digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at gizmodo.com

RIAA Wants Your Anti-Virus Software to Screen Your Downloads

gizmodo.com — Content filter version one: A massive, network-wide dragnet. Not really feeling that Big Bro deal, even though RIAA chief Cary Sherman says it "doesn't give rise...to any privacy concerns because it can operate automatically and anonymously"?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ampm2, on 02/08/2008, -7/+119RIAA is screwing all...!!!! There will be a day when RIAA will ask your toilet the information of what are you *****....
    • riveraoor, on 02/08/2008, -22/+6Hmmm he seems to have a high intake of cheetos and pizza ... this could explain why he is always on digg .... the kid has no life ....
      • KargeOfTylenol, on 02/08/2008, -2/+7ampm2: *Joke*
        riveraoor: ***** YOU.
    • oxdeltaxo, on 02/08/2008, -7/+8Theres a real easy solution to this, don't comply. Tell them to shove their program straight up there ass.
      • knightboat, on 02/08/2008, -3/+7Where ass?
      • T-Maaz, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3"There... Castle..."
        "Why are you talking like that?"
        "I don't know... I thought you wanted to..."
    • GhengisKhan, on 02/08/2008, -6/+1Huh?
    • skarbreeze, on 02/08/2008, -7/+4I, for one, welcome our... WAIT WHAT?!
    • positron, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Would it surprise you to know that there actually are groups that study the content of our sewage, including such things as which and how much drugs and pharmaceuticals are being used by us?
    • h4mx0r, on 02/08/2008, -1/+8I ***** torrents, and it sounds like music.
      • theotheragentm, on 02/08/2008, -0/+10Have you heard music lately? It sounds like *****.
    • snapcase, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3Well if Google ever releases their TiSP service they announced in April you can bet the RIAA would want to track that too.
      http://www.google.com/tisp/



