The RIAA is at it again,

October 18, 2001 9:58 PM

The RIAA is at it again, this time there are supposedly plans to DDoS people who are sharing "illegal" files. Via The Register and ZDnet.
posted by Maxor (15 comments total)

More proof that the RIAA is EVIL. I guess the ends REALLY justify the means in this case, eh? I say allow them to do a DoS attack- and then sue the hell outa' them. give em' a taste of their own $#&$^#&$&(@#$(&#&*($(&(@*(#@&#T%R@#&@$ medicine.....
posted by jmd82 at 11:02 PM on October 18, 2001

...or even: people who are "sharing" illegal files
posted by MarkC at 4:00 AM on October 19, 2001

Jumpin Jiminy, I hates dem guys.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:11 AM on October 19, 2001

RIAA is attempting to trivialize terrorism by calling this "file sharing" terrorism in itself. It trivializes victims of terror attacks, and only furthers their own personal agenda against fair use, which again and again, has been proven to be perfectly legal.

Once they have encryption preventing copying, fair use will be gone, and the lawsuits will begin. They claim you purchase a license to the song, not the disc itself, but then they don't want you to use the license in a way you deem fit.
posted by benjh at 5:27 AM on October 19, 2001

Once they have encryption preventing copying, fair use will be gone, and the lawsuits will begin. If you have a favorite artist backed by a major label - write them letters and encourage them to look for alternatives when their contracts run out - or sooner! :-) Or even better, maybe some of us who are interested and have the motivation/means can LOOK for some of the alternatives that are already being used and share the results on MeFi - now THOSE would be links to click on! (Not that this wasn't - LOL - I mean, *I* clicked.) ;-)
posted by thunder at 6:53 AM on October 19, 2001

The Justice Department said yesterday that it was investigating whether the major recording companies were engaged in anticompetitive practices in the nascent online music market.

From a New York Times article the other day. I chuckle gleefully as read about the major labels under investigation, even if deep down I know nothing will ever happen to them.
posted by bob bisquick at 7:17 AM on October 19, 2001

I'm not sure what the RIAA thinks this will "prevent". DDoSsing mp3 traders will only cause them to fight back. The DDoS war is inevitable, here.

What a bunch of irresponsible, greedy, self-righteous dumbfuck twits.
posted by Succa at 8:05 AM on October 19, 2001

A look at the other side of the story: Why ZDnet owes its readers an apology

Perhaps I'm cynical, but the tone of this article seems kind of inflammatory and desperate...but whatever. Even if all the coverage of this particular debacle has been unfairly biased against the RIAA, their attempted hegemony over fair use and property rights is undeniable.

Speaking of which, is there a listing anywhere of all the artists that fall under the RIAA umbrella? Or can I be pretty sure that any major label artist is covered by the RIAA? What about artists on indie labels whose albums are distributed by larger labels?
posted by andnbsp at 8:07 AM on October 19, 2001

I love the fact that nowhere in the RIAA's supposed explanation of their recent actions is there ANY description of how this bill "would have negatively impacted not just copyright owners, but also ISPs, telecom providers and many other high-tech businesses, such as Ebay." They're trying to make a case without any supporting facts, without revealing what processes may or may not have been affected, and they've even begun namedropping other well-known companies in an effort to imply support by the online industry.

I'm fairly certain that eBay has never DDoS'd users, infiltrated users' machines and deleted files they alone determined to be "copyright infringement", and done so with impunity.
posted by Danelope at 8:31 AM on October 19, 2001

It's a good indication of how poor the RIAA's PR is right now that ZDnet and other media will run stories like this. Maybe they should worry more about why people hate their guts, instead of staying up late trying to figure out how to screw music consumers.
posted by tranquileye at 8:34 AM on October 19, 2001

Jumpin Jiminy, I really hates dem guys.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:41 AM on October 19, 2001

Thanks for the link to the RIAA's response, andnbsp.

If they wanted to give a real response, they should have stated exactly what part of the bill caused them grief, and why. Instead, their response lacked any factual discussion. It is SPIN, nothing else.

Are they denying that they want to be able to control computers they don't own, and have the ability to delete files they think are suspicious? NO

Coursey's article was inflammatory, but RIAA's response only targets the tone, and not the substance.

If they're really concerned, they could take Coursey and ZDNet to court. But they won't, because they would then have to try and argue that the factual content of Coursey's article was both incorrect and intended to harm their reputation.
posted by yesster at 9:59 AM on October 19, 2001

Wired News reported this under the headline RIAA Wants to Hack Your PC.
posted by jeffhoward at 10:38 AM on October 19, 2001

Woodward and Bernstein had a good term for something like the RIAA's statement - a "non-denial denial" or something very similar. It's when they figured out that pattern that they started to unravel Watergate (the affair, not the hotel itself). Non-denial denials and non-apologetic apologies are very au-courant still, though, as we saw when Falwell (didn't) apologize for his wacko comments immediately after 9/11.
posted by mikel at 10:42 AM on October 19, 2001

From the RIAA response:
"Upon reviewing the draft, we noticed that one of the provisions would have had an unintended effect on anti-piracy measures that are lawful under current law. "

Gee, didn't the piece of legislation they ramrodded through Congress do that exact same thing? Where were these conscientious Senators and Representatives then?
posted by fooljay at 1:09 PM on October 19, 2001