 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | SpeakEasy Rolls over for RIAA So, get this: one of my co-workers gets an email sent to him by SpeakEasy's abuse department. Apparently, the RIAA had sent a complaint to SpeakEasy about my co-worker's FTP server. But, get this, in the body of the RIAA letter, it states that they found "0" files. In other words, it RIAA is doing blind, scripted network scans for anonymous ftp servers. Their script then logs in and counts .mp3 (and similar) files. It makes no attempt to determine the content of the .mp3 (so, if you happen to have recorded your garage band's music in MP3 - music you own the copyright to - it would turn up in their scan). It then generates an automated email with a count of the files found. So, if you run an anonymous server with no .mp3's, they send a "0" file. SpeakEasy just forwards it along to you without bothering to note that you are DOING NOTHING WRONG.
Nice work guys. Way to be thorough and pay attention to details (did it really make sense to forward a bogus complaint?). Way to just roll over for the RIAA. Nice to see that you have less spine than Verizon did.
-tom
--
You can be only -so- accurate with a sledgehammer. |
|
|
|
| Ahh...further proof that SE indeed has gotten a little 'too big for its britches' and can't keep up. What would be more simple than an automated system with no checks/no human intervention. I surely hope that its just a situation of an employee missing something small along the way.
Common sense dictates that before you send a letter out from the ABUSE department that you INVESTIGATE the alleged issue first.
/still irritated |
|
KatOakVIP
join:2001-09-10
Seattle, WA | reply to nixen
Give me a break. Responding in the manner in which we are legally obligated as a company is hardly "rolling over." We pass these complaints along to customers all the time -- mostly as a heads up and a reminder that this kind of activity is going on, regardless of the scan result. It's meant as a friendly heads-up that the customer should be aware that they are on the RIAA's radar.
Would you like to take the RIAA on? Please -- by all means, be my guest.
--
Kat Oak
Speakeasy
kat@speakeasy.net |
|
| reply to nixen
ferricOxide
Do you think it would be possible to get a copy of this letter from your friend posted here? I would be curious to see how they wrote it... |
|
| reply to KatOak
Kat is correct in one sense here...they are not "rolling over" exactly. Until the files in question (assuming there are illicit files in place) are removed, Speakeasy harbors as much responsibility as does the end user. Frankly, most companies have a flat policy that anytime they are contacted by RIAA, feds, etc...about situations like this just disable the account until the customer calls in and speaks with an net admin....
Frankly, if I got a letter like that from SE and I didn't have any files...I would be forever greatful for them...and then I would quickly relocate my movies and mp3's...you know...assuming I had some...which of course I don't. 
Kat - While I am not willing to take on the RIAA on my own, I think perhaps together you and I could. Up for a little game of cat and mouse with the 'ole RIAA? |
|
KatOakVIP
join:2001-09-10
Seattle, WA | reply to nixen
This also bears little resemblance to the Verizon lawsuit -- we're not giving any information over to the RIAA. If we have a customer that is breaking the law - even if we don't necessarily like the law - we are responsible for upholding that law and informing our customer that they should cease & desist that activity. We do it with all types of issues -- a report of copyright violation is just one of them.
I might consider taking on the RIAA - in another life.
--
Kat Oak
Speakeasy
kat@speakeasy.net |
|
| But common Kat...if you take them on now...another life is what you might get....or need anyway... |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to KatOak
said by KatOak:
Give me a break. Responding in the manner in which we are legally obligated as a company is hardly "rolling over." We pass these complaints along to customers all the time -- mostly as a heads up and a reminder that this kind of activity is going on, regardless of the scan result. It's meant as a friendly heads-up that the customer should be aware that they are on the RIAA's radar.
However, in this instance there were no illicit files. The letter that was forwarded said as much by indicating that they had found "0" files. How is it your legal obligation to assist the RIAA in harrassing people who are doing nothing wrong?
What this reads more like is that you are using an automated system to get these RIAA automated nag letters routed to the given IP holder. It reads like your abuse department is not actually investigating the complaint to see if it is valid. As such, you are participating in harassment.
It is not just a "friendly reminder" when an unwarranted letter comes to you from the RIAA by way of your ISP's Abuse department. You are helping an outside entity attempt to intimidate your customer base. So, by participating in the harassment process, you are, in fact, "rolling over".
-tom
--
You can be only -so- accurate with a sledgehammer. |
|
| reply to KatOak
How is the RIAA getting users IP addresses to login to the FTP? |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | said by Sebastian:
How is the RIAA getting users IP addresses to login to the FTP?
Real simple: one selects a CIDR that to investigate; they then run a portmap scan against that netblock, looking for servers that or listening on specific ports - in this case port 21; you then do an anonymous login and recursively search the server for the targeted file extensions (most likely .mp3); a quick whois -h whois.arin.net IP and they have the email address of the ISP to complain to. It's fully automatable, but, in this case, has ZERO intelligence (I mean, they didn't even bother to set up their script to not generate reports when it found NO files!).
Most likely, they are simply doing recursive nlist *.mp3 and seeing how many entries they find. It's doubtful that they are even downloading any of the files found (this is meant to be quick and cheap, but downloads suck up bandwidth and time). Unless they modify their scripts to download and analyze the actual contents of the files, they cannot determine whether the files contain stolen IP.
It's very indiscriminate. Frankly, it should be illegal for them to do so. Essentially, they are acting in a fashion similar to all the other script-kiddies out on the net. Unfortunately, our government has seen fit to allow this type of behaviour to go on.
Fortunately, one can always run TCP Wrappers, packet filters, etc. to keep them out (once you've identified the source addresses). It'd be nice to not have to offer anonymous FTP, but you can't act as an OpenSource software mirror and not have anonymous logins.