      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google's_hoaxes#Googl ...
    • chaoswings, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2The RIAA can't screw anyone with this. What are they supposed to do control all antivirus companies including the ones outside the usa? If they manage to put encryption at the modem level you can bet people will just start to RAR the files so their hashes change. If that still does not work you can bet better methods to beat the system will rise up out of this.
    • BobOki, on 02/08/2008, -2/+2I suppose you could all switch to linux or mac and never worry about it again.
      • Kurlumbenus, on 02/08/2008, -3/+3Why don't YOU switch to heterosexuality? See? Laughable suggestions don't help.
    • paradexes, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Using Microsoft or Apple's OS is NOT a good idea because they tend to hide things like backdoors for the NSA.Being that the MAFIAA has the Govt by the balls these days, it makes more sense to just use Linux. It is more decentralized and harder to include backdoors. We are starting to reach the whole thought control thing these days like in 1984. It's friggin music!!! I know it makes a huge cultural impact but it should be allowed to develop organically, not with BS business interests "marketing" it. Oh and for a reference to what I started with take a look below.
      http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/01/09/nsa-pro ...
    • SlimFastForYou, on 02/08/2008, -3/+2Guys, I think the RIAA might sort of be on to something though. If virus-scanner makers want to introduce this, as long as they respect the user's rights I don't really see the harm. For example, if a pirated file is detected, the virus scanner would pop a window for the user prompting something like: "Unlicensed content found: [Quarantine] [White List] [Delete] [Play Suspected File] [Settings]". It could even work on unlicensed software. Perhaps on the dialog it could have a small AdSense for people to buy the music. Virus scanner companies and artists and studios would get their shares of AdSense revenue so they can finally make "piracy" profitable for themselves while not harassing or tracking the users. If the user is unsatisfied with the software, the user is still free to uninstall. The virus scanner can even be open source since the virus scanner company will make enough with the AdSense to continue developing and writing definition updates. The lawsuits against file sharers can stop, everyone can just relax and listen to music instead of bickering over nickels and dimes. Businesses would probably love it too if it were efficient and effective. They WANT to know if there is infringing content. They are worried about getting audited and they even PAY for auditing software so they don't get dinged later. You would be doing them a free service. Hell, while you're at it, let it have Web content filtering so kids don't accidentally go to adult sites. Make it have a database of web domains and how many people had thumbs up, thumbs down, marked as inappropriate, etc. If too many people mark a site as inappropriate the filter will warn the user before letting him/her proceed. There is demand for products like these especially if they are fair, safe, anonymous, open source, non-intrusive, and lucrative at the same time.
      • NoNameHere, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3In a perfect world.
        But I think perhaps the RIAA is only interested in a profitable one.
        • SlimFastForYou, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Damn I guess you're right I got buried to -1! I thought it was a good idea, I mean the only way some anti-piracy anti-virus scanner would become popular I think would be if it provided good benefits to the user and was open source so users knew it was trustworthy. I don't fully agree with the speaker on all his points. And I don't think users would ever allow any "piracy scanner" on their computer any other way. Users don't want something intrusive, and anything else Orwellian simply discourages users from buying. I guess it depends on if the RIAA chooses to be greedy or chooses to make an effort to fit in with the Internet community and quit abusing our courts.
    • Tyrghast, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4*****.. the only reason i torrent music is cus the Guns N Roses greatest hits album is still 20 bucks... 15 years after it was released...
      • NoNameHere, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3I torrent music because they don't pay me to take ***** music.
        Free is as close as I can get, since torrents killed physical medium bootlegging.
      • Kurlumbenus, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2We can all take heart in the fact that Guns N Roses sucks.
    • Hangly, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1I think all the SCO execs joined the RIAA when SCO folded. This is getting really silly.
    • groo68, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Well that's taking it a little to far, I think they, the MPAA included, will only go so far as putting a legal cap on the volume your TV or car radio can play at, and putting a microphone in the shower to see if your singing copyrighted material.
  • HiCaP, on 02/08/2008, -2/+72The RIAA can Byte My Weenie.
    • Cumella, on 02/08/2008, -3/+0I get it... Byte.. haha!
      • sarixe, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1you're about 30 years late... and it seems i'm about a day late...
  • Wiini, on 02/08/2008, -51/+13The RIAA is dumb. Stealing music has never, ever been easier, and I've been on the net a long time. Let's take a walk through history.
    1995-1996:
    Technology: MP3 (MPEG3) Created and gaining popularity on the internet.
    Availability: LOW - The 'collection' of music that has been converted to MP3 is practically non existent, and difficult to find.
    Quality: LOW - Because of bandwidth restriction, and CPU power, compression is put to an enormous high. Even ISDN connections aren't really powerful enough to handle broad music transfer.
    1997-1998:
    Technology: MP3 is gaining in popularity. People are now compression music that they own on a more regular basis.
    Availability: Through FTP Sites and websites (even on geocities) people are uploading their music collections. At this point, we even see some collaborative music collection efforts by some sites.
    Quality is getting better. High speed internet is coming about in the form of faster ISDN and DSL.
    1998-1999:
    Technology: MP3 is now being used on a regular basis by people from even 'non-geeky' walks of life. It's all over the place
    Availability: HIGH - Napster comes out at this time, and so do many other file sharing services. You can find almost anything
    Drawbacks: Slow! you can spend hours on napster waiting for slow-ass connections to come through, and it can take hours to find music
    Quality: Generally low. Low quality rips from sissies who can't tell the difference between 64k/sec, 128k/sec, 256k/sec mp3 encoding. In addition to that, you've got fake music labels from jerks who think it's funny to upload the barney theme song under the guise of Smash Mouth. Your ID3 tags for your MP3's have stupid or bogus information, or 1337 "enc)(ded By H0zme9" in them, or they're blank. You're also at risk for viruses, trojans, malware and the like.
    Event: RIAA sues napster.. lawsuits begin.
    2001:
    Technology: Same
    Availability: Low - The RIAA Begins flooding gnutella and other networks with fake data, and garbage mp3 files.
    Quality: Same old problem. You can never find anything, viruses are becoming rampant, and you can't find a file-sharing application that isn't bundled with spyware.
    Event: Napster is pwned by the RIAA and finally shuts down.
    2001-2004:
    Technology: Through the next 5 years, bitTorrent becomes a major drug of choice amongst music traders/downloaders, gaining enormous popularity by 2005.
    Quality: It can be argued it's easier to find quality music based on how many sharers there are of torrent music, but you still have the same problem. ***** Music identification, file names, and Id3 tags. Virus'es throughout, it's hard to find torrent sites that aren't practically porn sites. And not *everyone on the internet is doin' the pronz.
    Technology addition:
    WMA makes it on to the scene in 2003. This is the first time someone has tried to control music in a totally digital locked format. it doesn't work so well. gay hax0rz.
    2005: RIAA 'sanctions' and encourages the use of pay-to-download music services. They make money by having you pay 5-15$ a month to Yahoo, Microsoft or any other number of music services. This is slow to adopt, but with iTunes playing along, 'legal music' starts to make a little bit of a hit.

    2006-Present Day:
    It's now easier than ever before to steal music. I can sign up for a $8.99/Month service from http://music.yahoo.com or www.napster.com, download all of their WMA encoded music.
    This music comes to me virus free, high quality, REALLY quickly due to the advent of Cable and high speed DSL connections. The selection is enormous. I can have a full WMA file that is HIGH QUALITy with an included album cover, full ID3 information including lyrics, all wrapped into the file. It takes as little as 45 seconds to download a full song, and 5 minutes to download an album.
    Limitation:
    Well *****. I can listen all day on my computer, but I can't burn it. Thanks RIAA.
    WAIT! I can? Sure... there's hundred of different applications that will either Rip the encoding out (I forget what it's called) or Programs like TuneBite or Soundtaxi that'll simply record in 12x high speed the audio that you're listening to, and output to mp3. No Viruses, no waiting, no ***** selection, no mislabled/poorly labeled music. Just high quality rips of music instantly at my fingertips that is easy to search on, high accessible, and totally easy.

    So, although I've never done anything like rip DRM music, and I buy all my music off of iTunes or on CD for 16-20$ an album... you can now see, based on the history of online music why...

