RIAA + slsk???

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Alright, so I know the flack that Coldplay catches on this board and, though I agree with most of it, some shady stuff is happening on the great slsk with any coldplay search. do a search for "coldplay speed of sound", "coldplay x y", "coldplay talk", whatevs, and the app almost crashes because of the results displayed. lot's of 'em, with real shady user names and, when you list them or try to browse their files, the users apparently aren't logged on. so-- is this the first real instance of slsk being upended by the RIAA by using it's own interface against it? again, this isn't a coldplay issue, it's a slsk/ sharing issue. I could this becoming a real pattern for future releases.

― The Great Migration, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 13:48 (twenty years ago)

It's happened with every big future release recently. With Nine Inch Nails and Weezer as well.

― Hari A$hur$t (Toaster), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 13:51 (twenty years ago)

"real shady user names"?

― fe zaffe (fezaffe), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 13:55 (twenty years ago)

"real shady user names"-- as in Jacob474 followed by Angela960 followed by Susanne875 followed by Larry356...you get the picture.

― The Great Migration, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 13:57 (twenty years ago)

I doubt that the RIAA's goal is to crash a particular P2P interface- this would prevent them from completing transfers, settling with the sharing party, and getting $$$$, which, as far as I can tell, is this group's sole function. Preventing users from sharing files only hurts the RIAA's quest for your cash.

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

― cdwill, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 14:02 (twenty years ago)

Ha! Yeah, true enough, cdwill. But yeah-- 156c rocks. Been on it for a while. I posted this in a couple of chatrooms in slsk and asked others to try the same search and every one of them had the same results. So it's definitely not a version problem.

― The Great Migration, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 14:05 (twenty years ago)

it's great because it encourages slsk users to share only GOOD, hard-to-find if not unreleased music.

― $V£N! (blueski), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 14:07 (twenty years ago)

Pretty much, $V£N!. And it does seem like there's a lot more of that on slsk now than a couple of months ago so it's a decent trade-off. Still, strange shit to see happen.

― The Great Migration, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 14:09 (twenty years ago)

i only share out-of-print these days, pretty much

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

― charltonlido (gareth), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 14:10 (twenty years ago)

Slsk's search functionality has always been suspect, at least in my experience. Also, if the problem you're describing occurred yesterday, it may be due to the fact that the new Coldplay record leaked yesterday (from what I've heard), and so the sudden increase in possible hits and in searches conducted may have had something to do with it.

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

― cdwill, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 14:14 (twenty years ago)

Remember that the Brit equivalent of the RIAA are suing s1sk users. So it's no surprise that the RIAA will soon do the same.
It's however more likely that its the record companies have got someone to flood p2ps with fakes. So that when the real album leaks noone is sure what they're getting in a search.
Though maybe they get IP addresses from those who search.
Incase you didnt know they don't need to download from you to get your ip address. They can search any username they like (search the forums for how its done)

― Damonic, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 14:15 (twenty years ago)

x-post

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.

― cdwill, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 14:18 (twenty years ago)

True, Damonic, but at least in the US, the RIAA would have to prove that what a user is allegedly sharing is indeed subject to copyright and is made available in violation of that copyright. This requires successful d/l of a file of copyrighted work- just because browsing my files indicates I have a particular song or record doesn't mean I actually do.

― cdwill, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 14:25 (twenty years ago)

I've had this happen with eminem albums as well.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 14:51 (twenty years ago)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Don't know if this is the case in the resof the world.
But isn't it worrying that they can still determine your IP address?
At best it does leave you open to hackers trying to target the port you have opened.
What else can be determined from simply being connected to a p2p?

― Damonic, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 14:51 (twenty years ago)

just dont' share riaa protected stuff and you'll be fine. they don't go after downloaders.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 14:58 (twenty years ago)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4461821.stm

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.

― Damonic, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 16:12 (twenty years ago)

just dont' share riaa protected stuff and you'll be fine. they don't go after downloaders.

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

HOW?

― Open your eyes; you can fly! (ex machina), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 16:14 (twenty years ago)

I think my method is good. I only share to user list, but as soon as I download from someone I add them to list. That way I am sharing with anyone I download from and stay off the global searches.

― Laszlo Kovacs (Laszlo Kovacs), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 16:35 (twenty years ago)

But a clever BPI/RIAA man could simply share stuff that looks genuine so that people add them, then thats you. Caught.

― Damonic, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 16:41 (twenty years ago)

I wish they wouldn't keep referring to 'uploading'. FILE-SHARERS != UPLOADING YOU IDIOTS

― $V£N! (blueski), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 16:51 (twenty years ago)

It's however more likely that its the record companies have got someone to flood p2ps with fakes

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

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 16:52 (twenty years ago)

"real shady user names"-- as in Jacob474 followed by Angela960 followed by Susanne875 followed by Larry356...you get the picture.

