So, tell me this...If the RIAA really wants to eliminate P2P piracy...

[CanuckAmok]

....why haven't they overtly or covertly introduced harmful files into the mix, and then used their access to the media to publicise that fact?

Hell even the *rumour* that there are files marked "Britney Spears - Oops.mp3" which contain harmful viri, spyware, worms, and trojan horses would be enough to scare most potential downloaders away.

Wouldn't that be much cheaper than hiring goon squads and armies of lawyers to catch and sue 13 year old girls from Tempe?


edit=typo

[Calico4000]

1. Introducing harmful files

would be a felony.

[onehandle]

2. They'd get their asses sued off....

There's a reason that Microcrud is putting bounties on hackers and virus creators.

[CanuckAmok]

5. Well, duh...I'm not saying they would admit to it...

it would be an "unknown third party", and the RIAA would merely be publicising the fact that *someone* was doing this.

And (without much legal background), I wonder, would it be a felony if the corrupted file was technicaly their property, and not meant for unlicensed download?

It's kind of like keeping sulphuric acid in a discarded 7-Up bottle in your fridge. Someone breaks into your house, drinks the acid, and dies. How well would that hold up in court?

[Calico4000]

7. You obviously

have a limited understanding. There would not be an "unknown third party". It would be blatantly obvious on a P2P network who was offering what. All you would have to do is take a look at the IP and realize it was RIAA.

"And (without much legal background), I wonder, would it be a felony if the corrupted file was technicaly their property, and not meant for unlicensed download? "

Yes, of course. Any computer activity meant for malicious harm is a felony. If a person codes something harmful (i.e. a virus/trojan/etc) it is technically that persons property. They can put a disclaimer saying "not meant for unlicensed download", (as has been done) but that person is still going to jail if it ends up causing enough damage.

"It's kind of like keeping sulphuric acid in a discarded 7-Up bottle in your fridge. Someone breaks into your house, drinks the acid, and dies. How well would that hold up in court? "

Not at all. The statues on the matter provide NO exceptions to the rule. If you distribute code INTENDED to cause harm to other systems it IS a crime and you will NOT be clear if you put a warning, claim no one was meant to get it, etc.

[Intelsucks]

3. I think they wanted to actually do that, but were told "no"

I think it was less than a year ago. I remember hearing about it in the news.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) proposed it.

And it quickly turned out his website used ilegally copied software. Which rightly got him in the Top Ten. I myself nominated the bozo.

Edit: HTML brainfart

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

4. Sorry but anybody who downloads a Britney Spears song

deserves to have their computer sickened with viruses . Her music is sickening enough ...

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. Aha!

I have heard that they have done just that. Is it true? Perhaps.

Take it from a 27 year veteran of the music business: The majority of the people who run it are unsavory critters, and that's about the best I can say about them. They have been extorting and defrauding the artists for years. Do you really think they would flinch at doing the same thing to their customers? I don't.

[Az]

8. They did release some types, but not destructive

There have been dumps of mislabeled files, partial files, and other misdirections. But if they introduce a directly harmful file they will be guilty of several computer crimes and be held responsible for any damage.

[jimbo fett]

10. Buy directly from the artist - independent artists. They sell their music

online and usually for much cheaper than the big labels. And lot of it is just as creative, talented and good (if not better) than the music being released by big labels and heard on the radio.

And you can also have the satisfaction of knowing your money is going directly to the performers (with a percentage going to their online tranaction vendor).

[Kamika]

11. Oooh they would get so sued..

Damn I wish they would do that.. I would be able to retire