    It has never, ever, ever been easier to steal music. And it's all thanks to the RIAA. Had it not been for the selfish, greedy actions, I'd still be getting viruses and spyware with my 1.5 megabyte 64/ksecond mp3 files off of Napster.
    • ajb2015, on 02/08/2008, -1/+42Thanks for your book-length history lesson, but I was here for all of that too, as I'm sure much of digg was too.
      • typicalusername, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1I would have just said, "Scoreboard!" and left it at that.
    • stacigh, on 02/08/2008, -2/+9That entire book you wrote and you only mention torrents ONCE? WTF? ***** yahoo. ***** napster... ***** ISTORE! ***** RIAA!!! I want my demonoid back.
      • spiritditch, on 02/08/2008, -3/+12001 - "***** FTP! I want my Napster back!"
    • jringer77, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4MP3 is MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3, not MPEG-3. You can find references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-3 or http://www.mpeg.org. I'm sure there are plenty of other sites on the tubes to explain.
      • Wiini, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Good call.... just kinda churned it out quickly. Thanks for the catch.
    • SquigglyP, on 02/08/2008, -4/+3for the ***** who posted above me:

      1) I'm sure most of the people on Digg WEREN'T around for napster and gnutella, since the age of the people here - judging by the maturity level in the comments - is about 12. It would seem that most of the Digg population were still pissing their pants and playing in the mud when this ***** was starting up

      2) Why the ***** should torrents be mentioned more than once? They are a relatively recent phenomenon.

      3) jringer77... you're correct and as such are exempt from the above reference to the posts above me.
      • sarixe, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1i'm 18, and i know i only got into this in the late 90's. i hate being in generation Y! GAAAAAAH!
    • Ghiren, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4Oookay... A long history lesson... It actually started out pretty interesting except that you took every opportunity to bash MP3 as low-quality or virus laden, you described bittorrent as a "drug of choice", and you ended by naming and endorsing several RIAA-backed music stores. I have nothing against legal downloads but you seem to endorse them a little too strongly to be taken seriously.

      Personally, I've never downloaded a virus from a P2P service (mostly because a virus requires executable code, not just music data), I've never found the music to be too low-quality, ID3 tags can be changed to suit the format I like, and the only reason that I avoid pirating music that the RIAA sues over is because almost all of it is crap and not worth my bandwidth, let alone my money.
      • ludditte, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3Pretty much all the stuff I d/l with Napster has been replaced with the stuff I get from the private trackers. Back in the Napster days we thought it was pretty cool to get music at 128 kbps, now I don't use the bandwidth unless it is at least 256, right now I am listening at 320. Music today (for my old taste) is not worth the download, but when the RIAA finally shuts down the means of downloading, I'll start mailing to random people DVDs full of music, and people will copy them and send them to other people and so on. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
      • SquigglyP, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1he wasn't 'bashing' mp3 at all, just pointing out that when it takes you 20 minutes to download a song at 128 kbps, you tend to accept whatever quality you can get for a decent speed. ever use a 28.8 kbps modem? You'd be lucky to get a 96kbps song in 5 or 10 minutes. Back when BBS's and the internet were starting out that was pretty much the best quality you could get because people didn't want to spend a day to download an album - mostly because doing so would cost 10 times as much as the album to stay online that long.
  • ajb2015, on 02/08/2008, -2/+25Okay, does anyone have a link to the original video? This is obviously heavily edited, making me somewhat suspicious about context.
    • fkr3, on 02/08/2008, -9/+2The context was there are two locations ideal for filtering - at the ISP, or directly on the PC themselves. The guy went on to say how it would be difficult to convince people to install such software, but given the growing number of people they're successfully settling with I don't think it would be too hard to convince parents to install it.... it's their $$$ their kids risk when they pirate stuff on their connection.

      There are companies offering music for free with DRM or with ads, there are less and less excuses to pirate music anyway.
      • matx, on 02/08/2008, -1/+16"There are companies offering music for free with DRM or with ads, there are less and less excuses to pirate music anyway."
        Shame that the pirated music is usually a lot better quality and works better on all devices than the paid/drm'd music you get.
        • fkr3, on 02/08/2008, -14/+1Shame that it carries the risk of being sued for thousands of dollars for the sake of quality that is negligibly better than the freely, legally offered stuff.

          If you want it on your iPod so bad then pay the price. You're entitled to nothing, they're giving you something. Don't act like they're not compromising.
        • Sendai129, on 02/08/2008, -1/+9So few people actually get sued compared to the massive amount of people pirating! Not sure the source but I read somewhere you're more likely to win the lottery then to be sued over downloading.
          The main problem I see with buying music (apart from that it costs money and I get great pleasure out of getting free swag) is that the pirated stuff is almost ALWAYS better quality. No DRM means I can do what I want with the media. Cracked software means no annoying CD swapping. Pirated movies means I'm not forced to waste minutes of my life watching stupid adds or warnings, most of which are about not downloading or copying... this is AFTER you just paid money for it!!
          When companies go so far as to punish the very people buying their product it's no wonder people steal it instead. They need to start offering us something that the pirating community can't if they want us to start paying for their service, it's really that simple. I don't know what it is that they can do... but I do know that not many people are going to willingly pay for an inferior product when they can get the better version for free.
          • cliffski, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1hahahaha, and you believed the bloke in the pub who told you that? Don't make me laugh, most people who get sued pay up immediately and keep very very quiet about it.
            If you don't like the product, don't buy it, don't ***** kid yourself you can take it anyway. You said it yourself, your stealing purely because you think you will get away with it.
          • Sendai129, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0Well seeing as I don't know anyone... and nobody that I know (that I talk to about this kinda things) knows anyone who has been sued over downloading, I'd say it's a fairly safe bet to download and not get caught. And if you took the time to read what I wrote you would see that the MAIN reason I steal music is because it is of superior quality when pirated. This is the critical point of the entire debate in my opinion. People who download because they don't have money don't matter because well...they don't have money. The people who do have money and are still pirating are the ones that the corporations need to convince. They need to convince them that they are getting a greater value for their dollar. People aren't stupid and if you have money you have some sort of business sense. For example, you'll never see respected companies pay more for an inferior product when there is very little chance they are going to get caught.