― diedre mousedropping. Formerly Dave225, not a narc (Dave225), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 16:53 (twenty years ago)

This is just an attempt at flooding and busting the search engine. PeerGuardian blocks all the fake servers and enables Soulseek to run properly. The big problem with them is that the fake servers block stuff that has nothing to do with what they're blocking - i.e. Duran Duran Duran.

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.

― Xii (Xii), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 17:33 (twenty years ago)

My manager's Son was one of the people the BPI are extorting £2,500 from in excahnge for them not taking him to court for sharing files on Soulseek

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 18:03 (twenty years ago)

I only share to user list, but as soon as I download from someone I add them to list. That way I am sharing with anyone I download from and stay off the global searches.

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

― box.of.rox, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 18:10 (twenty years ago)

I always thought the flooding was done so you couldn't tell which files were legit and which ones to d/l, thus deterring you.

― Cunga (Cunga), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 19:28 (twenty years ago)

lol, diedre mousedropping. All I meant is that the ONLY names showing up were like that, those that are easily computer generated. Dave225 is cleary ***not*** a shady name. Unless you are a computer, in which case....

― The Great Migration, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 19:44 (twenty years ago)

I always thought the flooding was done so you couldn't tell which files were legit and which ones to d/l, thus deterring you.

Correct.

― Xii (Xii), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 19:45 (twenty years ago)

Where's that site where you can see if a band is RIAA, and hence, not share it? Elvis Costello broke my heart when he signed that letter about P2P

― WillS, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:26 (twenty years ago)

i stole his last album out of spite because of it. and I'm glad I did because it sucks!

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:29 (twenty years ago)

xpost
The site is Google, obviously, but here's a more direct link:

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

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

― 666, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:32 (twenty years ago)

Is there a an equivalent site for the BPI?

― Damonic, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:42 (twenty years ago)

Ahh this looks like it could be it
www.bpi.co.uk/about/content_file_89.shtml

― Damonic, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:44 (twenty years ago)

Theres several associations on the list. I wonder what labels are part of them.

― Damonic, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:49 (twenty years ago)

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

What's the point in that?

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:56 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, and doesn't that basically mean you're not sharing with anyone? What a guy!

― Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:58 (twenty years ago)

yeah, i was confused about that method of sharing as well. if i'm reading that correctly, you only share with the person you are downloading from only for the time it takes to get what you want?

― jonviachicago, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 21:02 (twenty years ago)

WillS here's the RIAA radar:
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/
You can search bands and albums to see if their output is represented by the RIAA.

― william m lynch (wlynch), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 21:55 (twenty years ago)

A whole thread about the dangers of sharing mp3's on P2P and then people cast stones at people who don't share? Or only share while they're downloading?

Seems wrong somehow.

― Elastique, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 22:39 (twenty years ago)

i've been meaning to start a thread about this for ages. it's happened with the beck and common albums as well - everyone has the same naming conventions and unbrowseable files. be careful out there folks!

― mark p (Mark P), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 22:40 (twenty years ago)

x-post

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.

― cdwill, Wednesday, 20 April 2005 01:17 (twenty years ago)

yeah the police never arrest drug users!

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 01:18 (twenty years ago)

They do, but they TARGET drug dealers. That's who they're focusing on.

― cdwill, Wednesday, 20 April 2005 01:25 (twenty years ago)

I wish they wouldn't keep referring to 'uploading'. FILE-SHARERS != UPLOADING YOU IDIOTS

-- $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?

― Mickey (modestmickey), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 01:32 (twenty years ago)

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?

― Mickey (modestmickey), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 01:37 (twenty years ago)

All right, according to a friend of mine who's a drug lawyer. Stuff is only considered entrapment if it isn't in your normal behavior. So if a cop comes up to someone who has never touched cocaine in their life, and says, "Hey, you wanna buy some cheap cocaine?" and they agree, it's entrapment, because they aren't usually on the street looking for a buzz. On the other hand, if he walks up to someone who they have other evidence on, they can use that exchange.
Not sure how that relates to P2P, though, if they're just going after uploaders. Maybe downloading songs from the guys?

― WillS, Wednesday, 20 April 2005 01:49 (twenty years ago)

when i think of uploading i think of placing files onto a dedicated server, rather than a transfer between 2 pc's.

hang cool, daddy-o

― ronny longjohns (ronny longjohns), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 02:05 (twenty years ago)

Just noticed that the new Oasis album (cough) was noted as leaked toady by the NME. Jumped on slsk to try the search just to see what would happen and, wouldn't you know it, the same names the plugged the coldplay search yesterday are sharing massive amounts of files for the oasis search today. coincidence? ha.