-tom
--
You can be only -so- accurate with a sledgehammer. |
|
KatOakVIP
join:2001-09-10
Seattle, WA | reply to nixen
It's not an automated system, it's monitored by humans on the abuse team, and we pass these along because of both legal obligation and to let the individual know that the scanning is going on. What you're waging is basically a semantic argument regarding the meaning of "rolling over." We're not harassing anyone by informing them of notices we receive specific to their circuit - and the RIAA's right to request possible piracy of copyrighted material cease & desist isn't harassment either. The point here is that there is a law in place that all parties are obligated to recognize.
--
Kat Oak
Speakeasy
kat@speakeasy.net |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | How does one have "possible piracy" when their own tools report NO SUSPICIOUS FILES?? Does the mere fact that one operates an FTP or other file server constitute "possible piracy"?? If so, then do Sunsolve and other similar sites that offer anonymous file download of files also fall into the realm of "possible piracy" sites. If so, it all sounds rather indiscriminate.
The basic fact is, their C&D was indiscriminate and groundless. Therefore, it was harassment.
-tom
--
You can be only -so- accurate with a sledgehammer. |
|
KatOakVIP
join:2001-09-10
Seattle, WA | The RIAA's tools/practices are automated to my knowledge, but our passing along this scan result to our customers was not automated and we elected to do so because of the reasons that I've already stated. You disagree with these reasons -- that's fine. It still doesn't make it harassment.
--
Kat Oak
Speakeasy
kat@speakeasy.net |
|
 borborpaSlipping Slowly Into OblivionPremium
join:2002-02-20
New Cumberland, PA | I have to agree with Kat here. Maybe your friend was at one time trading illegal files, who knows. At least it lets people know that the RIAA are bastards, and doing things like this in order to scare people. SE is merely passing along information to you, letting you know. If they cut off service, then you'd have a reason to be upset...
--
I used to care, but now I take pills for that... [AIM - BoyBandsMakeUGay] |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | said by borborpa:
I have to agree with Kat here. Maybe your friend was at one time trading illegal files, who knows. At least it lets people know that the RIAA are bastards, and doing things like this in order to scare people. SE is merely passing along information to you, letting you know. If they cut off service, then you'd have a reason to be upset...
In point of fact, there were never illegal files on the host in question. That host was primarily a mirror for certain OpenSource and platform specific software. Hence, the requirement for anonymous ftp.
If SpeakEasy's system for dealing with the RIAA stuff is truly NOT automated, then a different response would have been appropriate. It would have made more sense for them to have sent a reply directly to the RIAA stating that, by the RIAA's own tool report, there were no illegal or even suspicious files provably present. Such a letter should have been Cc'ed to the FTP server owner if SpeakEasy wanted to provide a "friendly reminder". Lord knows it would have been a lot "friendlier" if SpeakEasy had shown more interest than simply passing along a threatening letter without sign of consideration.
-tom
--
You can be only -so- accurate with a sledgehammer. |
|
| reply to borborpa
said by borborpa:
..If they cut off service, then you'd have a reason to be upset...
first, there would have to be solid evidence for them to do so. Speakeasy allows just about every type of server, just because one has files with an .mp3 extension doesn't mean the end-user is breaking any copyright laws, as one already mentioned.
i do find it illegal, being their scanning your computer without your knowledge, one can argue this to the full extent. |
|
 Mirazh
join:2001-03-01
Mountain View, CA
| reply to nixen
said by nixen:
If SpeakEasy's system for dealing with the RIAA stuff is truly NOT automated, then a different response would have been appropriate. It would have made more sense for them to have sent a reply directly to the RIAA stating that, by the RIAA's own tool report, there were no illegal or even suspicious files provably present. Such a letter should have been Cc'ed to the FTP server owner if SpeakEasy wanted to provide a "friendly reminder". Lord knows it would have been a lot "friendlier" if SpeakEasy had shown more interest than simply passing along a threatening letter without sign of consideration.
That sounds completely fair to me.
Much better than a "OH SH!T Whats this about" email....lol
Wow now I'm kinda wonderin if I'll get an e-mail cause I have n FTP on my line...so my wife can update her webpage remotely..you know.....oh boy;).
[text was edited by author 2003-05-08 22:48:11] |
|
| reply to nixen
Hmm. Now the RIAA is scanning FTP servers and blasting out automated messages when they find one, regardless of the files they find? Where's Kevin Mitnick when you need him...
Oh, BTW anon@208.142.64.x, Speakeasy isn't liable for the files on a customer's machine. Even the Verizon court agreed that the DSL provider was covered under 17 USC 512(a), which protects a service provider from liability whether the offending files are removed or not. |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to Mirazh
said by Mirazh:
Wow now I'm kinda wonderin if I'll get an e-mail cause I have n FTP on my line...so my wife can update her webpage remotely..you know.....oh boy;).
Will likely depend on whether or not you offer anonymous FTP service. Since only anonymous FTP allows for mass distribution of files via FTP, that would likely be the only thing they checked for. Plus, without anonymous FTP, they would not be able to login, at all, to do any file searches.
-tom
(I run account/passworded ftp for a couple of my friends so they can keep their web sites up to date)
--
You can be only -so- accurate with a sledgehammer. |
|
bclbob
join:2000-06-23
Oak Park, IL | reply to nixen
Now what would be very interesting would be to run an anon-ftp with no files, and no possibility of upload, and a pre-login banner that says something along the lines of "Only users given explicit permission to log into this system, under any user login (including "anonymous ftp"), may do so. If you do not have explicit permission you are not authorised to log in (including to "anonymous ftp") and such an act is hereby prohibited, and will be considered illegal use of this computer system."
heee. tempting! |
|