            So there's two ways to go about this. One is to monitor and sue EVERY person who downloads pirated media. This is unreasonable as it would cost a great deal to the government and tie up our courts even more then they are now. Second this would require the states to effectively start policing the world. I'm sure that this is what they want to do, but ultimately I don't think this is a viable solution.

            A second solution would be to provide an incentive to purchase the music. This means no more DRM, spyware or rootkits for starters. This is where I stop being of much help... I honestly don't know what the recording industry could do to persuade people to purchase their music rather then download. And if I did know... well I wouldn't be telling all of Digg my idea, I'd go over to the RIAA and all them with my idea and try to sell them on it :)
        • sgoogle, on 02/08/2008, -2/+2We7 have a good business model: You download a song / album you want. They have a ~5 second ad at the start of each song. You can keep as many of these as you like for free. Every 28 days, you get 20 free 'credits' which can be exchanged for 20 ad-free songs. They are all at 192 kbps MP3 (i.e. NO DRM, even the ad-supported ones and the ads are all followed by a brief silence ;) )
      • Orrent, on 02/08/2008, -2/+3"If you want it on your iPod so bad then pay the price. You're entitled to nothing, they're giving you something. Don't act like they're not compromising"

        What exactly are they giving me when I pay full price for music that has DRM and won't play correctly everywhere i take it? except the shaft of course.

        If they were to offer music online at competitive rates comparable in quality and function to what you get from a CD with no copy protection they might actually get somewhere.
        • cliffski, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2it is their music, they can do what the ***** they want with it.
  • alanr19, on 02/08/2008, -1/+65The A/V companys that go along with this will go out of business. Thankfully.
    • matx, on 02/08/2008, -0/+33lets hope Norton AV adopt this then!
    • crash331, on 02/08/2008, -6/+20AVG FTW!
      • cawpin, on 02/08/2008, -3/+3WTF? Why is he getting buried?
        • Randinn, on 02/08/2008, -4/+4Because some morons love to bury everything....
        • Drehmini, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2Only buried because it was ironic ;)
      • blackmage439, on 02/08/2008, -4/+3Personally, I find AVG to be as annoying and bitchy as McAfee and Norton, what with all the pop-ups and "notifications" that "UR ANTEE-VEYERUS DEFINISHUNS R ECKSPEYERD!!11!1!" Avast! is subtle, informative, and easy to use, once you get the hand of it's unintuitive interfaces and cooky functionality (it treats its active protection and scanning application as two separate "programs"...). AVG is not a bad program, don't misunderstand. I just think they could tone-down the drama a little bit.
        • Tyrghast, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3i dont get any of that. cus i'm not an ignorant dolt and i turned them off in the options.
    • sporg, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2These guys are all 40+ overweight and balding and after this conference they will likely go straight to their hotel and dial up an underage prostitute. After preaching like they have the moral high ground all day long.
      • freeport7, on 02/08/2008, -0/+0Prejudice much?
        • sporg, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Take a close look at the video. Look at the speakers and the sad audience.

          Did my glimpse into horrid reality ruin your day? Take another Xanax and find yourself a corner to slober in.
          • freeport7, on 02/10/2008, -0/+0So ... you can determine that all in the audience are fat bald 40-somethings, and indulge in underage prostitution and are 100% hypocritical. How clairvoyant you are. What's the number of the next winning lottery ticket in your local powerball drawing? Please let us know, since you're obviously in mensa. Oh, and it's "slobber" not "slober" ... which you should know, as you do it all the time when you surf porn in your parent's basement because you're too much of an emo to get a live girlfriend.

            See how it feels?
  • michaelphw, on 02/08/2008, -6/+117Good thing I don't use Anti Virus software, it's all a lie!
    • stretch611, on 02/08/2008, -15/+14I don't use anti-virus on my Linux boxes. Even for computer gurus it is stupid not to use anti virus on windows.
      • Netrilix, on 02/08/2008, -2/+40Why? Stay behind a router that closes your unneeded ports, don't visit sketchy websites, and don't download song.mp3.exe. I usually go months without anti-virus, and then install it one day just to be sure. To this day, I've only ever had one virus hit me. It was sent by a trusted co-worker, the virus scan I had installed didn't catch it, and he was fired the same day for sending it to half the company.
        • grumpyrain, on 02/08/2008, -3/+20and leave UAC on (or don't log in as admin under XP) and install Noscript. Avoiding viruses is really not hard.
        • Waterrat, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2 And go run House Call once a week.
          I use Linux,so they can take their filter and shove...Are they so stupid that they think people will not take action once they see their virus scanner is spying on them?
      • sgoogle, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3I've had no anti virus software for over 2 years now, just a monthly scan with AVG and ClamWin. (No real-time protection from either)

