Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Attacks Sites Participating in Its Own Campaign

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the need-to-get-your-stories-straight-here-guys dept.

Music 384

An anonymous reader writes "The RIAA is once again at their old tricks. The band Nine Inch Nails has intentionally 'leaked' songs via USB keys hidden at restrooms during their current European tour. Sites hosting the songs are now being sent cease and desist orders. 'Ironically, with its numerous pirated downloads available, the whole album has not leaked yet. According to a source, the only leaks are the ones Reznor approved himself. And whether he realizes it or not, Reznor may be building a new option for presenting music that augments the existing CD/tour scenario.'"

cancel ×

384 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

may not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620357)

or may not....
that's the problem when your business depends on customer will to pay....not

inequity....

Huh? (5, Insightful)

g051051 (71145) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620367)

How is the RIAA attacking sites "participating in it's own campaign"? The RIAA isn't an advertising or marketing body. Did anyone check if the USB keys had a distribution license that would permit the songs to be hosted on web sites? Trent Reznor putting music on USB keys is not in itself a blanket license to distribute the songs at will.

Zonk is missing on all cylinders today, why does he still get to be an editor?

Re:Huh? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620413)

Zonk is missing on all cylinders today, why does he still get to be an editor?

Vapid shit with a technical edge.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620421)

who owns these songs? I rather suspect it isn't the artists any more.

Re:Huh? (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620557)

who owns these songs?

Once they're released, they belong to the public. The distributors steal from the public. So, yes, copyright is theft. It used to be something that "borrowed" from the public back when distribution costs were an issue. Now it justs takes and hoards and speculates.

Re:Huh? (1, Informative)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620801)

(Score:0, Troll)

Those who "defend" copyright can no longer make a logical argument for it(keeping these laws on the books now requires a certain amount bribery), so now they moderate.

Re:Huh? (2, Insightful)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620899)

Well, in point of fact you're saying something that simply isn't true, and accusing distributors of being thieves is hot-headed rhetoric and nothing more. Your post was only two lines long and didn't contain any evidence or support arguments. Did you expect to be modded informative?

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense (1, Troll)

Headcase88 (828620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620975)

Or maybe, just maybe, it's because people won't spend millions of dollars producing a movie / video game / etc. just so they can distribute it for free and make no money off of it, effectively wasting the millions of dollars they spent producing it.

Just maybe.

Something to chew on.

Actually, I think all stores should just give away all of their products for free. Then we wouldn't have to worry about that pesky "money" at all, everyone will have what they want, and the world will be perfect! Damn, can you believe no one else has thought of that? I must be a genius or something.

You can cut the sarcasm with a knife (0, Flamebait)

Headcase88 (828620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621077)

Oh shit, sorry for responding to my own post, but I just realized that if everything was free, people would just take advantage of the system, not do any work whatsoever, take as much shit as they possibly can, and all of human civilization would crumble in a matter of days.

Sorry about giving so many of you guys false hope.

Re:You can cut the sarcasm with a knife (2, Interesting)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621249)

i think that if everything were free, then people wouldn't tend to hoard. a big reason people buy so much crap now is that they're bombarded with ads. not that (most) people see an ad and immediately go into "must-go-buy-consumer-product-655321" mode, but they hear ads, their friends hear ads, they want to be like their friends, etc. sort of a one-ups man ship type thing.

if everything were free, i'm sure we'd see a glut of "gimme gimme gimme" right away, but then it would taper off as people realize they only have enough space for so much.

i found myself in a similar situation in regards to pirated music. when i first got introduced to bit torrent, i went nuts downloading everything i might ever be interested in having the ability to listen to. then i filled up my hard drive. then another. then i was faced with buying more storage, or tapering off my consumption of "free" music/movies/whatever. it started to cost something to store it all.

the other issue is that i don't need to download it all, since it's mostly all available anytime i want it. it's just a matter of finding a source for it.

people won't be in such a rush to get the latest greatest thing once it's all available for free, cos they can get whatever they want, whenever they want. there'd be no false sense of scarcity, etc.

i'm not saying that everything should be free, nor that there wouldn't be a slew of problems inherent in such a system. i'm just saying that i don't think the current consumer mentality would transfer over if all of a sudden every product and service were all of a sudden free. as in beer.

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

Crazy Man on Fire (153457) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620425)

Exactly. Just because they authorized the distribution of some promo copies of an upcoming release doesn't mean that the people in possession of those promos are authorized to distribute them to others. Yes, it is stupid of them to be killing the buzz around the album by sending these takedown notices, but I don't think they have a choice but to go after the people violating copyright.