― The Great Migration (The Great Migration), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 02:11 (twenty years ago)

Lafonduh420 got all that new shit

― ronny longjohns (ronny longjohns), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 02:14 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 21 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

In this context, I was equating 'uploading' with 'sharing' and 'downloading' with, for lack of a better term, 'taking'.
I think we can all agree that a user can 'take' without ever sharing anything, and share without ever 'taking' anything from another P2P user.

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

― cdwill, Wednesday, 20 April 2005 17:14 (twenty years ago)

try searching "only in it for the money zappa" and look at what pops up. what the fuck is all that shit? even if you exclude these terms "mein rasend herz" it still shows up (for me anyway). doesn't show up on any other zappa searches though. very weird. mysterious annie789 johnny875 users as well.

― kyle (akmonday), Sunday, 1 May 2005 01:16 (twenty years ago)

i think i had that earlier today when searching for Amerie. loooots of files popped up, like, 50 of each song in only one user's folder. some 6/7 users all had this

― rizzx (rizzx), Sunday, 1 May 2005 01:23 (twenty years ago)

Theres plenty of threads on the slsk forums about this.
http://www.slsknet.org/forums/

― Arachnoid, Sunday, 1 May 2005 01:47 (twenty years ago)

yep. same prob with amerie.

― vahid (vahid), Sunday, 1 May 2005 02:24 (twenty years ago)

what happened to the homepage? is it still slsk.net?

― jmeister (jmeister), Thursday, 5 May 2005 01:32 (twenty years ago)

when was it ever slsk.net? it's slsknet.org

― shine headlights on me (electricsound), Thursday, 5 May 2005 01:35 (twenty years ago)

thats what I meant its diffeent though

― jmeister (jmeister), Thursday, 5 May 2005 01:37 (twenty years ago)

THIS THREAD HAS BEEN QUARANTINED BY THE NARC POLICE. IF YOU SUSPECT YOU HAVE BEEN TALKING TO A NARC, RESET YOUR COMPUTER AND DELETE YOUR CD COLLECTION BY SCRUBBING EACH DISC LIGHTLY WITH A BRILLO PAD.

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

― TV's Mr Noodle Vague (noodle vague), Thursday, 5 May 2005 01:43 (twenty years ago)

am I the narc in question? anyways when did it change?

― jmeister (jmeister), Thursday, 5 May 2005 01:47 (twenty years ago)

nevermind i had a pop up re-routing me

― jmeister (jmeister), Thursday, 5 May 2005 01:57 (twenty years ago)

The RIAA is reading this thread.

― The Narc In Question, Thursday, 5 May 2005 02:58 (twenty years ago)

I have had "burroughs rub out the word" in my Slsk wish list for years and was ecstatic to finally see a search result upon returning home from the market this evening. Alas, the search results seemed to have nothing to do with William S. Burroughs at all.

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...

― Kent Burt (lingereffect), Saturday, 7 May 2005 01:04 (twenty years ago)

Are The Kills on a major label then?
Looks like any new album by a band is gonna have this happening. Are these bots all over other p2ps too?

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.

― Arachnoid, Saturday, 7 May 2005 01:12 (twenty years ago)

Baloney! I still find all kinds of good stuff using the global search on slsk, and even more using individual rooms.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Saturday, 7 May 2005 01:16 (twenty years ago)

AMG says the Kills are on Rough Trade/RCA...

― Kent Burt (lingereffect), Saturday, 7 May 2005 01:19 (twenty years ago)

when the search results come up can these bots get your IP address? Or is it just wrecking tactics?

― Arachnoid, Saturday, 7 May 2005 01:24 (twenty years ago)

This is mad:

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?

― astropatty (adr), Saturday, 7 May 2005 02:01 (twenty years ago)

I'd bet it's more likely that the slsk admin is banning these bots as they infiltrate the network.

― cdwill, Saturday, 7 May 2005 02:12 (twenty years ago)

http://forums.slsknet.org/BB2/viewtopic.php?t=2258&highlight=bots

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 .

― Arachnoid, Saturday, 7 May 2005 02:37 (twenty years ago)

http://forums.slsknet.org/BB2/viewtopic.php?p=23427#23427

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

― Arachnoid, Saturday, 7 May 2005 02:40 (twenty years ago)

Crikey, to the casual observer some of the replies of that forum could be mistake for absolute rudeness.

― astropatty (adr), Saturday, 7 May 2005 03:19 (twenty years ago)

Oh they're very rude on those boards. Too many smart asses on it.