        I;ve had no viruses. Granted I don't P2P, download from unknown sites, but still, it isn't hard to stay virus free with a decent firewall (i.e. router) and some common sense.
      • XxbladesfirexX, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Ya... If you know what your doing, you don't need it. It just hogs valuable resources.
    • sonar_un, on 02/08/2008, -4/+16I've been using Windows without anti virus software since it's inception. Good browsing habits and intelligence wins vs viruses any day of the week. There is no telling how much I download... everything. Never had a virus once. So the RIAA can do whatever it wants with virus software, I don't care. There is just no reason to use it.
      • freethrowtommy, on 02/08/2008, -0/+19So wait a second... you don't use Anti-Virus software, but you are sure you never had a virus?

        You do know that not all viruses are out to destroy your system and without software, you wouldn't even KNOW you have one.

        Like LOLCat would say, hidin in ur sistem, steelin ur pazzwords...
      • puscifer919, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1That's some intelligence you've got there.
      • dukeochutney, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5so whats ur IP....
        • bassmangracey, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3127.0.0.1

          just try rm -rfing me
          • Netrilix, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Haha, that was easy, you use the same password as me! Oh wait, where the hell are my files?!
            /sarcasm
      • lamech, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1I would advise you AT LEAST use things like noscript for browsing...
      • 0ceanic, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2i dont "run" av software either. but i do have avg antivirus just to scan suspicious downloads.
    • puscifer919, on 02/08/2008, -2/+5Agreed. Anti-virus software is for Windows and nothing else.
    • stlb1090, on 02/08/2008, -12/+4i use a mac!!! nuff said!
    • dukeochutney, on 02/08/2008, -7/+7i guess u like having trojans and rootkits on ur box. makes it easier for ppl like me to use you as a botnet. thx
    • CalamariAce, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1It's a direction that kind of makes sense for the RIAA to take here. There are many people who don't know how to or won't bother checking if releases are authentic; there are of course lots of bogus releases out there that are infected with all manner of trojans etc, so the average Joe who's smart enough to realize he could be downloading an infected file but not smart enough or unable to authenticate the torrent might think twice before before downloading something.

      (And remember this is the average Joe here, so there will be no shutting down of the anti-virus for the duration of the download and then turning it back on after it is done).
    • MalDON, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2I use clamwin for some spot checking here and there on my window box. Love to see them make clamav monitor downloads.
  • zsmith, on 02/08/2008, -1/+151I don't pirate music but screening people's computers, c'mon get real. They can screen my balls.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/08/2008, -0/+7It's like having a the metal detector from the airport (or school) placed in the front door of your home.
    • NewOntario, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5Same here. I don't pirate my tunes either. But having an organization want to install software on MY computer for THEIR personal interests is in my opinion, an absolute invasion of privacy.
    • sarixe, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1*DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ALERT*
      if you don't have anything to hide, about what have you to worry?
  • gravity71, on 02/08/2008, -18/+98I don't use any antivirus. i use Linux, you dumb *****!!
    Go find a real job!
    • Wacer, on 02/08/2008, -5/+9I have used Linux from 1993 when the bootloader, install scripts were all on a few floppies. Linux is gaining ground and will continue to do so without bashing people that don't live on computers.
      • gravity71, on 02/08/2008, -0/+20Dear Wacer, just to make it clear... the term 'dumb *****' was referred only to the members (never word was more appropriate) of the goddamn RIAA.
        It was certainly not reffered to anyone using different OS's than linux.
        I am all against OS wars. Use what you're most comfortable with.
    • dattaway, on 02/08/2008, -2/+22The RIAA ignores us that run Linux. Maybe if we complain...
    • BlackOp, on 02/08/2008, -3/+19I like linux, but lots of windows users use no antivirus without any problems. Just don't do stupid ***** like opening *****.jpg.exe in your email.
      • chrispix, on 02/08/2008, -1/+15Damn IT! What if I just clicked on *****.jpg.exe??? HELP!!!!
      • prleet, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1I wonder if that is how you learned no to.
      • typicalusername, on 02/08/2008, -1/+5Anyone got a copy of that, because I do want to see AJ ***** a horse!
        • sgoogle, on 02/08/2008, -2/+2I'm sure if anyone had it that they would use it for blackmail etc., not releasing it.
      • zeigual, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2That is completely wrong. Windows will get infected by things SO bad if you don't have virus protection. Even the most skilled windows admin isn't immune to the newest root kits and exploits, unless you run some kind of scanning and cleaning software. take it from a guy who fixes computers and deals with computer n00bs, and computer scientists all day. Just load a standard windows install and let it just sit by itself on the net for a few days and you'll see.
        USE SOME SORT OF ANTI VIRUS.
        or switch to Linux.
        Oh Yeah... and as for this post. I give it 2 days after the alpha riaa anti virus software is out before its cracked and allowed to not scan downloaded files. If it evens comes to that. ::crosses fingers::
        They cant and wont win.
        • BlackOp, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3I haven't used an AV for a long time and haven't had a malware infection of any kind in the last 4 or 5 years at least. I do a random scan for rootkits/virus/spyware two or three times a year if my computer's acting weird, just to make sure.
          But then I did say "don't do stupid *****" which would include leaving Windows unpatched. If you know what you're doing you do not need an anti virus because the chances of becoming infected are very slim.
          • zeigual, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2you must only use your computer for word processing
    • simg, on 02/08/2008, -0/+8dugg for the polite, well reasoned argument ....
    • dukeochutney, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2can still use metasploit to spawn shell create listener push trojan own box....but ok
    • Kurlumbenus, on 02/08/2008, -2/+1Go find a real OS!
  • kravex, on 02/08/2008, -1/+19Never gonna happen.
    • geddon, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1McAfee certainly would if there was a dollar to be made.
  • AndrewDB, on 02/08/2008, -0/+36The moment this happens is the moment I sue the RIAA for invading my personal privacy and property.
    • Wacer, on 02/08/2008, -0/+14Apparently they don't think that people know anything about ethereal or other forensic wire capturing software. They would be caught the day they released garbage like this. Some of the measures they are trying, goes to show that they don't really understand how deep digital technology goes.
      • AndrewDB, on 02/08/2008, -0/+12Oh I know they're delusional, I'm just stating a fact that if they probe my hard drive without my consent, they're getting sued for the reasons I just listed above.
    • dougbdl, on 02/08/2008, -6/+1Uh huh. I'll bet ya do that AndrewDB.
  • SniperZero, on 02/08/2008, -5/+35Maybe all windows users will migrate to linux then. Are they trying to push out windows?
    • Wacer, on 02/08/2008, -0/+7They will most likely catch grandmas and grandpas letting their grandchildren use their computer. In the end they will punish the users with little understanding of the underlying technology. In the end, it will never work as it will cause an outrage.
      • SniperZero, on 02/08/2008, -3/+1Can I ask wtf does your post have anything to do with what I said?
        • mathmanjeffy, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3I'll translate for you since you can't read within context:

