PDA

View Full Version : Kazaa Lite hacked by RIAA



LVjetboy
08-22-2003, 12:16 PM
What do you think? Ever download music just get static? Lite post forum now inop? Links on Lite page now don't work?
You think RIAA lives by the freakin law-abiding rules they preach? Condesending lying bastards!
Think again.
They live by the rule "Give me more money to support my lifestyle or I'll squeeze ya until you do." They got the money, the power and lawyers no doubt. But the net's got the power of the people and freedom of information.
You think what they preach is truth? You gonna be their bitch?
jer
[ August 22, 2003, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: LVjetboy ]

Blown 472
08-22-2003, 12:17 PM
got that boat running yet?

LVjetboy
08-22-2003, 12:29 PM
No. But why do you care? I was 5 mph ++ (5.6 mph) over your best top speed before engine upgrade. N/A (me) vs. 9 psi blower (you) btw. I just added 300 hp. Still wondering what that will do.
Don't mess with my thread unless you can match me.
:)
jer
[ August 22, 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: LVjetboy ]

Blown 472
08-22-2003, 12:37 PM
LVjetboy:
No. But what do you care? I was 5 mph ++ (5.6 mph) over your best top speed before engine upgrade. N/A (me) vs blower (you) btw. Just added 300 hp. Still wondering what that will do.
Don't mess with my thread unless you can match me.
:)
jer Little touchy today there Jer?? I am not trying to be the fastest on the lake, dont care cuz there is always someone faster and it gets old and expensive trying to play king of the lake, even worse when a 300 v8 eggbeater hands you your ass.
How much power you making??
[ August 22, 2003, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Blown 472 ]

LVjetboy
08-22-2003, 01:01 PM
King of the lake one thing, depends on the lake and who you race.
At this point, I'm NOT thinking a 300 hp oil-burning or oil-spewing weedwacker or v-drive will hand me anything. Even striped to the core with no stereo;. Except a tow rope as I tow them in?
On topic is RIAA.
jer
[ August 22, 2003, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: LVjetboy ]

Blown 472
08-22-2003, 01:03 PM
That is a bold statement. There are a few whackas back here that could smoke you. What were we talking about before the whole hp thing?? :D :D :D

LVjetboy
08-22-2003, 01:13 PM
Post a reply on the hp thread if you dare. This a music thread. Outboard vs. jet a matter of acceleration vs. top speed. And weight distribution vs. power. Nothing to do with you or my jet.
Or music for that matter.
jer
[ August 22, 2003, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: LVjetboy ]

Blown 472
08-22-2003, 01:20 PM
If I dare?? ohhhh scary.
Where is it?? and here I thought you and I had a thing, now you get all mean and shit. :D :D

LVjetboy
08-22-2003, 01:50 PM
I'm always mean. Get used to it.
jer

Phat_Kat
08-22-2003, 01:51 PM
where's my shotgun? devil

Ultra5150
08-22-2003, 01:58 PM
I have not seen anything in the news saying that the RIAA did this. Frankly, I do not give a sh!t if they did, Freedom of information does not mean that you should steal.

ssmike
08-22-2003, 02:24 PM
Jet guys......LOL

LVjetboy
08-22-2003, 03:10 PM
Freedom of information does not mean that you should steal.So you think the RIAA's definition of "stealing" truth? Think about it. Or if the RIAA backs their definition of truth with high-payed lobbiest making those laws and well funded lawyers who enforce those laws as the "truth", this somehow more right or moral than others opinions?
Get a grip on what's real. Or at least question your accepted beliefs. Be they religion oriented or otherwise...
jer
[ August 22, 2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: LVjetboy ]

burbanite
08-22-2003, 03:27 PM
LVjetboy:
I'm always mean. Get used to it.
jer Nice attitude, therefore I have no reason to be kind and stay on topic...
Comments like the one above make me sad.
ssmike:
Jet guys......LOL Sometimes I wonder about people. Two guys from these boards are having to look at life from an angle that I for one never wish to see again, you ask for a little help and all of a sudden.............silence. Except when there's an opportunity to belittle someone.
I have a whole new perspective on peoples attitudes and I know who I would rely on.
Jer, I liked you more when you were a regular guy, you know, before you got wrapped up in the pissing matches.
Anyway, out of respect for you, back to the topic....you act surprised that someone was going to go heavy on these sites, it's been imminent for some time.
Good luck with your project, stay safe.

