|
|
| Author |
Message |
nenolod
Idler
Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 335
Location: A box!
|
 Posted: Apr 06, 2005 8:44am Post subject: RIAA, Mizzone, Bottler [again] |
 |
|
You know those 'Real Name ' drones I mentioned a while back? Here's the whois information for one of their IP's:
SAVVIS Communications Corporation SAVVIS8 (NET-64-240-0-0-1)
64.240.0.0 - 64.243.255.255
Mizzone & Associates SAVV-S214078-0 (NET-64-241-114-0-1)
64.241.114.0 - 64.241.114.255
Apparently, the RIAA is connecting to any network they can find in order to poll all channels for XDCC activity. This is starting to get rather annoying. This would be the third or forth time that they have tried this form of invasive monitoring.
Mizzone (64.241.114.0/24) is now listed as shoot on sight in DroneBL.
Why is it that the RIAA thinks they have the right to connect to private networks that are not even up and running?! Why is it that they think they have the right to *scan* (non public networks, and yes, they do this, just set up an ircd in a heavy use area and wait) netblocks for IRCd. Why is it that when they are confronted about this issue that they claim they don't know what anyone is talking about. What is the matter with these people?! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EqualSlashed_Brian
Lurker
Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 222
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Apr 06, 2005 2:14pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who says they don't have the right to connect to the IRC network? If the IRC network really didn't want to be found by cheap scans, they wouldn't run their server on the standard IRC ports.
They also connect from some Taiwanese ISP.
Also, it's not actually the RIAA, as they are hosted by Verizon and Global Crossing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SATAN-HHH
Eleet
Joined: 29 Nov 2003
Posts: 855
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Apr 06, 2005 2:19pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just like you have the right to deny anyone access to your server for any reason, if you run a public server anyone who wants to can connect to your server. Nothing much you can do about that unless you restrict who can log on to it, or make the servers non-public (no domain name). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nenolod
Idler
Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 335
Location: A box!
|
| Posted: Apr 06, 2005 6:27pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SATAN-HHH wrote: | | Just like you have the right to deny anyone access to your server for any reason, if you run a public server anyone who wants to can connect to your server. Nothing much you can do about that unless you restrict who can log on to it, or make the servers non-public (no domain name). |
Obviously you need to reread what I had said before you start in with your commentary. As I said, I gz:lined their netblock and voted their netblock onto the DroneBL.
| EqualSlashed_Brian wrote: | Who says they don't have the right to connect to the IRC network? If the IRC network really didn't want to be found by cheap scans, they wouldn't run their server on the standard IRC ports.
They also connect from some Taiwanese ISP.
Also, it's not actually the RIAA, as they are hosted by Verizon and Global Crossing. |
It is actually the RIAA, Savvis has been contacted regarding the activities on that netblock. There is plenty of supporting evidence in that regard. The verizon, roadrunner (sprintlink/gblx) lines are commercial broadband services. The Taiswanese connection is interesting, but not noteworthy.
It should also be noted that my argument was not against the RIAA in the whole piracy issue, the point I was trying to get across was that the RIAA is doing this because they can legally build a case against any network that has banned their spybots... it's a violation of the DMCA to do so, you are REQUIRED to cooperate with them or you will go to court if they so desire to take you there. The only way you can get out of cooperating is to sue them (see Verizon/SBC vs. RIAA). However, while it is a violation to ban them, they seem to not care at this time. Of course, I don't really care either way if the RIAA wishes to raise a stink with either my network or NodeRebellion concerning blocking their DMCA rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EqualSlashed_Brian
Lurker
Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 222
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Apr 08, 2005 4:20pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually, you can ban them. They can't sue you for banning their bots. I myself like to use humorous messages when banning them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PingBad
Guru
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 2075
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Apr 10, 2005 2:00am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, if the RIAA did decide to take you to court regarding banning their bots, how would they figure out who dunnit? (all /?line commands do not mention the banner in their reasons nor in the subsequent quit messages)
Letalone how will the RIAA figure out the address of the person who owns the nick that issued such a line?
EG: If I were to ban one of their bots off a network that I administrate, how would the RIAA know it was me who did it? and how would they be able to take me to court when the DCMA is really only enforced under US law, and me bing in NZ means that they can't do squat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EqualSlashed_Brian
Lurker
Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 222
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Apr 10, 2005 9:28am Post subject: |
|
|
| PingBad wrote: | Well, if the RIAA did decide to take you to court regarding banning their bots, how would they figure out who dunnit? (all /?line commands do not mention the banner in their reasons nor in the subsequent quit messages)
Letalone how will the RIAA figure out the address of the person who owns the nick that issued such a line?