          "Those of us aware of the issues will migrate off the products containing the filtering/scanning software. They will mostly likely [only] catch grandmas..."

          There ya go..
    • sirhomer, on 02/08/2008, -5/+5This is a huge Ubuntu-RIAA-Ron Paul conspiracy. Be warned!
      • TheWindBlows, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3Buried Ubuntu is not linux and is not the only distro out there.
        I use Ubuntu but know better.
    • dukeochutney, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3http://www.metasploit.com/projects/Framework/explo ... still linux exploits
      • sgoogle, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Still a strange filename, and most of those appear to be application exploits, not Linux exploits
      • TheWindBlows, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Yep application exploits solution just switch out that application if your really that worried.
        We all know Samba has exploits though are unsure if its flawed programming or the use of windows protocol's.
        Either way chances of running into those exploits are slim to none but if you do just completely remove and reinstall the application and you should be fine.
  • CraigReed, on 02/08/2008, -0/+42Maybe we could convince Bush to win back approval by bombing the RIAA.
    • MackPrime, on 02/08/2008, -0/+9yeah, he could gain back a few extra approval points pretty quickly.
    • stretch611, on 02/08/2008, -0/+12It will never happen... unless we offer more money than the RIAA's lobbyists.
  • Grimdotdotdot, on 02/08/2008, -4/+92***** the RIAA.
  • bonjourmr, on 04/25/2008, -0/+27The RIAA are a joke.
  • xfile087, on 02/08/2008, -6/+19Well they did say 2008 would be the year of the Linux desktop...
    • dattaway, on 02/08/2008, -3/+20They've been saying that for the last ten years I've run Linux.
      • xfile087, on 02/08/2008, -2/+2Well if the RIAA does infest our Anti-Virus software then even more so that it finally is the year of the Linux desktop, don't you think?
      • Cryoniq, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2LOL, no they haven't. Linux people said it been on the move for 10 years. And it really has. But now media and the industry say that for the first time and we finaly got the very important drivers from GFX makers etc going and so on. Get a grip sometime this millenium dude.
    • chris1012, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1it's all a ploy to put Microsoft out of business. RIAA will infest antivirus software, then people will just stop using any OS that requires antivirus to stay safe (i.e. windows). Once everyone is off of windows, microsoft will have lost their main source of income and will either have to pull a miracle out of their ass and make a completely 100% secure safe operation system, or go bankrupt.
  • Draje, on 02/08/2008, -0/+9Not gonna happen unless they pay anti-virus companies a lot of money. Oh wait, that would defeat the purpose.....
  • SniperZero, on 02/08/2008, -2/+36Anonymous should go after riaa/mpaa after its dealt with scientology
  • ummfada, on 02/08/2008, -18/+16good thing I have a Mac
    • wigren, on 02/08/2008, -7/+44Read: "I'm glad I blindly trust Apple, the largest DRM distributer."
      • Faust06, on 02/08/2008, -8/+9Oh please. iTunes has DRM because of the RIAA, not because Apple wanted to put it on there. If you look at other Apple software, none of it has DRM. I can take my Leopard DVD, iLife, iWork, Aperture, FCP, Logic, etc. and install them on as many computers as I like without worrying about any repercussions. Don't bash something unless you do a little research first.
        • grumpyrain, on 02/08/2008, -4/+17Well how come I can't install Leopard in another VMWare session on my x86 box (and ffs please don't point out hackintosh, you might as well point out playfair as a reason itunes has no DRM). I call a hardware dongle a form of DRM, although it is less invasive than WGA.