― Arachnoid, Saturday, 7 May 2005 13:42 (twenty years ago)

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/2252.cfm

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.

― Arachnoid, Saturday, 7 May 2005 15:24 (twenty years ago)

I just received 35 days privs from nir. Is this a mistake and did everyone get them?

― Arachnoid, Saturday, 7 May 2005 17:20 (twenty years ago)

i didn't get any just now, but this happens to me from time to time. I'm not sure if it's a byproduct of some kind of tweaking or just benevolence; only once did I get a whole huge number of days that then disappeared a day later.

― kyle (akmonday), Saturday, 7 May 2005 17:27 (twenty years ago)

Is slsk down for anyone else right now?

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Saturday, 7 May 2005 23:44 (twenty years ago)

Yep. I was just coming up to top of queue for Pantha Du Prince's "Circle Glider," goddamnit.

― box of socks, Saturday, 7 May 2005 23:48 (twenty years ago)

mine is down. I was just about to get some andrew bird to.

― rich brown (aerosolique), Sunday, 8 May 2005 13:48 (twenty years ago)

goddamn this shit is fucking up ALL my searches today. fuck you mediadefender, all i want is to get some mp3s of Burning from the Inside which I already fucking own on cassette and vinyl, FWIW. I am not interested in your bogus 300000 search returns for the Kills!

― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 9 May 2005 16:35 (twenty years ago)

EXACTLY!

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

― PappaWheelie (PappaWheelie), Monday, 9 May 2005 16:39 (twenty years ago)

Yeah I now get wishlist results for stuff thats not on my wishlist too.
Renders the wishlist for the dozen things i'm after useless.
Infact slsk is pretty useless for me atm. No wonder so many have jumped ship. I'm not interested in d/l mainstream stuff, i can buy that easily. Its the rare stuff i'm interested in but these damn bots are interfering with it.

Looking back, Audiogalaxy was better wasn't it?

― arachnoid, Monday, 9 May 2005 16:51 (twenty years ago)

Whats the word on why slsk has been down so often lately?

― arachnoid, Monday, 9 May 2005 16:55 (twenty years ago)

Man, AudioGalaxy was heaven. The groups function alone was supreme, and I literally would challenge the system to produce no results. Instead, I found weird intermission music from drive-in theatres.

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

― PappaWheelie (PappaWheelie), Monday, 9 May 2005 16:58 (twenty years ago)

there was a message from Nir saying it would be down a lot over the weekend, my guess is they're trying to deal with this bot madness. but if slsk is getting targeted by these groups now I think it's safe to say that we're looking at the end of slsk.

― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 9 May 2005 17:17 (twenty years ago)

The fact you could queue up something really rare and when it ever came online it would start downloading. Was great just finding something you really wanted just there in your inbox. Fantastic times.

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.

― arachnoid, Monday, 9 May 2005 17:20 (twenty years ago)

Seems Audiogalaxy was real popular on ILM too.

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

― arachnoid, Monday, 9 May 2005 18:20 (twenty years ago)

I forgot to mention they took the privs back within a few hours.

― arachnoid, Monday, 9 May 2005 19:09 (twenty years ago)

searches outside of rooms seem to have been completely disabled. in rooms, though, all seems fine. everyone to the ilm room, please...

― john'n'chicago, Tuesday, 10 May 2005 01:22 (twenty years ago)

oops. just as i sent that, all my searches that had been sitting there empty for the last ten minutes just populated...

― john'n'chicago, Tuesday, 10 May 2005 01:26 (twenty years ago)

three years pass...

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, Friday, 19 December 2008 22:17 (seventeen years ago)

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

― USICMAKEULOSECONTROL (The Reverend), Friday, 19 December 2008 22:30 (seventeen years ago)

they're just baiting me...

― STR8 FONKY HOMMIE (PappaWheelie V), Friday, 19 December 2008 22:31 (seventeen years ago)

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

― sister s (ledge), Friday, 19 December 2008 22:32 (seventeen years ago)

lol, but yes!

― Johnny Fever, Friday, 19 December 2008 22:42 (seventeen years ago)

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.

― Moka, Friday, 19 December 2008 23:10 (seventeen years ago)

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

― Cunga, Saturday, 20 December 2008 09:11 (seventeen years ago)

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

― Timezilla vs Mechadistance (blueski), Saturday, 20 December 2008 11:09 (seventeen years ago)

oh wow we can party now!!!!

― Bimble Is Still More Goth Than Your MIDNITE POWERTOOLS (Bimble), Saturday, 20 December 2008 11:15 (seventeen years ago)

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

― Tracer Hand, Saturday, 20 December 2008 12:24 (seventeen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.