Re:Huh? (2, Insightful)

BDPrime (1012761) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620485)

I think Interscope and Reznor knew that if they left a thumb drive in some bathroom so some dude could find songs on an upcoming album, that the music would probably end up being distributed online. They may not have explicitly authorized it, but they knew.

That being said, don't you know that anytime an industry makes its customers actually pay for something, it's a serious crime in these quarters?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620569)

Its entrapment!

People LIKE to share things. If i buy a movie, im not going to say "you cant watch this, buy your own copy if you want to see it", ill let them come see it with me. What we are talking about here, however, is digital information, very different. It requires a computer to be able to read and listen to it. What one thing computers are used for these days? Sharing information over a network? Correct. Thats the only reason anyone has a computer, if they couldent be networked, then really, what good is owning your own computer for 80% of the population? The simple fact is: anyone who would have thought the songs wouldent get shared is a moron. Of course the people who found the songs are going to share them with their friends, but you know what, they are not going to share the USB key, odds are, they would simply send their friends the songs over the internet because its much easier then sending the key itself, and now both of you can listen to the songs. And those friends no doubt have other friends they will send them to, and so on. Its only a matter of time before someone shares the song on bittorrent, or has their entire music collection shared on p2p software, its virtually inevitable that this would happen if the songs where good (which is always debatable)

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620611)

Well, the fact that the songs were distributed on USB keys and did not contain any sort of "promo license", and were literally USB keys dropped in bathrooms by the artist with no language included about copyright (or even ownership) would clearly imply that the artist was intending for the songs to be reproduced and shared. The real question here is, Why is the artist encouraging sharing of the music while the record company is handing out C&D letters? Answer: Publicity

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620675)

but I don't think they have a choice but to go after the people violating copyright

They sure do have a choice. Unlike trademarks, copyright does not become suddenly void because you did not prosecute infringements (except possibly in some fringe situations, but in this case there's definitely no danger of that happening).

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

gregmac (629064) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620923)

It's not even necessarily infringing. Case in point, open source. The authors of the work still hold the copyrights, but they've effectively granted a license to distribute it freely (GPL, BSD, etc).

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620497)

"Ironically, with its numerous pirated downloads available, the whole album has not leaked yet."

Actually, there has been a complete recording from a 'listening party' leaked and snatched off torrent sites, as well as a full, cd-quality copy leaked and yanked the following day.

Re:Huh? (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620525)

How is the RIAA attacking sites "participating in it's own campaign"? . . .

Zonk is missing on all cylinders today, why does he still get to be an editor?

How is it the editor's or submitter's fault that you disagree with the gist of TFA? The summary pretty accurately describes it. Take your beef up with billboard.com.

Re:Huh? (0)

g051051 (71145) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620589)

It's not an RIAA campaign, and the sites are not "participating" in the campaign, they're stealing the music. My beef is with the headline the editor in question used. And Zonk in general drags the quality of slashdot down by an order of magnitude whenever he's on editor duty.

Re:Huh? (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620711)

It's not an RIAA campaign

At least read TFA:

"These f*cking idiots are going after a campaign that the label signed off on," the source says.

Re:Huh? (1)

g051051 (71145) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620787)

Again, how is this an RIAA campaign? The RIAA is not the label, in case you didn't realize that. Regardless of anything else, no one has produced evidence that the distribution to web sites was authorized.

Re:Huh? (4, Informative)

(A)*(B)!0_- (888552) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620853)

When lawsuits are brought against copyright violators, the plaintiff is oftentimes the label - NOT the RIAA. The RIAA is acting on behalf of the label. The label signed off on the promotion.

Re:Huh? (1)

g051051 (71145) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620941)

The RIAA is a trade group with lots of labels. The RIAA also has rules for dealing with "intellectual property" protection that don't give the labels a lot of leeway. The RIAA sending out notices is based purely on the fact that the music in question is owned by a record company, and probably is done without the label's direct intervention.

Again, if the music on the keys wasn't specifically licensed for fre distribution, that's it, the songs aren't legal to download.

Re:Huh? (1)

(A)*(B)!0_- (888552) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621229)

"The RIAA is a trade group with lots of labels."
Really???

"The RIAA also has rules for dealing with "intellectual property" protection that don't give the labels a lot of leeway."
For some reason, I think the parent company of Interscope (surely you already know this based on your arrogant tone), has quite a bit of pull with regards to how their intellectual property is protected.