          Furthermore, you should do your own research about some cosy relationships between Jobs and Disney
          http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/bios/stev ...

          and between Disney and the MPAA.
          http://www.mpaa.org/AboutUsMembers.asp
          • viniciusfontes, on 02/08/2008, -1/+6Not trying to blindly defend Apple, but they made the software. They decide where it will run.

            RIAA doesn't make the music. Therefore they should not be allowed to restrict where it will be played. That's the question here.
        • prleet, on 02/08/2008, -7/+2can we call you iStupid, maybe it would make more sense now one to call apple users "i-Stupid".
        • ryan83189, on 02/08/2008, -1/+6If apple already gave into the riaa with itunes, what makes you think they won't do this *****?
      • DagMX, on 02/08/2008, -0/+11No, read that:
        1)It would be harder to implement this on a mac since fewer users even bother with an antivirus
        2)No company would realistically do this unless forced snce it would be product suicide
    • dukeochutney, on 02/08/2008, -6/+3http://www.metasploit.com/projects/Framework/explo ... osx exploits
      • sgoogle, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4Please stop posting links to metasploit. It gets old fast, expecially when every link you have posted so far has been wrong, and most still look like application exploits rather than OS exploits
      • ZeroFive1, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Die.
  • barroni, on 02/08/2008, -0/+9RIAA, Go and get ***** !
    • DarkShroud, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Already happened, CD sales are still declining.
  • Myztry, on 02/08/2008, -1/+10They could conceivably bribe the US Government to implement such a thing but it's only a weakness for American companies like Microsoft.
    Besides the fact I'm not even the US, the OS I use (Ubuntu) is Incorporated in the Isle Of Man, sheltered from the corruption of the wannabe police state.
    Though it's a small and sovereign nation, the British are bound by long standing Agreement to defend it from aggressors.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2It would probably be illegal in the EU anyway.
  • Rozenrot, on 02/08/2008, -4/+121Oh sorry, I don't need any of that. I RUN LINUX *cool backflip onto motorbike, wheelie, and speeds away*
    • snotrokit, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6note to self. add RIAA;s minions to iptables.
    • prleet, on 02/08/2008, -0/+0fixed and running...
    • Bizarrkley, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1So... you can't get a virus on your linux machine? C'mon man... that's just stupid.
      Plus, no one cares if you are on Linux or Windows or whatever. It's the fact that the RIAA is a bunch of greedy bastards.
      • sgoogle, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4No one said Linux viruses are impossible, just FAR less likely
      • Waterrat, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2 No,it's not stupid...It actually takes a bit of forethought to install anything, plus the standard downloader (Synaptic) has aps only from trusted sources.
        Linux is...Different. Go read up on it.
        The fact that these creeps want to control your computer more than Microsoft does is reason enough to worry and why Linux folks chime in reminding you that if this is implicated,there are ways around it.

        it would not surprise me if companies developed scanners without the filter.
        • Bizarrkley, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Hey Stupid! I am running an Ubuntu machine (just upgraded to 7.1) and thus I fully understand how applications get installed. However, you are still susceptible to getting a virus from many other different avenues and are not immune to the issues that Windows users face too. I'm reading up on it right now, dumb ass.
    • 1800collect, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4xkcd: http://xkcd.com/272/ for those who don't know
    • Tyrghast, on 02/08/2008, -3/+2More like: I RUN LINUX *tried to do something cool but has to sit down and apply heavy sunscreen to his pale skin as well as use his asthma inhaler*
    • Hangly, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1I'm giggling like a moron and I think I just drooled a little. Thank you for that.
  • xfile087, on 02/08/2008, -12/+8Then again, this RIAA infested Anti-Virus software would probably run a lot better in Wine under Linux than it ever would on Vista!
  • blairslovechild, on 02/08/2008, -2/+4I don't like them, or what they're doing, but....
    This is a very very clever move, compared to what they normally come up with.
    Would I rather run with or without AV and anti-Spyware software? Keyloggers grabbing my bank information, private emails, my machine running slowly for no apparent reason...
    • stretch611, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2I agree. It would be even more clever to offer all the companies providing free AV software a financial incentive to add the content filter.
      That being said, hopefully it will never happen.
      • Waterrat, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1 You could always duel boot and do the risky stuff,like banking with BSD or Linux.
    • sgoogle, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Without AV or with RIAA anti-virus?

      Can I add a third option, ClamWIn. It is open source, so the RIAA would have a hard time hiding their wares in there.
    • MalDON, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1http://www.clamav.net/
      Download source, compile yourself.
  • Kyburo, on 02/08/2008, -0/+8Sigh, I'm sure this wont happen, but I am interested to see what they will try in next weeks episode.
  • LoganSerman, on 02/08/2008, -3/+18What is anti-virus software?
    • shadeOfGrey, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2That stuff you use when you find you have too many system resources to deal with.
  • Degriz, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4LETS DESTROY THE RIAA !!!!!
  • Ludnix, on 02/08/2008, -6/+2I'm okay with the RIAA doing this. I don't use anti-virus software in any OS (I use vista and ubuntu) and have never felt the need for anti-virus software. The only people I imagine this effecting are the computer illiterate, or businesses who require anti-virus software and shouldn't be downloading music anyways.
    • enclaved, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6First they came for the computer illiterates privacy and I said nothing because I could use a mouse...
      • citgod, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Niemoeller is a genius.