EG: If I were to ban one of their bots off a network that I administrate, how would the RIAA know it was me who did it? and how would they be able to take me to court when the DCMA is really only enforced under US law, and me bing in NZ means that they can't do squat |
What the hell are you talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GreyMouser
Newbie
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: Apr 10, 2005 9:42am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Just like you have the right to deny anyone access to your server for any reason, if you run a public server anyone who wants to can connect to your server. Nothing much you can do about that unless you restrict who can log on to it, or make the servers non-public (no domain name).
|
having a domain has nothing to do with being public or private. It's my opinion that *all* IRC servers are private property of their respectful owners. Said owner has granted *limited* public access that may be removed/revoked at any time for any/no reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EqualSlashed_Brian
Lurker
Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 222
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Apr 10, 2005 9:57am Post subject: |
|
|
| The RIAA needs to mind their own !@#$@#! business. Wait, anti-piracy is their business. Oh, I see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert-E-Lee
Idler
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Posts: 288
Location: in a room with your mum, teaching her how to do certain things....
|
| Posted: Apr 10, 2005 1:00pm Post subject: |
|
|
| technically speaking, the internet is governed by international law, not any one nations law, therefore, in truth, RIAA, MPAA etc, have NO JURISDICTION on the internet. from a technical point of view. admittedly the odds of america actually acknowledging the truth of the legal situation ...are nil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GreyMouser
Newbie
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: Apr 10, 2005 1:10pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Robert-E-Lee wrote: | | technically speaking, the internet is governed by international law, not any one nations law, therefore, in truth, RIAA, MPAA etc, have NO JURISDICTION on the internet. from a technical point of view. admittedly the odds of america actually acknowledging the truth of the legal situation ...are nil. |
The RIAA isn't a law enforcement agency, which means that have no jurisdiction at all.
Some of you IRC Lawyers have forgotten that several nations on this planet have/can arrest and return persons that have commited crimes in foreign contries.
Contrary to popular belief copyright protection does have a global presence. refer to:
1. Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property (Berne Convention)
2. Universal Copyright Convention (UCC).
3. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/international.html
So perhaps it is you that should learn the "truth" about the legal situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert-E-Lee
Idler
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Posts: 288
Location: in a room with your mum, teaching her how to do certain things....
|
| Posted: Apr 10, 2005 4:16pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes, i know copyright is globally applicable, the complication comes in with the fact that different nations have different points of law regarding it, and something that, like the RIAA is by definition, neither a law enforcement agency, nor a global organisation, lacks the legitimate RIGHT to act as it does.
it's not them taking people from other nations to court for it that i'm saying isn't legal, it's the manner in which they conduct their evidence gathering, which isn't legal.
their lack of law enforment status, means that they have no legal right, under any nations laws, to wander around snooping into things, and, legally speaking, they should perhaps be making requests that, where they have suspicions, a law enforcement agency apply for some form of relevant search warrant, and that investigations be carried out by the law enforcement agency, after all, don't most police forces have anti piracy sections who should be the ones carrying out the investigations?
their conduct is somewhat analagous to an ordinary everyday person breaking into someones house to search for a muder weapon because they think the person killed someone, ie : they may very well be right, but, it sure ain't legal.
i have no issue with what they're trying to do, merely the manner in which they're doing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GreyMouser
Newbie
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: Apr 10, 2005 4:59pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Robert-E-Lee wrote: | yes, i know copyright is globally applicable, the complication comes in with the fact that different nations have different points of law regarding it, and something that, like the RIAA is by definition, neither a law enforcement agency, nor a global organisation, lacks the legitimate RIGHT to act as it does.
it's not them taking people from other nations to court for it that i'm saying isn't legal, it's the manner in which they conduct their evidence gathering, which isn't legal.
their lack of law enforment status, means that they have no legal right, under any nations laws, to wander around snooping into things, and, legally speaking, they should perhaps be making requests that, where they have suspicions, a law enforcement agency apply for some form of relevant search warrant, and that investigations be carried out by the law enforcement agency, after all, don't most police forces have anti piracy sections who should be the ones carrying out the investigations?
their conduct is somewhat analagous to an ordinary everyday person breaking into someones house to search for a muder weapon because they think the person killed someone, ie : they may very well be right, but, it sure ain't legal.
i have no issue with what they're trying to do, merely the manner in which they're doing it. |
So take your facts to court and press charges. Complaining here solves nothing nor has anything at all to do with IRC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EqualSlashed_Brian
Lurker
Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 222
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Apr 11, 2005 10:07am Post subject: |
|
|
| The RIAA will continue to fail anyways, they tried to that lame "sue every filesharer" crap and they ended up getting sued by Charter and Charter won. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
