly.

 

Unfortunately for fans of Net neutrality, the congressman said he was not ready to go down this path and instead stressed market-based methods of fixing the problems. Instead of tinkering with packets, the congressman said that in the short term, Comcast should "simply tier their offerings and engage in a pricing structure that allocates more bandwidth to those who pay more, and less to those who pay less."

 

However, he said "the long-term answer is to deploy more capacity. That is what municipal broadband and other telecom companies are doing. Ultimately, the cable companies will have to deploy fiber to the house."

 

Columbia University cyberlaw professor Tim Wu recently pointed to a historical analogy regarding Verizon's SMS fiasco. He told The New York Times that in the 19th century, the telegraph company Western Union engaged in discrimination based on the political views of people who sought to send telegrams.

 

"One of the eventual reactions was the common-carrier rule," Wu said, which required telegraph and then phone companies to accept communications from all speakers on all topics.

 

Someone who believes in a market-based solution to this problem is Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute. In a phone interview on Tuesday, Harper noted that one of the main problems is Comcast's lack of transparency--something that can be seen through the fact that no one yet knows, exactly, what Comcast is doing. He said "Comcast seems to lack the capacity to communicate terribly well. They should fix that."

 

Harper believes that competition is the key to fixing the problem and that if customers truly care about the issue, they will choose another Internet service provider that is more BitTorrent-friendly. He did, however, note that without transparency, "consumers cannot make smart choices."

 

He also rejected calls for Net neutrality regulation, stating that he believes that the problem can be fixed by promoting competition. While acknowledging that the state of the market is far from competitive for many rural consumers, he noted that customers in bigger markets often have the choice between multiple phone, cable and wireless companies.

 

Harper said that instead of "dividing the current pie through regulation, it is far better to grow the pie" by encouraging new companies to offer service. One example of this, he said, was allocations of additional spectrum to broadband, such as the upcoming 700MHz auction.

 

Finally, Harper was somewhat skeptical of the importance of this issue to most consumers. He noted that Comcast is not blocking BitTorrent downloads but rather only the sharing of files--something that is not viable to most users. "If customers don't care enough to vote with their feet" he asked, "then how important is it, anyway?"

[Analogman]

Democrats: Colleges must police copyright, or else

Top congressional Democrats put pressure on colleges and universities to stamp out peer-to-peer piracy or lose financial aid for all their students.

By Anne Broache and Declan McCullagh

Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Published: November 9, 2007, 5:41 PM PST

Tell us what you think about this storyTalkBackE-mail this story to a friendE-mailView this story formatted for printingPrint Add to your del.icio.usdel.icio.us Digg this storyDigg this

Democrats: Colleges must police copyright, or else

 

New federal legislation says universities must agree to provide not just deterrents but also "alternatives" to peer-to-peer piracy, such as paying monthly subscription fees to the music industry for their students, on penalty of losing all financial aid for their students.

 

The U.S. House of Representatives bill (PDF), which was introduced late Friday by top Democratic politicians, could give the movie and music industries a new revenue stream by pressuring schools into signing up for monthly subscription services such as Ruckus and Napster. Ruckus is advertising-supported, and Napster charges a monthly fee per student.

 

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) applauded the proposal, which is embedded in a 747-page spending and financial aid bill. "We very much support the language in the bill, which requires universities to provide evidence that they have a plan for implementing a technology to address illegal file sharing," said Angela Martinez, a spokeswoman for the MPAA.

 

According to the bill, if universities did not agree to test "technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity," all of their students--even ones who don't own a computer--would lose federal financial aid.

 

The prospect of losing a combined total of nearly $100 billion a year in federal financial aid, coupled with the possibility of overzealous copyright-bots limiting the sharing of legitimate content, has alarmed university officials.

 

"Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their federal financial aid--including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education, and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st-century economy," a letter from university officials to Congress written on Wednesday said. "Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal."

 

The letter was signed by the chancellor of the University of Maryland system, the president of Stanford University, the general counsel of Yale University, and the president of Penn State.

 

They stress that the "higher education community recognizes the seriousness of the problem of illegal peer-to-peer file sharing and has long been committed to working with the entertainment industry to find a workable solution to the problem." In addition, the letter says that colleges and universities are responsible for "only a small fraction of illegal file sharing."

 

The MPAA says the university presidents are overreacting. An MPAA representative sent CNET News.com a list of campuses that have begun filtering files transferred on their networks, including the University of Florida (Red Lambda technology); the University of Utah (network monitoring and Audible Magic); and Ohio's Wittenberg University (Audible Magic).

 

For each school taking such steps, the MPAA says, copyright complaints dramatically decreased, in some cases going from 50 a month to none.

[Analogman]

Comcast sued over Web interference

 

By JORDAN ROBERTSON, AP Technology Writer Thu Nov 15, 5:58 AM ET

 

SAN JOSE, Calif. - A San Francisco Bay area subscriber to Comcast Corp.'s high-speed Internet service has sued the company, alleging it engages in unfair business practices by interfering with subscribers' file sharing.

 

Subscriber Jon Hart based his claims on the results of an investigation by the Associated Press published last month that showed Philadelphia-based Comcast actively interferes with attempts some high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online.

 

Hart's lead lawyer, Mark N. Todzo of San Francisco, said his client suspected before reading the AP report that Comcast was interfering with his Internet traffic.

 

"What the AP report did was just confirm to him that it wasn't just him who was suffering from the problem," Todzo said. "There was this confluence of events where everyone seemed to reach the same conclusion, which was that Comcast was engaging in this activity."

 

Other users claimed they had seen interference with some file-sharing applications. Subsequent tests by the Electronic Frontier Foundation confirmed the AP's tests, which showed that Comcast is causing software on both ends of a file-sharing link to believe the connection has been dropped.