LVjetboy
08-24-2003, 12:30 PM
Burbanite,
I'm the same guy I always was. Some ways likeable, some ways not.
But thanks for your comment on the topic...RIAA hacking. I'm actually NOT at all surprised they go "heavy" on these sites. Also not surprised if they employed hacking and deception or illegal tactics to protect their bank accounts. I'd suspect they'd use any means their money and power can buy to protect an empire built on extortion music prices.
But that's my point.
Some say their cause is right. I believe they're a bunch of money hungry thugs no more right than the people who copy and trade music. Just a h*ll of a lot more powerful and able to inflict harm on targets of their choice. So no, I'm not surprised if the RIAA was behind KaZaa site hacking. Just surprised more people don't recognize RIAA motivation and decept for what it is and call them out. Seems most who disagree are scared into silence by the threat of big money.
Bow down to the kings...
jer

TahitiSteve
08-24-2003, 04:37 PM
If someone was stealing from me--or even just intentionally acting to enable people to steal from me, damn right I would hack in.
I've never shot anyone, but when my house was broken into, and I thought they were still in my house, I was damn sure ready to. Was I wrong to want to shoot the bastards that stole my stuff? Why should intellectual property be any different?

BigBoyToys
08-24-2003, 07:15 PM
Ultra5150:
I have not seen anything in the news saying that the RIAA did this. Frankly, I do not give a sh!t if they did, Freedom of information does not mean that you should steal. If you are referring to downloading MP3's as stealing, I believe you may just be wrong. Over the past 35 years or so, I have PURCHASED thousands of records, tapes, CD's, etc. Throughout the years, some have gotten scratched, lost, worn out, etc. However, when I purchased the music, I ALSO PURCHASED A LICENSE for that music. So, if I download a MP3 of a song that I previously purchased at, say Walmart, this is LEGAL. I even remember buying the same Molly Hatchet album 4 times as a teen because I kept wearing it out. Wished I had today's capabilities back then. It will be interesting to see how the RIAA plays this one out since the burden of proof that I am breaking a law is on them. Prove that I didn't buy it originally....... Screw the RIAA. It's kinda interesting the Album sales of country music (what I listen to) hit an all time high in 2002 and is expected to exceed that in 2003.
[ August 25, 2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: BigBoyToys ]

Ultra5150
08-25-2003, 10:05 AM
Big Boy- you only download music you have previously owned and nothing else?? By your theory, if I bought a stereo and listened to it so much that it broke, I could just go steal a new one and that would be ok?
The music industry is a business, if you owned one, wouldnt you want to make as much profit possible. And if someone found out how to steal your product without paying for it, you would be crying like a little b!tch.
If YOU decide boat makers are charging to much are you going to start stealing boats?

Just Tool'n
08-25-2003, 11:23 AM
The Jeannie is out of the bottle!
The RIAA is trying too get her back in it!
I think there will allways be sites for downloads.
They will be offshore out of the jurisdiction to the Sharks here in the states.
If there is a will, there will be a way.