"The RIAA sending out notices is based purely on the fact that the music in question is owned by a record company, and probably is done without the label's direct intervention."
Yes, that's the amusing part of the story. The RIAA is so lawsuit-happy that they're not even taking the time to determine if the record company wants a property protected. That is indicative of a lot.

"Again, if the music on the keys wasn't specifically licensed for fre distribution, that's it, the songs aren't legal to download."
Depends on the jurisdiction.

Re:Huh? (1)

slackmaster2000 (820067) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620895)

This got me too. I expected to hear something about anti-piracy websites, not a marketing campaign which has nothing to do with RIAA. Yes, in this case the label was ok with the distribution, and therefore RIAA should not have taken any action, but the article summary completely missed this point.

My initial reaction was "huh?", and I laughed out loud when I read the top post subject :)

Re:Huh? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621215)

Do you know what an editor's job involves? I mean, the Slashdot editroll squad clearly don't, but I was wondering if you're aware that one of the traditional functions of an editor is to check reported stories for accuracy rather than just republishing them verbatim.

Re:Huh? (5, Funny)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620541)

More importantly - who steals USB drives from bathrooms?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620573)

Seriously, you don't know where they've been.

Re:Huh? (1)

CowboyJezus (1078993) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620651)

I'm sure Trent's songs weren't the only things "leaked" on that USB drive if it was found in the bathroom.

Re:Huh? (1)

EntropyXP (956792) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620727)

I would not stick anything in my computer that I found in the bathroom. Knowing slashdot here come the goatse posts.

I think you're the confused one (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620585)

"Trent Reznor putting music on USB keys is not in itself a blanket license to distribute the songs at will."

If it isn't I don't know what is anymore.

What did he put them on the USB drive for to begin with?
To _not_ get publicity?
To _not_ get the songs distributed and heard?

Seriously, it's like arresting people for taking part in a free give away.

Re:I think you're the confused one (1)

g051051 (71145) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620871)

The only pertinent questions here are: did the USB keys include a license granting rights to distribute the songs anywhere to any medium? And if so, was the person "granting" the license legally entitled to do so?

There's a difference between finding a USB key with a song or two on it and letting your friends hear it, as opposed to hosting it on multiple web sites for a free download.

Re:I think you're the confused one (2, Interesting)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620955)

There's also a difference between "a USB key with a song or two on it", and a string of left behind songs on USB sticks that are part of a campaign that the label signed off on.

I think that once it's clear that the artist is doing it on purpose, on a digital medium, in 2007, with the label's permission - that's implicit license to share it with everybody over the 'Net to your heart's content.

Re:I think you're the confused one (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621187)

This assumes the label did sign off on the 'found USB' distribution scheme. Its possible that they didn't and that NIN didn't have the right to distribute this material as they desired.


I'm not an entertainment biz lawyer, but from what I understand, writers and performers make exclusive distribution deals with record companies. Had NIN retained the right to distribute some material online, then why didn't they just put the songs up on their own website 'officially'. Leaving a USB key lying around smacks of 'plausible deniability'. In other words, they didn't have the right, but they can claim it was unintentional on their part and therefore not a violation of their contract.

Re:I think you're the confused one (2, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620977)

"Trent Reznor putting music on USB keys is not in itself a blanket license to distribute the songs at will."

There is a legitimate question of ownership here so the parent is not off base. If Trent owned the songs, he can do as he wishes. But if the record company owned them, he is not allowed to distribute them. The sad reality is that most bands have to give up their copyrights to the record company to get their first record deals. That's why some of the early Beatles songs are owned by Michael Jackson and not the Beatles themselves. These are new songs so I suspect that NiN owns them.

Ownership? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18621119)

"There is a legitimate question of ownership here so the parent is not off base."

a) the label signed off on the campaign
b) the RIAA doesn't own the songs, either the artists or the labels do

Re:Huh? (1)

B11 (894359) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620793)

Did anyone check if the USB keys had a distribution license that would permit the songs to be hosted on web sites?
Was there a license that said they couldn't? If NIN, their label, lawyers, etc didn't want these tracks to be leaked out, they should have made it explicitly clear what their wishes were.

Re:Huh? (1)

g051051 (71145) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620989)

Very true, does anyone know if there was some kind of license file on the USB key? Without knowing that, we can't know if the RIAA is acting improperly or not.

Regardless of the licensing issue, the headline is still terrible, and doesn't accurately reflect the article.

Re:Huh? (2, Insightful)

kingpetey (1054968) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620917)

Actually, the RIAA is only "an advertising or marketing body." They are essentially a PR firm with one amoeboid client: the recording industry. They aren't a political group or law enforcement agency; they're Ambassadors of Jackassery. That's why their attempts to bully P2P music sharing is so ridonkulous. Nonetheless, I agree with you that just because NIN put some songs on USB keys doesn't necessarily mean that Reznor means for everyone everywhere to have access to them. However, he has given stuff out like this before. He posted GarageBand-ready songs on his site a long time ago and invited users to mash 'em up. And really, if someone puts something like an MP3 out there on the web, the assumption HAS to be that "everyone everywhere" might potentially get access to it. Hmm, so maybe I don't agree.

Re:Huh? (1)

g051051 (71145) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621027)

They can't be "only an advertising or marketing body", otherwise they'd have no standing to send the takedown notices. As a trade group, they also have powers to "protect" the "intellectual property" of their members.

Re:Huh? (1)

gsslay (807818) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620925)

You misunderstand. The article can be used to show once more how the RIAA are the hub of all evil who eat children and crush daisies under hob-nailed boots. Therefore details like logic and facts are irrelevant.

Re:Huh? (1)

flitty (981864) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620995)

in TFA there is no mention of who is complaining about this, the source is unidentified. I think this is all just part of the marketing.
If Reznor looks like the "eff the RIAA" character, it will only increase his sales of the album. The RIAA is not going to send this to court.
Am I also incorrect in thinking that because this is released on billboard.com (not really a notable 'news' organization), that they are just putting out a press release for the record label?

Re:Huh? (0)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621001)

This is correct that the copyright holder gets to dictate how copies are distributed. The funny thing here is that if RIAA does hold the copyright and did not give permission for Trent Reznor to distribute via USB key in the restroom, then they are legally required to sue Trent Reznor for copyright infringement or risk losing their copyright.

On the other hand, if the RIAA *did* give permission and the songs *were* distributed via an anonymous "restroom" posting, they likely lost their copyright at that moment because the distribution would not be able to control who received a copy (no license, no copyright notice, no distribution control, etc.). It would be the same as the copyright holder deliberately posting the song to a public website not controlled by them with no access control nor copyright information, which would effectively put the songs in the public domain.

Interesting problem.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18621205)

"The funny thing here is that if RIAA does hold the copyright and did not give permission for Trent Reznor to distribute via USB key in the restroom, then they are legally required to sue Trent Reznor for copyright infringement or risk losing their copyright."

No, not really. That is a myth - trademark rights can be lost by lack of enforcement. The ability to stop a particular infraction (Rezner's unauthorized copying) could be lost by failing to act, but not the copyright itself.

"On the other hand, if the RIAA *did* give permission and the songs *were* distributed via an anonymous "restroom" posting, they likely lost their copyright at that moment because the distribution would not be able to control who received a copy (no license, no copyright notice, no distribution control, etc.)."

Again, not really. Each USB represented a single copy of one or more songs. Giving someone a copy does not give with it a license to make additional copies. The rights protected by copyright - copy, make derivative works, perform, display, and distribute - are protected UNLESS the holder grants permission or another exception such as fair use qualifies. The legitimate owner of the USB key (likely the finder based on laws concerning abandoned property) may sell the USB key with the copies. He may not make additional copies.

"It would be the same as the copyright holder deliberately posting the song to a public website not controlled by them with no access control nor copyright information, which would effectively put the songs in the public domain."

Again, wrong. If a copyright holder puts a song up on the web, it is likely implicitly authorizing people to download and listen to it. It is not authorizing that person to further distribute the song.

Re:Huh? (1)

UtucXul (658400) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621261)

...they are legally required to sue Trent Reznor for copyright infringement or risk losing their copyright.
I think you've got trademarks and copyright mixed there. It is only trademarks which have a requirement to defend them. Copyright has no such requirement.

Re:Huh? (1)

flug (589009) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621247)

Trent Reznor putting music on USB keys is not in itself a blanket license to distribute the songs at will.


Uhh, handing out the songs this way is pretty transparently designed to get them uploaded to P2P networks etc, get them widely distributed via the "underground", & start a buzz.

If that's NOT the reason for "leaking" them this way, then what the #$%*#% is?

Blam! (1)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620401)

Thinking there was a rat under the covers, the RIAA has shot their own sock-covered foot...

heh.. (1)

Awod (956596) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620415)

It's funny how often the quote on the bottom is relevent when the RIAA is mentioned..

"If you just try long enough and hard enough, you can always manage to boot yourself in the posterior. -- A.J. Liebling, "The Press""

You keep using that word... (5, Insightful)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620503)

Ironically, with its numerous pirated downloads available, the whole album has not leaked yet.
Ironically? So the band deliberately released a few songs (albeit in an unconventional way), but the album hasn't yet been illegally leaked. How are these two facts remotely related?

Re:You keep using that word... (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620629)

Maybe they thought it was the first reported case of intellectual property being legally available before it's on the internet? ;)

Re:You keep using that word... (1)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620741)

I guess you mean "not exactly legally" when using the "unconventional" word, because that promotion method is neither new nor rare. Of course, times change and having a few copies in cool clubs and thousands on the net do not bring exactly the same liabilities.

Re:You keep using that word... (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620851)

Most people don't know how to use the word correctly. Ask Alanis Morissette, her song, Ironic, didn't contain a single ironic incident.

Oh wait, that was the whole point of the song wasn't it?

Re:You keep using that word... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621201)

So the band deliberately released a few songs (albeit in an unconventional way), but the album hasn't yet been illegally leaked. How are these two facts remotely related?

      Not only that but if the MAFIAA were to be believed, surely the band (and probably the entire music industry) should be out of business by now due to those pesky pirates...

Tool did it differently (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620513)

Dang, I saw Tool a year ago and all I found on the bathroom floor was vomit.

Re:Tool did it differently (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620667)

Did you look under the vomit??

Re:Tool did it differently (2, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620699)

Did you try inserting it into an USB port?

Glory holes? (1)

SlashdotTroll (581611) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620543)

What if I like went near one of them Nine Inch Nails, and inserted my rock-hard USB stick in one of the *RIGHT* entries? That would be more effective, except 9 out of 10 times you get a virus on it. I patented it first. The sound of leaking music in a restroom stanks of the drippy grid, if you ashk me.

Security Standpoint (5, Insightful)

Jazzer_Techie (800432) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620563)

I just can't help but hope this doesn't catch on. Encouraging people to plug in randomly acquired USB keys is not going to be step forward in security. While I can't imagine it would be a viable option for widespread malware distribution, it could have a significant effect on social engineering one's way into closed networks. Want to infect corporation X? Put USB keys in the restrooms of places where their employees eat lunch. (Yes that could already happen and I think I've heard of it being done, and yes unneeded USB ports should be disabled, but one has to imagine that this would increase the chances of successful penetration significantly. )

Re:Security Standpoint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620827)

It has already been done in penetration testing... liberally sprinkle parking lots with RAT-infested USB thumb drives, sit back and watch the mayhem unfold in the internal networks.

Re:Security Standpoint (1)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621011)

With more and more keyboards coming with an internal USB hub, this is increasingly difficult. The box my employer gave me has six available USB ports, including two on the hub.

Maybe there's a demand out there for a computer that has one USB port on the PC and one USB port on the keyboard.

It needs to be said.... (-1, Offtopic)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620577)

Trent Rules!

RIAA (3, Insightful)

Guerilla* Napalm (762317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620581)

There's a special place in Hell for the RIAA. Right next to politicians and people who make reality shows.

Re:RIAA (4, Funny)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620691)

There's a special place in Hell for the RIAA. Right next to politicians and people who make reality shows.

Is that anywhere near the special place reserved for child molesters and people who talk at the theatre?

Re:RIAA (1)

vandoravp (709954) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620819)

Don't forget the child molesters and people who talk in the theater.

Re:RIAA (1)

vandoravp (709954) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620869)

Bah, beaten. The curses of tabbed browsing

"found" USB keys (5, Interesting)

foodnugget (663749) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620599)

I frequently take things I've found in bathrooms and put them in corresponding ports.
Seriously, USB key, or, really, anything else, who is taking things they find lying around (in bathrooms!) and putting them in their computers?
This might just give script kiddies the idea of a brand new way to start spreading worms...

I'm not sure if i'm trying to be serious or gross, here, but i do know i would not be putting a found USB key in any box of mine (esp. if it is running windows...)
Similarly, what kind of format are these being left in? MP3? WMA? something with some nasty DRM?

Re:"found" USB keys (1)

Guerilla* Napalm (762317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620685)

who is taking things they find lying around (in bathrooms!) and putting them in their...
George Michael?

Re:"found" USB keys (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620713)

You are on slashdot, and dumb enough to think that a program will magically launch itself automatically when you plug something in the usb port ?
Whatever the platform this is an option you can actually desactivate, and should do it asap it is not already done.

Or maybe you are just a troll...

Re:"found" USB keys (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621133)

No magic is required.

Some OS are so stupid as to perform an action based on file extension, but not to show what the extension is in the file browser. So double-clicking on the name "Trent's New Song" might be expected to launch RealPlayer, but in fact, if the full filename is "Trent's New Song.exe" it could cause an unintended effect.

Re:"found" USB keys (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621139)

dumb enough to think that a program will magically launch itself automatically when you plug something in the usb port ?

      Hey - if it's from SONY, it just might!

Re:"found" USB keys (4, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620965)

"Seriously, USB key, or, really, anything else, who is taking things they find lying around (in bathrooms!) and putting them in their computers?"

As if you wouldn't. You know, deep down, some little voice is in the back of your head saying "There might be something embarrasing for the owner of this key on here..." ;)

Re:"found" USB keys (4, Funny)

foodnugget (663749) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621155)

Actually, I would try it out... In someone else's computer.

USB Flash Drive RISKS (5, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620625)

When I first read the headline, it reminded me of a story that I saw on the RISKS list [ncl.ac.uk] (and if anyone can find the exact link please do so) In summary (and from memory only) it was:

1/ A security company was contracted to do a pentration test of a bank.
2/ The employees found out, so were being aware of typical social engineering type situations
3/ The security company loaded up some special USB keys that had had key logger and other software on them
4/ 15 to 20 of said keys were scattered around the door of the bank prior to opening hours
5/ With 3 days something like 75% of the keys had phoned home and were reporting that they were connected to computers inside the bank.

After reading this scenario I realised that if I saw a stray USB key I would just plug it in to see what was on it - and I would have fallen for the same trap as the bank employees

Another scenario I heard of (also on RISKS I think) was to go to the front desk of a company, ask to use the bathroom (or toilet for the rest of us), and leave a CD in a prominant location that was clearly labelled with something like "Staff reductions". It wouldn't take very long before that CD was inserted into someones computer at that company.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620903)

After reading this scenario I realised that if I saw a stray USB key I would just plug it in to see what was on it - and I would have fallen for the same trap as the bank employees

After reading this scenario I realized that if I plugged it into my Linux box, that I would see the contents of the filesystem, and not be infected unless there was a buffer overflow and the USB key's filesystem had been maliciously crafted as well. But that seems unlikely.

You could also disable autorun... But I never do, either. It's too handy. (I use Windows to run a couple programs.)

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621055)

After reading this scenario I realised that if I saw a stray USB key I would just plug it in to see what was on it - and I would have fallen for the same trap as the bank employees

There's a Windows auto-run feature for USB drives? Great. Still, you gotta admire MS's foresight in making computer infection vectors that model the real-world microbe model. It sort of sucks that you can't put a CD or USB key or other medium in your PC to examine it (unless it's been in your possession since it was in raw-material form).

This is a matter of point of view (1, Interesting)

RaigetheFury (1000827) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620649)

These songs were given out on USB keys freely. The point is that the RIAA knew the keys were being given out for free, but are trying to say "Only those people that found the keys can have the music".

Since noone purchased the music they did not subsequently agree to any copyright agreement. There was no stipulation to picking up the keys and finding the music on them.

Another example of this would be someone leaving the code to chemical equation to Cold Fusion on a napkin and then the owners who knowingly put it there say "You can't share that with anyone!". I know that's a stretch of the example but I think the RIAA fighting this is self defeating and wrong to be honest

Re:This is a matter of point of view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620813)

"Only those people that found the keys can have the music".

That would be a pretty stupid marketing campaign.

Re:This is a matter of point of view (2, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620967)

Since noone purchased the music they did not subsequently agree to any copyright agreement.

Actually, you don't have to agree to a copyright agreement to be bound by copyright law. The law serves as a sort of default set of rules that you must follow if, for example, you don't agree with the EULA on your newly-purchased software. That's what makes the GPL work, because if you don't agree to abide by the terms of the GPL, then the default - that being copyright law - applies, which forbids you from making copies in most situations.

Now, I'm not saying that the RIAA (rather, the particular record label at issue here) is doing the right thing. In fact, I yearn for the day when artists can make their living off of concerts and give away their recorded music for cheap/free, all without requiring the "services" of the record labels. But they're well within their rights to demand that other folks not create more copies of the music they hold the copyright on outside of fair use.

Re:This is a matter of point of view (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621103)

the RIAA knew the keys were being given out for free, but are trying to say "Only those people that found the keys can have the music".

      Funny - if leaving something in a public bathroom doesn't constitute putting it in the public domain, I don't know WHAT does...

      They should be careful with that marketing thing...!

Re:This is a matter of point of view (5, Insightful)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621167)

Copyright doesn't depend on any kind of license agreement.

If I find a copy of a book, I can't distribute copies of it. If I find a CD, I can't distribute copies of the CD.

Copyright is coded into law and does not depend on any sort of contract.

Who modded this interesting??

Re:This is a matter of point of view (5, Insightful)

gsslay (807818) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621171)

Nonsense. Say I attend a convention (let's say it's a Linux convention) and hear a great presentation by a Linux guru, full of great tips and insights. At the end he gives me a signed free copy of his new book! Sweet! I did not buy this book. I did not enter into any contract in obtaining this book. Does this mean I can scan the book and put it up on my website? No, because the writer retains copyright and I'd be depriving him of sales. I guess what he was saying when he gave me his book was "Only those people at this convention get a publicity copy of my new book for free. It doesn't mean you can give it to everyone else a copy too so that I never make any money from it". Now, explain to me why music is different?

Obligatories..... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620679)

....May I be the first to welcome our USB-distributing piratical overlords.....

1) record copyrighted song
2) leave copy in bar somewhere
3) ......
4) sue
6) PROFIT! (- cost of USB stick)

Will you bite the hand that feeds you? (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620697)

Does anyone else find it sad (ironic, funny, etc) that they chose to 'distribute' these songs at tour venues? In essence they distributed this song to the fans who were going to see them perform and very likely paid for their tickets/swag/CDs. Only then to turn around and use them as targets in their campaign?

USB key in bathrooms (1)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620745)

The article didn't say, but I'm guessing that these were just random USB keys in a bathroom, perhaps with a band label on it. I'm afraid that you wouldn't get me to stick such a thing in my computer, NIN or not. I'm reminded of an old hacker trick: put floppies (old trick, right?) with the label "Executive Compensation Program" on them, leave them in the public place in a building of the company you're trying to get into. Who could resist putting that in their machine and taking a look, right? But whoops! On double-clicking the .xls it doesn't work, must be corrupted. Instead, you just got trojaned, behind the network firewalls and on the intranet. Maybe I'll take some USB sticks to the next NIN concert. (Better get some black ones, I guess.) And install them with a keylogger and I can get all the MySpace passwords I want.

Re:USB key in bathrooms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18621091)

Here's another old hacker trick: use the USB key on an old or test computer that is not hooked up to your network. Any old hacker has at least one old system lying around. If you infect that computer, who cares, wipe the drive, throw it away, or donate to your local library.

Reminds me a rabid dog (3, Interesting)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620747)

RIAA reminds more of a rabid dog: Biting at friend and foe alike. An unreasoning animal with no clear objective.

I'm not sure what strategy they're pursuing, but it's not working. One wonders why member companies continue funding an organization that frequently acts against their membership's best interests and frequently paints them in a bad light. It's just astounding to me how poorly RIAA performs their task and how ineffective in achieving their objectives. And they don't seem to learn anything from past failures. It's like a corporate version of the Bush administration.

Oh Not Again (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620785)

As other posts have already mentioned some aspects of the nonsensical summary, another one is feeding the rabid fans with a USB key is somehow a new business model.

There's no new business model selling music at shows. It's already been done. Some acts even sell the show the audience _just_ saw. (as in right off the sound board with no post-production)

Even when an act does the hard work of getting in the van and doing shows at small venues for decades, you can be pretty much assured if you want the CD in Walmart, it's coming through one of the major labels. The media conglomerates operate as a cartel (have been prosecuted as such) when it comes to traditional physical media distribution.

Oh, the irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620797)

"Dystopian, apocalyptic themes are pervasive on the album...Interscope reps would speak to Billboard about the campaign, which has encompassed everything from cryptic phrases on T-shirts to Orwellian Web-Sites"

Railing against Orwellian-ness when you're represented by one (RIAA).

Don't sell Rez short - he knows his marketing... (4, Interesting)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620841)

According to a source, the only leaks are the ones Reznor approved himself. And whether he realizes it or not, Reznor may be building a new option for presenting music that augments the existing CD/tour scenario.


Um...you really think Rez's leaking songs for something other than to augment his gravy train (CD/tour)? No, like most people trying to make a living in entertainment, he's picked up some marketing savvy along the way, and is using the same "try before you buy" technique that also works when selling software, illegal drugs and laundry detergent.

The story about dropping USBs in the shitter is just a brilliant way to get even more free press: a band putting their B-sides on its web site is already quite common and won't get its story...

Has anyone (0, Offtopic)

Floritard (1058660) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620883)

heard the new songs? I'll check later when I get home, but I love nin and was just wondering the other day if trent might be near to releasing some new music. Granted nin has been downhill since downward spiral but here's hoping music released on stray USB keys on the piss covered floor of a filthy concert toilet is indicative of a "return to glory" for the band whose sound of late has had a little too much 80's sap and synth for my taste.

Re:Has anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18621041)

too much synth in a nin song? what the fuck are you talking about?

Re:Has anyone (3, Informative)

operagost (62405) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621129)

Granted nin has been downhill since downward spiral
That seems logical.

If you go to their website.... (1)

RockoTDF (1042780) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620907)

Yeah, and if you go to nin.com or check their RSS feed you can listen to the whole album there. I'm a huge NIN fan and I'm kind of disappointed, but that is beside the point. How is going online and listening to them there any different from downloading them when the album isn't actually out yet? Makes no sense to me.

Nothing new (2, Informative)

jlcooke (50413) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620921)

The Barenaked ladies did this in their last tour to support their "Barenaked for the Holidays" album.

USB + MP3 + concert.

Not to take away from Trent, big fan of his and the 'Ladies.

Is this a War ? (1)

The Media Mechanic (1084283) | more than 7 years ago | (#18620947)

What is really going on here?

The more articles I read about this lawsuit campaign by the RIAA mafia against individual citizens, and I read about counterattacks and people pooling their resources to mount an effective legal defense, the more I realize that there is a very real and very serious WAR going on. It is a War of Attrition between the recording industry and you and me. They are hoping that we will eventually cave in and resign ourselves to paying twice or thrice for something we already own.

The body count of this war are the grandmothers and senior citizens who are being sued for having a zombie botware PC.

The collateral damage in this war are our freedoms and civil liberties and the concept of private property and ownership.

Perhaps it is time to stop the battle and make peace.

Steve Jobs made a good step in the right direction by asking the music industry to stop using DRM. He's the right person for this important task. (He's sort of like a diplomat or ambassador between , to continue my analogy between warring nation-states). Basically he's one of the few high-profile individuals who has enough street cred in both the Computer Tech industry and the Media / Entertainment industry, to make REAL CHANGE HAPPEN.

I propose that we support Mr. Jobs as our peace ambassador to cease the hostilities between us (individuals) and them (RIAA).

Because really we all just want to be happy and reach a reasonable balance and enjoy good music and new media content.

Stunt pulled by securties company (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18620987)

This was similar to a stunt pulled by a security company. (i wish I could find the link again, if somebody does please post it)
This security company hired by a bank to test its security put some code on a usb drive. Then they put a bunch of pictures and jokes on it. they left them laying around different areas in and near the bank. Later some of the employees plugged them in to see what was on them. (Which loaded the hidden application first). Later back at the security companies headquarters, they were capturing employee log ins, account numbers and various other information from the bank. They turned in all the information with their report. But just goes to show what "could happen" when you grab misc. stuff from public places and load it into you PC.

Ummm (1)

thanksforthecrabs (1037698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621031)

How was the person who found the music to know it WAS NOT a public domain song??

Any Publicity is Good Publicity (5, Insightful)

qigong (688252) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621111)

It seems like the marketing brilliance of this entire scenario is being missed by a lot of people here. How much publicity would NIN gotten without the RIAA enforcement? Would we be having this discussion, for instance? This seems like a well-orchestrated stunt, and color me impressed.

  1. NIN scatter these songs around to their fans
  2. Predictably, the fans post the songs
  3. Somehow RIAA discovers this "infringement"
  4. NIN looks like the good guy, RIAA makes the news
  5. ...Profit!

How do you suppose the RIAA discovered this infringement?

If they didn't like the marketing campaign... (3, Informative)

dfay (75405) | more than 7 years ago | (#18621131)

What do you think they'll make of this?

Trent Reznor has put the full album up on the official website for promotional purposes.
http://yearzero.nin.com/ [nin.com]

(no reg: http://yearzero.nin-thespiral.com/FLJoi4gjw2f/play er.html?reg=no [nin-thespiral.com] )

This is the first RIAA-produced album I'm considering breaking my boycott for. First, because it's very good, and secondly, because even if they may get some profit from it, the message to them should be very clear.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?