 

A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars formally asked the Federal Communications Commission early this month to make Comcast stop interfering with file sharing. Two of the groups also asked the FCC to fine Comcast $195,000 for every affected subscriber.

 

Comcast is the country's largest cable company and second-largest Internet service provider with 12.9 million Internet subscribers.

 

The company denies it blocks file sharing. But it acknowledged after the AP report was published that it delays some of the traffic between computers that share files.

 

Comcast said the delays are designed to improve the Internet experience for its subscribers as a whole. A relatively small number of file sharers is enough to slow down a network.

 

Hart's lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, alleges Comcast misleads customers by promising "mind-blowing" speeds and "unfettered access" to the Internet in advertisements while hindering the use of certain applications such as peer-to-peer file sharing. It seeks unspecified money damages.

 

Todzo is seeking class action status for the lawsuit.

 

Comcast and its subsidiaries "intentionally and severely impede the use of certain Internet applications by their customers, slowing such applications to a mere crawl or stopping them altogether," the lawsuit reads. "This class action seeks to end (Comcast's) practice and seeks recovery of fees paid by customers who paid for services they did not receive."

 

A Comcast spokesman reached late Wednesday said the company hadn't been served with the lawsuit yet and could not comment.

[a.miller]

such as paying monthly subscription fees to the music industry for their students, on penalty of losing all financial aid for their students.

Isn't that racketeering? or extortion? Pay us a fee for music or we're gonna pull your student loans? WTF!?!

 

What a great idea -- totally fuck the educational system so the music/movie industry doesn't have to come up with a some what modern business plan.

 

I'd like to know how big of a kickback Napster and Ruckus are giving. Making schools pay for their service? You gotta me kidding me. There are some SCARY tactics present in this country right now.

[Analogman]

Obama Would Make Comcast's Interference with BitTorrent Illegal, Aide Says

By Sarah Lai Stirland EmailNovember 15, 2007 | 7:23:31 PMCategories: Election '08, Network Neutrality

 

Barack Obama would make actions such as cable company Comcast's interference with certain kinds of Internet traffic illegal under his administration, an aide said on Thursday. Obama_300x

 

The aide spoke on background as part of a morning conference call with bloggers and writers to further explain the details of the Democratic presidential candidate's recently unveiled technology policy.

 

Asked whether Obama would make behavior such as Comcast's blocking of the BitTorrent protocol illegal, the aide said that he would.

 

The aide said what Comcast is doing to BitTorrent amounts to discrimination against a Web site. On that basis, that action would violate the rules that would be in place under Barack Obama's administration, he said.

 

When asked to clarify -- whether traffic management would then be illegal, the aide said that that is a different question, but that that would be something administration officials would have to "look at."

 

Obama's policy document, released Wednesday to coincide with his visit to Google in Mountain View, Ca. states the following:

 

Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others.

 

This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences.

 

"What I find compelling about the senator's proposal is that it attempts to address the problem in a way that could be effectively enforced," said Stanford Law School Professor Larry Lessig during the conference call.

 

Lessig's thrown his support behind Obama after declaring Obama rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's approach to policy making unacceptable.

 

The professor noted that Obama's adopted former Republican FCC Chairman Michael Powell's principles for ensuring Net Neutrality, but has added a twist.

 

"Senator Obama has added a requirement that any charges not be discrimminatory," he said. "You can't say: Google, were going to charge you this, Yahoo, we're going to charge you that. Rather than regulations that require the regulators to "look under the hood, this is a regulation that looks to the contracts that parties have entered into, thereby ... allowing the FCC to do its job to ensure a neutral and open Internet."

 

The Associated Press recently conducted tests to verify several of Comcast customers' claims that the cable and high speed Internet service provider is discriminating against BitTorrent Internet traffic.

 

The AP found that it did, as did tests performed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

 

Comcast, for its part, denies that it is discriminating. Instead, its spokespeople have said that the company is managing its traffic to ensure the optimal experience for its users. Nevertheless, the news has sparked off a lawsuit in California, as well as a call on Wednesday for a rulemaking at the FCC from Silicon Valley start-up Vuze, which uses BitTorrent to distribute high definition television programming on the Web. Vuze wants the FCC to establish some new rules concerning the way telecom companies manage their networks.

 

Obama's staff spoke on background, but others who spoke on the record during the call were Lessig, Beth Noveck of New York Law School and Julius Genachowski, co-founder and managing director of Rock Creek Ventures and former chief counsel to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Reed Hundt.

 

Obama's policy staff also emphasized that their candidate's tech policy platform is a integral theme that dovetails with the "central thrust" of his candidacy, which is to turn the current model of governing on its head by putting some of the decision-making processes of governing back into the hands of citizens.

 

An integral part of that process is making as much government data available in machine-readable formats to people as possible. Though it sounds prosaic, the overarching goal is to create a kind of "open source" government, of which the work of the Sunlight Foundation is an example.

 

One example of how this might work is a pilot project spearheaded by NYLS' Noveck, who helped to create the US Patent and Trademark Office' Peer to Patent Project. The project solicits contributions from the wider community for information relevant to a select group of patent applications. The goal is to leverage the knowledge of experts in the wider community to prevent patent office examiners from granting monopolies on ideas that are already obvious.

 

"We can't rely on the government for all of the expertise and solutions," Noveck said. "What's also really exciting about [Obama's] plan is that it articulates a tremendous level of respect for the American people by asking them to help government make better decisions."

 

The obvious subtext of the conference call: Obama's technology platform is an enabling mechanism for his call for an open and transparent government "for the people" while rival Clinton's camp offers a policy framework that is more of the same.

 

Clinton is currently under attack by her rivals and Republicans for the secrecy surrounding the records from her husband's administration. They are under wraps at the Clinton presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas.