 
elias
Premium,VIP
join:2000-07-24
Miami, FL
clubs:  | RIAA's Crazy We're beating a dead horse here ... but we all know that the RIAA's just plain crazy.
-- Elias | |
|
 | 
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY
| Re: RIAA's Crazy Give it up already RIAA, you know you cannot win the P2P war. Resistance is futile
[text was edited by author 2003-09-08 14:18:31] | |
|
| | |
| | | |
| |
| | SilentMan
join:2002-07-15
New York, NY
| Here's food for thoughts Well, the much hated and much maligned RIAA has sued 261 file swappers as of today. It has been the general assumption ( and the RIAA lawyers are happy to confuse people and they hope to confuse Judges as well) that when someone *uploads* a song to somebody else using a P2P program like Kazaa, BT, edonkey, etc., that person is infringing copyright because he/she is sending the whole copyrighted work to somebody else which, as we all know, is NOT true!! It happens that most of the time, that uploader only uploads FRAGMENTS of that file, be it an mp3, movies, pics etc.
To make file sharing more efficient, people downloading files get fragments of the file from many different people on the network.
Now the question is: is anyone who only shares out a few frags of a file, most of the time accidentally, guilty of copyright infringement? Can he or she be made to pay $750 to $150,000 only because he shared out maybe 10 secs of a music file??
One thing is to willfully ftp someone a whole copyrighted work, but it is another thing when someone gets a song in bits contributed by a lot of people, who are not even aware that they are contributing small bits of a file. I hope some legal eagle read this an put it in a legal frame.
Now here's a brilliant thought posted by some brilliant mind that got me thinking about this. I hope you all get brain storms after you have read this:
Posted by BeerSlurpy. Rated as "Insightful" by Slashdot mods.
Beging Quote:
===============
Bingo. For years the feds tried to shut down pirate bbses and ftp sites with no luck, because most pirates do it for fun and make no money from their efforts. Judges basically said "no financial gain, no fault" and threw out the cases.
In 97, the whores in congress passed the "No Electronic Theft Act" 17 USC blah blah blah that:
1) changed the definition of financial gain to mean "receiving anything of value" such as a copyrighted work- so running an FTP site that receives files is now financial gain, as is a program that sends and receives copyrighted files- but it's much more complicated than that
2)by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000 shall be punished
however....!
evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.'.
c) some details
In case it wasnt obvious, the burden of proof to prosecute someone under this statue is pretty difficult to meet unless you are going after a pirate bbs or a pirate ftp site with a permanent address and fairly static library of files.
A sporadically connecting (and constantly moving) p2p client that is only sharing fragments of files is not really an entity that you can easily track. In addition, since the files on any individual client change often, or are (most often) unshared the second they finish downloading, it is almost 100 percent certain that "copyrighted works" (as well-formed files) are not shared by more than a small percentage of users, except perhaps accidentally.
It is also amusing to note that verifying that a user actually has a file is nearly impossible- its hard to distinguish between a client sending you the real file and a client sending you nonsense. Also, what about fakes, and files that dont exist in complete format anywhere? I've come across releases of movies where everyone has 99 percent of the file, but no one has the final 1% and the file might as well be random bits. Actually downloading files from a specific user on a P2P network to verify that it is copyrighted content is very difficult for one user, let alone millions spread across international borders.
To summarize- NET was formed to combat piracy that revolved around whole-file transfer protocols like FTP, HTTP and irc file servers. It is not well suited to prosecuting the massive file sharing networks that exist now. Even if it were possible to do so, it would be political suicide, since a hundred million voters will be a much bigger headache than a few whiny content industry lobbyists.
End of quote.
=============
Source: »yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/09/08/17···8&tid=99 | |
|
| | | 
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: Here's food for thoughts said by SilentMan  :
It is also amusing to note that verifying that a user actually has a file is nearly impossible- its hard to distinguish between a client sending you the real file and a client sending you nonsense. Also, what about fakes, and files that dont exist in complete format anywhere? I've come across releases of movies where everyone has 99 percent of the file, but no one has the final 1% and the file might as well be random bits.
Here's another thought. The whole point of ripping a song from a CD into MP3 format is to discard data on the fringes of human hearing and compress the whole thing into a smaller ball. How is that an exact copy of a copyrighted work? | |
|
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
| Re: RIAA's Crazy Good luck sweetie
[text was edited by author 2003-09-08 22:01:11] | |
|
| LHutch
join:2003-06-21
Circle Pines, MN
| Just Say No. The RIAA is a typical example of how big money can really screw up a good thing if it wants to. Maybe people should just completely stop consuming their product for a few weeks or months and see if their tune changes (play on words unintentional). You can't buy much litigation without money y'know. | |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Not Constitutional I think that the best anyone can hope for would be to have the subpeona process be declared unconstitutional. In that Case, the RIAA may decice that it is not economical to bring all of these people to litigation. But who knows. | |
|
| 
Smokey
Even drunk on a bet ya make it to Canada
Premium
join:2003-05-20
Va Beach
clubs: | Re: Not Constitutional the supreme court has ruled that ones rights of ownership of copyrighted material is a very high right. I think that because the RIAA is not a governmental branch that they will be given lots of leniency in how they use this law. | |
|
Rash
Ouch
Premium
join:2002-09-27
Walkersville, MD
clubs: | Lots of Money I just hope the woman in NY has deep pockets it's the only way she is going to win. I agree with her lawyer the issue is privacy. It outrages me that a corporation can subpoena people with out a Judges signature. | |
|
|
| 
bistro777
Donuts-Is There Anything They Can't Do?
Premium
join:2002-02-07
Englewood, CO
| And she won't be the last - Just off the Reuters newswire - - - US music firms sue 261 Net users for song copying:
"The Recording Industry Association of America said it had filed the copyright infringement suits in U.S. courts across the country, marking the first time the music industry has directly pursued Internet users who copy music directly from one another's hard drives."\
I enjoy a slow dinnner in a fast diner. | |
|
| | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: And she won't be the last - Here is the AP link:
»story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s···wsuits_3
"The recording industry was filing hundreds of lawsuits Monday against individual music lovers whom music companies accuse of illegally downloading and sharing songs over the Internet, a music industry source said.
The lawsuits, being filed in federal courts around the country, had been expected, as the industry has become increasingly aggressive in cracking down on the trading of pirated music files online. The source spoke on condition of anonymity." | |
|
| | |
| | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: And she won't be the last - said by DeiselCat :
This makes no sense to me.I can sit here and tape record all the songs i want off the radio stations.I know there is a slight difference but not much.
Well that solves all your problems. Since there is only a slight difference, forget about file sharing and just tape off the radio. | |
|
| | | | 
bobco
@192.76.x.x
| Re: And she won't be the last - When I was a kid I remember recording music off the radio. When I play a CD in my convertible with the top down on the highway at 70MPH it sounds just like my old taped recordings. I didn't hear the RIAA crying about lost profits back in 1985. It's only now that they can catch me more easily that they're clamoring about lost profits and filing lawsuits.
Even more, I'm not breaking the law now, but I am infringing on someone's rights and I may owe them money. Should the subpoena process be used for an infringement so someone can sue me? If so then I should be able to get a subpoena without a judge's signature for every spam email I get, or blocked intrusion on my firewall for some backdoor virus. | |
|
| | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL | Re: And she won't be the last - Well, what are you worried about? Screw the RIAA, screw P2P and go back to taping songs of the radio. You can avoid this entire mess, and still get your music. | |
|
| | | | | |
Pir8 Pete
@adelphia.net | Re: And she won't be the last - Can you access the digital stream to XM or Cirius? That would seem to be a perfect way to make MP3s. Anyone hear of this being possible? | |
|
| | | | | | | 
not quite right
I'm not cool enough to be a Mac person
join:2001-06-23
Puyallup, WA
| Re: And she won't be the last - said by Pir8 Pete:
Can you access the digital stream to XM or Cirius? That would seem to be a perfect way to make MP3s. Anyone hear of this being possible?
You bet it's possible!!! I started doing this months ago with the music Channels on Directv. It's also possible to do this with the music channels from your digital cable box, and Dish Network!
Hey RIAA guess what?........ it's over!  | |
|
| | | | | | | Rash
Ouch
Premium
join:2002-09-27
Walkersville, MD
clubs:
| said by Pir8 Pete:
Can you access the digital stream to XM or Cirius? That would seem to be a perfect way to make MP3s. Anyone hear of this being possible?
XM does have PCR or PC radio I haven't really looked into it but I assume it is a pci card reciever. | |
|
| | | | | | |
wakeup
@adelphia.net | streamripper/winamp/shoutcast/123 easy...
if you can swallow 128kbps rips... i can't... | |
|
| | | | | 
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| said by bobco:
I didn't hear the RIAA crying about lost profits back in 1985.
In 1985, (the original)MTV was still showing videos, artists and bands actually toured to promote their albums, and the most popular local radio stations were playing the latest hits of the current artists. Today, the radio airways are filled with shock jocks / talk and classic hits of the 70s and 80s. The top tours include artists that I listened to in the 70s (The Rolling Stones, KISS, Aerosmith, Bruce Springsteen, The Eagles, Cher, Fleetwood Mac, etc.). And the most popular show on MTV is Ozzy and his dysfunctional family. Maybe the cliche' that they don't make them like they used to holds true for the music biz.
Even the success the music industry enjoyed a couple of years ago when copies of CDs by Britney, Christina, and the boy bands were flying off of the racks are ancient history.
It's ironic that Jimmy Page can dust off some old audio tapes, as well as some old film and video, and turn them into a successful CD and DVD. Couple that with people's willingness to pay $177.50 per seat to see The Eagles suggest to me that the market is still there - it's just a case that the RIAA and it's members are just too clueless to find it. And that is something that 300+ copyright infringement lawsuits won't fix.
RIP Warren Zevon 1947-2003 | |
|
| | | | | 
Polaris5
All Hail, The Vulture From Van Nuys
join:2002-03-26
old RIA of A
| said by bobco:
Should the subpoena process be used for an infringement so someone can sue me? If so then I should be able to get a subpoena without a judge's signature for every spam email I get, or blocked intrusion on my firewall for some backdoor virus.
Ask yourself why you can't. Then ask yourself why the RIAA/MPAA was able to secure numerous legislative changes to protect the copyright companies' business models, while to this day there's NO enacted Federal legislation to combat spam, widely cited to have a far more damaging effect on economic production than the decline in sales or profits potentially attributable to file sharing.
Nor are there powerful Federal penalties for identity theft or corporate negligence in allowing private consumer information to be made available to a party that abuses it.
Maybe people should choose new representatives in Congress  . | |
|
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs:
| Legal strategy for all those sued If you are one of the unlucky .000000002% of traders to get a lawsuit from the RIAA and 1) want to hurt the RIAA more by sucking up their money on lawyers and 2) are open to relocation here is your battle plan.
1. Move to Florida or Texas NOW!, these two states have very generous local rules on homestead exemptions and other bankruptcy related protections not found elsewhere. (find a job there before you move so that the RIAA can't say you moved with the intent to defraud)
2. Represent yourself and be difficult, but not an ass. Lawyers HATE going against non-lawyers. Muck things up. Get a long haired law professor or two at the closest law school to help with your case and assign student attorneys to help you paper them to death with every conceivable motion under the sun. More paper = more money from the RIAA at $375 per hour. This can be your hobby.
3. postpone, delay and drag on. Whenever you get a day off schedule a "settlement" negotiation. Be engaging and thoughtful, but always back off at the end and say, I'll take my chances in court. (nothing says $$$$$ like a Partner, two associates and a paralegal around a table for and hour or two). Repeat as often as they will meet with you. (eventually the lawyers may catch on and work with you to bilk their client out of money...they're not above it)
4. DISCOVERY!! Ask for every contract between the label and any artist that they claim you infringed upon, make them PROVE they have the legal right to enforce the copyright on EVERY DAMN SONG. Contest the admisability of each and every document, demand authenticated originals, seek to depose artists and the executives who negotiated the contracts to prove that they are authentic. Repeat the above with every piece of evidence you and your eager beaver law students can think of.
5. Trial...Speak slow, ramble, call everyone and anyone you can think of. Hopefully you law professor will agree to come in and represent you at trial. He'll take twice as long as a regular lawyer and try weird stuff, since he's tenured and every hour in court is an hour away from bothersome students. Make it LOOOONNNGGG. Trial time for the RIAA will be nearly $2000 per hour with the attorneys and support staff all in, make it last.
6. Accept the fact that they will win.
7. Appeal anything and everything.
8. Become a media martyr. Make sure you get on inside edition and E! 3 or 4 times. Ask people to contribute to a trust to pay your living expenses (NOT your judgment or your legal fees... YOUR LIVING EXPENSES going forward and it should be in trust, not owned or managed by you).
9. when all appeals are done.. declare bankruptcy and make the RIAA eat the bill 100%. Since you are in Florida or Texas, your house and car are safe (avoid owning a car, lease that puppy). Put any excess cash into your house prior to the judgment and take a fat line of credit on it).
10. your credit will be crap for 7 years, but hey... let's face it... it probably would have been anyway.
If enough of those sued use these tactics the legal fees will put some serious hurt on the RIAA. Aim for $1M in RIAA legal fees by the time you are done with them. You can do it!! | |
|
| joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: Legal strategy for all those sued I don't think the wife would go for that, on several levels.
I have a better idea. If you are sued by the RIAA, cut your losses and settle! Chances are they will be hungry for some PR-friendly early settlements, and you can probably cut a decent deal.
Best advice, of course, is don't get legal advice from an Internet forum. | |
|
| |
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs:
| Re: Legal strategy for all those sued They want to make examples, not friends. I doubt there will be any hug and a handshake settlements offered. It's the classic prisoners' dilemma, if some take settlement they win and most traders loose, if all take settlement they win and all traders loose, if all traders fight like hell, they loose on all fronts. | |
|
| | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: Legal strategy for all those sued said by Yowzaaah :
They want to make examples, not friends. I doubt there will be any hug and a handshake settlements offered. It's the classic prisoners' dilemma, if some take settlement they win and most traders loose, if all take settlement they win and all traders loose, if all traders fight like hell, they loose on all fronts.
I dunno, most settlements on previous lawsuits are in the $10,000 to $15,000 range, while, at $750 a song times 1000 songs, the minimum lawsuit would be $750,000. If the RIAA offers some reasonable settlements, I think a lot of people would bite.
If you're sued for $750,000 and are offered a settlement for $5,000, paid over time, that would have to be awfully tempting. | |
|
| | | | 
mxy15
join:2000-09-12
Kendall Park, NJ
| Re: Legal strategy for all those sued If you're sued for $750,000 and are offered a settlement for $5,000, paid over time, that would have to be awfully tempting. This would be tempting but do what a big corporation would do. Accept the settlement but on the condition of admitting no wrong doing.  | |
|
| | | | Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC
| If you settle, you have to pay. I don't know about most of you, but 10-15k is a lot to scratch together.
I would rather be saddled with some ridiculous amount (750k-100Bil) that I will never have to pay. They couldn't even set up a payment schedule for that amount of money.
Either way you'll be found guilty, but the long road in court will be less costly for you, and more detrimental to the RIAA. | |
|
| 
furlonium
Computer Over? Virus equals Very Yes?
join:2002-05-08
Bethlehem, PA
| said by Yowzaaah :
....10. your credit will be crap for 7 years, but hey... let's face it... it probably would have been anyway.
lmao | |
|
| |
| | |
| str7
join:2003-07-04
canada | The funniest thing is that if someone is successful in dragging the media's attention, they can probably make a fortune after the trial with the rights to their story, tv and radio apparitions. | |
|
| Rash
Ouch
Premium
join:2002-09-27
Walkersville, MD
clubs:
| Ahahha I am still laughing.. Ah that was creative.. My favorite part is "This can be your hobby".. Ah I needed a good laugh. If everyone did that then RIAA would go bankrupt but unfortunately people WILL take the settlements and in a few years we all will have forgotten about this, that is unless you are one of the unlucky ones sued.
--
My World | |
|
|
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI | The simplest one is to verify that the party bringing suit is the actual copyright holder. The RIAA is an industry organization and is not the actual copyright holder. | |
|
| | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: Legal strategy for all those sued said by J D McDorce :
The simplest one is to verify that the party bringing suit is the actual copyright holder. The RIAA is an industry organization and is not the actual copyright holder.
That may be simple, but it won't work. An industry organization can sue on behalf of its members. | |
|
| | |
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs:
| Re: Legal strategy for all those sued ...Provided the company has assigned the right to sue and prosecute claims on it's behalf to the trade org.
Better to gum up the works at the start and contest that the label ever had title to the song. There are a fair number of disgruntled "artists" who would love a platform upon which to sing their rendition of "my label screwed me" and the ever popular "they stole it from me and made me their slave". I'd also explore whether any of the artists were high and known by the label to be high at the time they signed. | |
|
| Gettinbye
join:2003-07-11
Klamath Falls, OR
| In a matter of days, P2P could be made "untouchable" be the long arm of the RIAA by using our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Seems a person can make a "religion" out of about anything these days...why not P2P? I know it sounds unreasonable, but it would absolutely fly, based on a premise such as: "we believe that all people are interconnected in some cosmic way and sharing information with one another is the road to enlightenment". Sounds a bit far-fetched, but it would take little to convince the Supreme Court that a following of 1 million+ constitutes a religion! When someone picks up this thread and does something with it, would be nice to have at least a little recognition for the idea... | |
|
| | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: I have a workable solution(no kidding!) said by Gettinbye :
In a matter of days, P2P could be made "untouchable" be the long arm of the RIAA by using our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Seems a person can make a "religion" out of about anything these days...why not P2P? I know it sounds unreasonable, but it would absolutely fly, based on a premise such as: "we believe that all people are interconnected in some cosmic way and sharing information with one another is the road to enlightenment". Sounds a bit far-fetched, but it would take little to convince the Supreme Court that a following of 1 million+ constitutes a religion! When someone picks up this thread and does something with it, would be nice to have at least a little recognition for the idea...
Uh, freedom of religion does not equal freedom to break the law or immunity from civil lawsuits.
Otherwise, people would have long ago started the "Church of the Joint". | |
|
| | |
amen that shizzle
@comcast.net | Re: I have a workable solution(no kidding!) Good joint, er, I mean, point. | |
|
| | | | Rash
Ouch
Premium
join:2002-09-27
Walkersville, MD
clubs:
| Re: I have a workable solution(no kidding!) When I was listing to CNET radio today on XM The David Lawrence show had a lawyer on talking about his lawsuit against RIAA, The lawyer made an interesting point I had never thought of. If the rest of the world would follow RIAA and their interpretation of copyright laws every single person who uses the internet is guilty of copyright infringement. How you might ask? Well you visit websites the images from those websites are stored in you cache.. What did you just do? You downloaded someones copyrighted work.. Seems like the copyright laws need to be changed.
Edit* I forgot to say why he is bringing suit against the RIAA, he is trying to block their amnesty program because it is deceiving and the only thing it does is allow the people that take the offer to incriminate themselves.
--
My World
[text was edited by author 2003-09-10 06:19:39] | |
|
| | | Gettinbye
join:2003-07-11
Klamath Falls, OR | Can't argue that logic(sniffle)...Will have to think on this a little longer... | |
|
mystery45
join:2001-06-13
Titusville, FL
| the reason for that is there was some kinda of copy right that passed and was agreed to by all parties that allowed the radio stations to play the songs. the RIAA tried the same thing with the radio stations a long time ago. they got together and said we will pay you X amount of dollars but we have the right to play your music all of the artists said yes and there ya have it. | |
|
MrBradTX
join:2001-05-23
Carrollton, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| CDs or not, it's no defense From the article:The woman, known so far only as "nycfashiongirl", is being sued for sharing as many as 900 files on her PC, but argues that the songs all came from CD's the family owned. The copyright infringement isn't that "nycfashiongirl" had copies of songs on her PC; it's that she was offering copyrighted works to others without the consent of the copyright owners.
Where the songs originally came from is irrelevant. "I own the CDs" is not a defense. | |
|
| str7
join:2003-07-04
canada
| Re: CDs or not, it's no defense Well the offense is not "offering" but distributing the files. I can put a sign on my door "I sell my neighbour's cars", yet I can't be sued for it until I actually sell one of my neighbour's car... Likewise, if I sell drug to someone but never deliver, the crime isn't drug dealing but fraud. From what I've seen of their methods, they don't download the songs, so it's their words against hers. If she possesses the CDs to all the songs, until she has distributed songs, then she hasn't done anything wrong. Even then, what is considered distribution isn't clearly defined, so she could get away with it that way.
Anyway, right now she's just arguing that she can't have due process and that it's against the constitution. If it gets farther, we'll see what kind of defense she'll go with. | |
|
another Joe4
join:2003-01-13
Troy, MI
| What about the artists? If the RIAA starts winning all these huge settlements when will the artists stand up and say "where's my cut"?
IMHO, I dont feel that the RIAA will share because their position on representing the artist really isnt a position at all.
I think I hear some artist out there complaining about not being able to afford their 10th $100,000 car. | |
|
| joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: What about the artists? I don't believe the RIAA think it will make some huge windfall off settlements. I doubt it will ever recover in court what these suits are costing.
I think this is more about discouraging file sharing than really wanting money from the settlements. | |
|
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: What about the artists? said by joebear29 :
I don't believe the RIAA think it will make some huge windfall off settlements. I doubt it will ever recover in court what these suits are costing...
Actually, the RIAA may have to impose a special tax on artists to cover the costs of suing all these infringers.
...wouldn't put it past them. | |
|
dardin
join:2002-11-19
Tucson, AZ | Wired Magazine Summed up the RIAA best.... "Only in America does a business sue its customers when they stop buying their products." | |
|
Rcdude10tc32
Eat Mcdonalds, Die Happy
join:2003-04-10
Cary, IL
| Lawsuit Limit so it's lawsuit #695372
Do you think i could file up a lawsuit on them for having too many lawsuits??
"So boys who we suing today??"
[text was edited by author 2003-09-08 17:42:22] | |
|
| joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: Lawsuit Limit said by Rcdude10tc32 :
so it's lawsuit #695372
Do you think i could file up a lawsuit on them for having too many lawsuits??
You can file a lawsuit for any reason. Just don't expect to win. | |
|
|
| str7
join:2003-07-04
canada | Re: wondering hmmm you can do it even more easily... you can output a wave from an mp3 using winamp, then re-encode it...
Or you could hex the file I think. | |
|
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | If she was smart... She would have turned her SHARING off, like I have. | |
|
| 
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | Re: If she was smart... You shouldn't leech. | |
|
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL
| What if ISPs offered private ip addresses? What if isps offered private ip addresses? The isp couldn't identify you, and you'd be safe from worms like blaster. And they could even pass on the savings of not having to buy an ip addy for you. Of course, if you needed a public ip address, you could get it. | |
|
| wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: What if ISPs offered private ip addresses? I'm pretty sure that private addresses on a public network would fail miserably. Those ranges are not permitted on the internet at all because they are "private" for internal use. This is so that you will never run into a conflict with them on the internet. Because they are private.
(How many times can I run that in a circle???)
puritan | |
|
| |
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | Re: What if ISPs offered private ip addresses? I meant assigning in the 192.168.1.xxx range with nat. | |
|
grantwal
join:2000-11-01
Hixson, TN
|  They don't want to stop copywrite theft!!!
We've all seen Behind The Music. All the bands that have been screwed by labels. The RIAA wants to be the only source for music. In todays world you can crank out your own CD's in your basement. The RIAA wants to stop THAT.
Getting the traders to stop swapping copywritten music is just an excuse.
I turn off the radio every time I hear a song by an artist who has openly supported RIAA.
--
Grant Wallace
Hixson, TN
Happy @Home user since April 2001
Let's face it, none of us are getting out of this life alive. | |
|
|
|
|
David & Goliath
·
Check this out
·
Not the course of action I would take, but a great read. Thanks for the laugh. 
wondering