RIAA + slsk???

This sounds like a problem with the interface itself. Have you tried upgrading to 156c? Tends to crash a lot less than 156.

theres definitely something up with slsk, random messages from people that just say 'eai' but arent logged on. bugs? virus? something else?

I'd try doing individual room searches, rather than using the global search function. Works better for me.

Last night I got a message from a user I was d/ling from, who wanted me to join a new room called "Comedy" he/she had created. When I didn't respond, he/she banned me, and refused to unban me until I entered this new room. Didn't matter that I had no interest in comedy nor do I share comedy-related files. Strangest thing ever.

The British music industry has secured access to the names of 33 people it suspects of sharing up to 72,000 music files on the internet.

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) applied to the High Court for internet service providers to hand over personal details of the alleged file-sharers.

The internet services now have two weeks to hand over the identities.

The BPI is seeking compensation and legal costs from those accused of distributing the music.

"This court order should remind every user of a peer-to-peer filesharing service in Britain that they are not anonymous," BPI general counsel Geoff Taylor said.

"We are continuing to collect evidence every day against people who are still uploading music illegally, despite all the warnings we have given.

"If you want to avoid the risk of court action, stop filesharing and buy music legally."

The BPI has adopted an aggressive stance over file-sharing, targeting those it believes are among the worst offenders.

It has revealed further details of another 31 people involved in a round of legal action in March.

Disable software

It says about a third of those being chased for compensation were parents of children who were using their accounts to illegally distribute music.

"The risks of allowing children unsupervised access to the internet are well-known," said Mr Taylor.

"To that long list should now be added the very real possibility of legal action if music is uploaded to the internet illegally.

"The safest thing that parents can do is check their computer regularly and disable any file-sharing software."

The UK industry previously took action against 26 file-sharers in October 2004.

Those cases have now been settled, with defendants paying a total of more than £50,000 in compensation.

-- kyle (akmonda...) (webmail), April 19th, 2005 11:58 AM. (akmonday) (later) (link)

HOW?

There is actually a company based in Victoria in London that does this, so I'm guessing EMI is behind it.

Contrary to what someone else said, these companies want file sharing to stop. Thus all the talk over the years of developing "legal" p2p viruses, etc.

This is what I do, plus I remove people from my userlist after I've finished downloading from them.

Correct.

http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

It's labels, not artists. Surprises (for me anyway) include Astralwerks, Restless, Rounder, and 4AD.

What's the point in that?

Seems wrong somehow.

On the issue of the RIAA targeting users who download files from RIAA personnel, I think this isn't the focus of the RIAA, and may even approach entrapment (at least in the US). Were the RIAA to create a campaign of enticing P2P users to download files from them, it'd be pretty hypocritical and counterproductive.

I'm pretty sure they really only focus on those users who are sharing RIAA-represented artists- same idea as the police targeting drug dealers versus drug users.

-- $V£N! (stevem7...) (webmail), April 19th, 2005.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring, but I think "they" generally refer to 'uploading' because that's the phrasing in US federal law. No idea about Britian though.

And er. How does somebody downloading something from you on Slsk not amount to uploading?

I'm not an expert here, but the FBI uses that method to bust warez groups. There was a well known group named DOD, Drink or Die, that cracked software. Their most famous release was a cracked version of Windows 95 a few months before it went retail.

Back in late-2000, 2001 the FBI started a warez site called Super Dimensional Fortress Macross (SDFM) and it became affiliated with DOD. That's how they busted them. Every single DOD member investigated that went to court was slapped with a guilty conviction too. Not one guy got out of it, and certainly none for entrapment.

I'm not sure if it would be different with your example with the RIAA... it strikes me as the same thing, though. But eh, what do I know?

hang cool, daddy-o

As has been mentioned, the RIAA isn't behind fake files. That would be the labels or third parties hired by the labels. It's been a practice for several years now. The new thing is that they've probably noticed slsk.

The RIAA only goes after people who are sharing massive amounts of files. They find this out by subpoenaing the ISPs to track usage (via the aptly titled "RIAA v. the People").

More info here:
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php

And all of this will be moot if the RIAA wins the Grokster case. Decision should come down this summer.

So i suppose things must be different in Britain than the US.

Then you shouldn't say you download in these cases, if the change of terminology makes you feel better (since anything downloaded must have been uploaded).

The RIAA only goes after people who are sharing massive amounts of files. They find this out by subpoenaing the ISPs to track usage

I believe this is incorrect. The subpoenas are not to get the ISP's to tell them who is using lots of bandwidth (if that's what you meant), but to match names with IP numbers the RIAA has determined to be associated with the Kazaa etc. nickname that had the offending files. Not sure what constitutes "massive amounts of files" either; I'm guessing plenty of people on this board are well within the norm.

i suspect neither of us actually cares very much though ;-)

but all you uploaders are going to jail

Oasis still warrants that much atention? I wouldn't be surprised if Liam found out that not many people online want his music and he demanded the labels start giving him the same sort of deterrance as the bigger bands, just because.

The thread is really not worth reading but these bots all use a name and than three numbers. They are never on-line if you try and message them and might be from this company http://www.overpeer.com/

Also highlighted what Overpeer does and got it from that thread:

* Powerful data mining and analytical tools and comprehensive information on digital music, video, game and software usage

* Provides view into over 25 billion attempted transmissions every month from 150 million unique users

* Highly effective anti-piracy solutions to disrupt the illegal sharing of copyrighted material

* Targeted promotional services for companies to capitalize on previously untapped revenue streams across content sharing networks.

So who really knows? I will still share with the whole network but won’t d/l from people with three numbers in their name. I am going to remove most of my major label artist because I want to keep sharing. I know I appreciate it when people share with me and it’s the nature of the thing after all.

From Proteus93
Soulseek Administration

#2. I regards to the netblock posted, I have seen suggestion towards it previously. For the sake of curiosity, I went about acquiring the PeerGuardian software, free of any 'blocklists', which I then went on to add the netblock to as a sole range. I then went on to perform a search for a release which is known to cause the flood of results. Absolutely nothing came up as being stopped at an IP level which would simply suggest that there is absolutely no connection made between the flooding clients and the user, if it is, in fact, accurate. For those who do not understand what is meant by that, it is not saying that the block is wrong. It is not saying that the results are not happening. All it is saying is that there does not appear to be any sort of active connection made between your own personal computer and anything on this netblock for those searches. Thus, if the fear was that searching for such would give out details (perhaps your IP address and so forth), it is not something that is actively being pursued from this netblock through these results. It is something done to make it more difficult to download files in question.

surely not true, as the whole point of p2p sharing removes that 'uploading' part of the process. if the RIAA want to continue referring to 'ticking the box that allows people to see the contents of that folder on your hard drive' as 'uploading' then that's quite a ropey grasp of basic computer science they've got. obviously i concede that either way it's copyright violation and they're legally entitled blah blah blah.

Correct. I know this is jerky of me, but I am extremely paranoid about being sued, though not quite enough to stop using the service altogether. I have a message in my userinfo apologizing for and explaining my policy, and I've just added a bit inviting people to msg me with requests if they want something from me and can no longer access it.

Seems wrong somehow.

It's not an issue of not sharing — it's not sharing but still downloading. My point was — either share when you download (even if it's just to people on your list) or don't download at all. Otherwise, it's just selfish — something box.of.rox admitted.

But the use of the term is perfectly justified. Where there is downloading, there is uploading (even if it is simultaneous and initiated by the downloader). Having a shared folder available is allowing that uploading to take place. You can download with no manual action as well (e.g. automatic software updates)--isn't that still downloading? Again, you are welcome to think up an alternative word to "download" that would change these rules and make you feel better.

Hopefully that helps the semantical problems of the terms 'uploading' and 'downloading'.

ALSO, TRY NOT REQUESTING yousendits FOR EVERY FUCKING TRACK MENTIONED ON ILM. THANK YOU.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y33/lingereffect/slsk01.jpg

I paged down and paged down and could keep doing so for quite a while before reaching the end. All results were for The Kills.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y33/lingereffect/slsk02.jpg

I hate to think of what would happen if I were to actually search for the fucking Kills.

Bizarre, anyhow...

I heard slsks lost about half its users in the past few months and most global search results bring up these bots.

Everyone i know uses DC or bittorent now.

I haven't seen any of this going on, although I've heard about it from just about every slsk user I know. Even if I do a search for "coldplay", "coldplay speed of sound" like the original post suggested or "only in it for the money zappa", I only get normal results from normal users. I haven't actually seen a "becky395" type name on slsk, and have been keeping my eyes peeled ever since it came to my attention. I am however behind a very restrictive router/firewall (not of my own doing, and often a a source of grief as allegedly I can only see about a third of the slsk network). This could well be the reason all of this business has slipped under my radar.

Can anyone else with a similar router/blocked ports situation confirm this?

http://forums.slsknet.org/BB2/viewtopic.php?t=3756&highlight=bots

http://forums.slsknet.org/BB2/viewtopic.php?t=3560&highlight=bots

http://forums.slsknet.org/BB2/viewtopic.php?t=1615&highlight=bots

check those forums .

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:15 am
Reply with quote
Hi!

I've done some investigation, and the bots all seem to be operated by a company called MediaDefender (or OnSystems). Search Google for some information about them. The good news is that they give you the fake results and disconnect immediately. I cannot be sure though that some other bot won't connect later to browse your shares.

The network range is 38.115.4.0/24 and I suggest the soulseek server and clients ban it for good.

Alex, the pyslsk dude

http://www.peerevolution.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-188

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mediadefender&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Some interesting links.

It's gotten out of hand within the past week. All my wishlist results are dilluted with bots sharing some mainstream band.

Looking back, Audiogalaxy was better wasn't it?

Where do we meet up next? I've got waaay too many oop 12"s from 1985 to not share.

Maybe theres some secret p2p out there thats very underground that functions like Audiogalxy did (one can hope)

x-post

yeah i really fear slsk is on the downward slide just like Audiogalaxy was when things were getting blocked left right and centre.

When does this court case come up that everyones been writing about lately? I doubt slsk has the money to fight anything and would be the 1st to close.

http://ilx.wh3rd.net/searchresults.php?board=2&q=audiogalaxy&mode=threads

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/12/19/financial/f115719S10.DTL&tsp=1

RIAA gives up on suing users! SLSK away, people!

http://www.musicroom.com/images/catalogue/samples/IMP0531D.jpg

they're just baiting me...

they should still sue people who don't fucking tag their mp3s.

lol, but yes!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/12/19/financial/f115719S10.DTL&tsp=1

RIAA gives up on suing users! SLSK away, people!

― akm, viernes 19 de diciembre de 2008 22:17

If by "give up" you mean "attempts to restrict net neutrality" then sure.

Oh Happy Day was, coincidentally, the last thing I used slsk for, I think.

Slsk NS is so fucking awesome btw - a new pinnacle!

oh wow we can party now!!!!

any idea how many people are still on the old server? it would be lame if everything bifurcated