BigBoyToys
08-25-2003, 11:26 AM
Ultra5150:
Big Boy- you only download music you have previously owned and nothing else?? By your theory, if I bought a stereo and listened to it so much that it broke, I could just go steal a new one and that would be ok?
The music industry is a business, if you owned one, wouldnt you want to make as much profit possible. And if someone found out how to steal your product without paying for it, you would be crying like a little b!tch.
If YOU decide boat makers are charging to much are you going to start stealing boats? There IS a difference between licensed property and physical property. IE; The operating system that you are running on your computer, you have a LICENSE to use that operating system on ANY 1 COMPUTER at any given point in time. If your computer crashes completely and you go buy a new one, you have EVERY RIGHT to reinstall the OS on the new computer (assuming that it is no longer installed on the old one). Music is the same way. WTF are you talking about boats and stereos? Those things are PHYSICAL property and have some degree of certainty that it will break within time. Music does not break. Hence the difference between Physical property and Intellectual (licensed) property.
[ August 25, 2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: BigBoyToys ]

BigBoyToys
08-25-2003, 11:26 AM
Why do ya think that there are websites where you can "download" music for a fee? At those sites (including the Imfamous Napster now) you are buying a LICENSE for each song that you download. At Walmart if you buy a CD, you are paying for the LICENSE, physical CD, fancy cover, retailers fees, wholesalers fees, etc etc. :rolleyes: So, since I already "own" a license for the music, why should I have to pay for the license again?
[ August 25, 2003, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: BigBoyToys ]

Ultra5150
08-25-2003, 11:49 AM
You are wrong - You are not buying that license, you can make a copy for personal use, but try and play the cd in a bar, or place of business, you would have to pay royalties.

Ultra5150
08-25-2003, 11:54 AM
Why dont you just admit that you would rather just steal sh!t for free instead of trying to justify it with a weak ass argument.
Show me on any CD or any law that says you own the license for it.

BigBoyToys
08-25-2003, 11:59 AM
Ultra5150:
You are wrong - You are not buying that license, you can make a copy for personal use, but try and play the cd in a bar, or place of business, you would have to pay royalties. No, I am not wrong! and yes you are right in the second part.
"However, the Copyright Act also limits this exclusive right in Section 107 of the Act, which addresses "fair use" of copyrighted materials. Although Section 107 enumerates some of the situations that may be considered fair use--criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research--it certainly does not exclude other uses, such as home recording for personal use"
However, if I was to copy something and give it to my friends, etc. it would be a copyright infringement.
"Fair use, sometimes referred to as the Fair Use Doctrine, does not necessarily grant the user the right to copy material which he or she has purchased. Fair use is generally reserved for use as a defense to a copyright infringement action. The criteria set forth in the Act make it necessary for courts to decide copyright infringement issues and fair use defenses on a case-by-case basis, applying the four criteria set out in the Act to the particular infringement alleged in the case at bar."
Dude, it is legal to copy something that I already own, as long as it is for my use. I'm not gonna sit here and argue with you on the copyright laws, which I know fairly well. I'm done on this topic.....it has been going on for too long and has played itself out in the Courts many times already. You do what you want to do, and I'll do what I do.

schiada96
08-25-2003, 01:48 PM
It's the same bullshit the RAII said about the cassett only on a larger scale. Their arguments wont hold up here as well.

TahitiSteve
08-25-2003, 03:05 PM
What's legal and what's moral are 2 different things, unfortunately. If I create something and you want it (music in this instance) It is morally proper for me to put any terms on the use that I wish.
If I want to charge $10,000 for my CD and not allow any duplication, nor allow you to let anyone else even hear it, that is my right, and you have not been wronged in ANY way. The only right and wrong is what the buyer and seller agree to.
If this is allowed to continue it will kill the music industry, movie industry, software industry. Why would I spend years of my life writing a computer program, knowing I can sell 1 copy, and then it will likely be freely available to anyone that wants it. Only way I would do so is if I get millions for the first copy.
I can't believe how many people try to rationalize this, it is theft, pure and simple.
The record companies need to come up with an individualized encoding system for each CD, track peoples purchases, state the fines for unautoriized duplication directly on the CD's, and prosecute everyone caught violating them.
If you find a legal loophole allowing you to randomly murder people without consequence, that does not absolve you from being a scumbag for taking advantage of it. The same is true of stealing intellectual property.

LVjetboy
08-26-2003, 12:32 AM
TahitiSteve: If you find a legal loophole allowing you to randomly murder people without consequence, that does not absolve you from being a scumbag for taking advantage of it. The same is true of stealing intellectual property The same as, If you make a law allowing you to randomly murder people without consequence, that does not absolve you from being a scumbag for taking advantage of it. And the fact the "law" you made exists in legal documents on ink and paper in some vault does not justify the morality or "rightness" of that law.
Not that I would compare murder to alleged theft as Tahiti's example seems to.
Ultra5150: Why dont you just admit that you would rather just steal sh!t for free instead of trying to justify it with a weak ass argument. I'd much rather download music for free. And, I feel no need to justify. But I don't mind challenging those in power or you. And that doesn't dismiss my reasoning as untrue. How's that for clear?
Ultra, do you benefit from music or other copyright? Just because the music industry is a business, does that mean what they do as a business within the bounds of the law they lobby for and actively support is somehow right, morally or otherwise and worthy of our approval?
Bullshit.
Just because I own a business and want to make as much $profit$ as possible because of my own personal greed within the somewhat gray and fuzzy bounds of "law" (that law being the one I happen to influence with my profits, btw) Does that make my desire for more profit or means of achieving that profit somehow more right, moral or just than those who can't afford to legally oppose me??? (Hint: think Enron)
Bullshit.
If this is allowed to continue it will kill the music industry, movie industry, software industry. Ya ok, whatever. Dogs sleeping with cats. Chaos in the streets. The end of the world as we know it I suppose. How many times that theme played out. Kill the music industry? So they'd like you to think. Think outside the paradigm created by those who profit. The bleak "future of music" conveniently fabricated by industries for their own $$$ profit protection. The music industry will evolve for the better if we hold the line.
Consider the history of this great nation and those who questioned powers that be. And the beauty of human spirit and accomplishment that came to be because of that brave challenge. How those challenges brought about a change far better than conventional accepted truths preached by those in power.
Think about how things evolve through competition, challenge and freedom of information...the internet? Do you think this nation was founded on blind obedience to those in power and the laws they made? Blindly accepting rule of law as morality?
Think again.
Profit motivation is one part. So those royality in power had profit motivation and control of the masses at the time. But challenge, freedom of information, and the cause of the masses the biggest part.
Or do you just reason your right comes from loyalty and the profit of your bottom line?
The record companies need to come up with an individualized encoding system for each CD, track peoples purchases, state the fines for unautoriized duplication directly on the CD's, and prosecute everyone caught violating them.
Oh come on. Get real.
Right after that we should ticket everyone who waters after hours with steep fines, possible jail sentence? Slap some encoded sensors on our water lines to detect us violating bandits?
Meanwhile the same city officials ticketing us approve zoning changes for higher density housing and building 50,000 more houses on the NW side because after all, developers have the money and lobbiest to influence county commissioners to approve zoning changes to the master plan and make new rules for more $profit$ to developers in turn padding their pockets...the bottom line right? Never mind what that does to the water shortage. Profit rules?? Money talks? That's all that's important right?
Ya whatever.
jer
[ August 26, 2003, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: LVjetboy ]

572Daytona
08-26-2003, 04:24 AM
I'm pretty sure that it is legal to make digital or analog copies of music that you have purchased. In fact every blank audio tape and audio CD that you purchase carries a surcharge which is in fact a royalty payment to the music companies, per the Audio Home Recording Act. Even if you don't use that media to make copies of your music you still have to pay the surcharge. The lawsuits that the RIAA filed were against those distributing the MP3 files, not against those downloading them. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out, I pretty much stopped buying and listening to music when CD's replaced LP's. I could never get over the fact that the record companies were charging substantially more for CD's even though they were much cheaper to make.

LVjetboy
08-26-2003, 10:29 AM
Good point. I believe the music industry wants to pass a law making copies illegal too. What was legal then becomes illegal and possibly even immoral? Lacking that, design a scheme like SDMI similar to what TahitiSteve suggests, making copies impossible.
I suppose the ideal profit situation for them would be if they could somehow rent out music on a monthly basis with no physical possesion required or allowed.
jer

burbanite
08-26-2003, 10:57 AM
LVjetboy:
The bleak "future of music" conveniently fabricated by industries for their own $$$ profit protection. The music industry will evolve for the better if we hold the line.
I agree.

572Daytona
08-26-2003, 01:23 PM
There is some good information on the subject here: http://www.eff.org/cafe/drmgame/doc105.html
It appears that it isn't clear cut whether downloading MP3's of titles that you already own is copyright infringement or not, there really hasn't been any legal precedent for it set yet.
[ August 26, 2003, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: 572Daytona ]

Tom Brown
08-26-2003, 03:34 PM
Am I the only one who really wants to know if LVjb got his boat back together?

LVjetboy
08-26-2003, 05:24 PM
I'm working on it Tom
:)
Just taking a break you know. Solder this, heat shrink that, oops...what's this green loop wire on the brain box. Shouldn't that've been cut for distributer trigger on the dyno? Oh jeez.
jer

Tom Brown
08-26-2003, 08:27 PM
Thanks, LVjb. Please keep us posted. :)
I have an opinion on the RIAA...
I believe that what is right is what is contracted... to a point. At some point, the contractual language was designed to oppress and control the industry and that is very wrong.
It's clear to me that something that stems from joy and freedom is being controlled by an extremely small group of people. The music market is not free.
The group worst hit by this is the artists. Music consumers are not particularly oppressed, although there are some issues and they've been well illustrated above.
Stealing music is not the solution. That hurts everyone. I believe the answer lies in our support of systems that bypass the traditional centers of power. This will be much easier said than done because struggling artists tend to have little real choice but to sign contracts which preclude their access to alternate marketing channels.
The answer? I don't know. Again, stealing music is wrong.
That's my opinion.
-- Tom :)

TahitiSteve
08-26-2003, 08:52 PM
Think about how things evolve through competition, challenge and freedom of information...the internet? Do you think this nation was founded on blind obedience to those in power and the laws they made? Blindly accepting rule of law as morality?I was not blindly upholding the law, I was saying regardless of the legal loopholes which allow P2p sharing of copyrighted material to exist, it is morally wrong and should be stopped. I'm speaking from the position of what SHOULD BE, not necessarily what legally IS.
Do you think anyone would spend thousands/millions of hours, and millions/billions of dollars to write a software program knowing that they have no copyright protection, and once they sell 1 copy it will likely be available free online to anyone else that wants it?
It's really not much different (though admittedly of lesser importance) from drug patents. Imagine what would happen to the pharmaceutical industry, if I spend billions finding a cure for the common cold. Then I sell 1 bottle of pills to you for $100. You analyse the ingredients of the pills, and are able to buy the materials, and make your own pills for $2 a bottle, and proceed to sell them for $5 a bottle. If that were allowed do you think anyone would spend money to find cures for other health problems?
I really don't care about the relative harm or benefit to the industries involved though, what I care about is the rights of the individuals involved, and their right of contract in choosing what part of their intellectual property they are selling.
Ownership is multifaceted, you might buy the right to live on a piece of property, while the previous owner retains the right to drill for oil on it. Or you may buy the right to listen to a CD and not to duplicate it. I am merely upholding the right of the musician, or whatever record company he contracts with to place ANY duties, restrictions, or fines on the unauthorized distribution of their product.
Whoever does not like the terms they place on their products is always free not to buy them. If they choose to charge $50,000 per cd noones rights are being violated, nor is "sharing" the cd any more just than if the CD were ten cents per copy. If they set rediculously high fines for digital sharing of their product, again noones rights are violated (assuming they contract with the buyer, or clearly label their products with the potential fines).