        The RIAA are nazis in disguise...
    • sgoogle, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1I read your comment as "I don't any OS"

      I really need to get more sleep
  • poppacherry, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3im attending a town hall meeting with the grammy committee this saturday and im going to make this this ***** of an issue gets brought up. im also gonna addreess the uselessness of the RIAA and how it needs to be laid to rest. immidiately!
  • sido, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6Are they insane or just plain stupid?!?
  • zxof, on 02/08/2008, -0/+12so.. i guess it's time we stop paying for antivirus software?
    • jferrari, on 02/08/2008, -3/+2Yeah, keep the money you save and buy a mac.
      • Jereso, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3That's gonna take a lot of saving for something that you can do for a lot less money.
    • MillionsLivio, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3You pay for software?
  • MizuhoChan, on 02/08/2008, -3/+4If this happened, someone would just make another anti-virus free from RIAA opression. I would welcome such a change, if this happened, although they can't make EVERY anti-virus monitor our computers, so we'd all just change over to whichever doesn't do it anyway. RIAA ARE *****.
  • dupems, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3The anti-virus companies that go along with this would go out of business. There is no issue here at all, the RIAA is retarded if they think they can make this a reality.
  • cultist667, on 02/08/2008, -2/+3I though Norton did this already?
  • alexgap, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1With the multitude of AV programs trying to enforce this on every single one would be a nightmare. There's no way RIAA could feasibly implement this.
  • rzxc, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5Yet another reason to boycott labelware.
  • chrispix, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3I kind of hope they do something like this for two reasons. The first is that AntiVirus would flag music as virii (which I think would be kind of funny). The second, I think I would install AV (which I don't use right now), rip a CD and try and transfer it across my network, maybe to my 360, maybe to my file server. Guess I could sue and..... PROFIT!
  • Myztry, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2File filtering could replace processor intensive anti-virus software in many instances. It could be wonderful if implemented in the right way. Businesses could Subscribe (free) to whitelists of safe software from their industry group thus eliminating the need to independently vet software for viruses or other malware. They could even obtain blacklists for media files to prevent illegal obtained media entering their computers.
    The whole key is the administrator (home or business) being able to choose who to delegate trust to. And somehow I suspect the RIAA's intent is based on their compulsory deeming of who you trust. It would also be open to misuse by say blacklisting non-RIAA members media from being downloaded, legitimately or not.
    • ryan83189, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1illegal_song.mp3 > karaoke.mp3 . virus.exe > explorer.exe . dvdrip.iso > linuxdvd.iso
      • Myztry, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1LOL. Not by file extension. That's just so obviously ineffective and does nothing to identify the file in any meaningful way whatsoever.
        Think along the lines of eMule or Torrents. Hash and length. Though it would need to be done post download due to HTTP lacking such measures for static content.
        HTTP should be updated to allow distributed downloads but that's another story...

  • Edan25, on 02/08/2008, -0/+10Just give up already! This world is changing, and it will never be as you want it to be.
    RIAA, you can't stop the online piracy. GET OVER IT.
  • daviddiaz, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3I'm not worried about the antivirus thing, but if they do do it through the ISP's, we're screwed. In most places there aren't many options to choose from. Where I live it's Comcast or AT&T, and since I don't use a landline, that only leaves comcast.
    • Waterrat, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1 I don't see how they can make ISP's do it,unless they pay them.
    • MalDON, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Yet there are still ways around that, such as encryption. So the only way the ISP can block piracy is to block all your internet to sites they don't trust, which would kill the net.
  • 3tcp, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Good luck getting the anti-virus companies to agree to that, they know that it'd put them out of business
    • ZeRux, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Embedding DRM in Vista didn't put Microsoft out of business...good luck hoping.
      • Waterrat, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1 No, but they lost customers cause they did it.
  • Slovenian6474, on 02/08/2008, -1/+9I think i've come the realization that the RIAA isn't going to wake up one day and say "Wow! All those people were right! Let's change our business plan and stop treating our customers like criminals." Since the RIAA isn't going to change, I've decided I'm going to change my view. I'm not against the RIAA's actions anymore, I want they to turn so evil that they end up cannibalizing themselves. I say sue as many people as you can! Add filtering to the internet and force customers to filter their own internet. Make DRM that you can only play the song for 2 minutes before having to dish out your credit card to hear the rest of the song. What is this 8% going to the artist? Apple can even top that by going 4%! I say the RIAA should cut it down to 1% or 2%! Hell, why stop there? Don't even give the artist any money. Since the RIAA isn't going to get a sudden revelation about what the hell they're doing, I'm rooting for their actions to get much worse so that even the government(s) decide they've had enough and deports the whole RIAA to some place on the southern tip of Antarctica where they would be free to charge penguins the $1.5 million per song download.
    • pond70, on 02/08/2008, -0/+0right on .... even if this video is edited - RIAA views have not changed from the Napster days ..... which is good once napster went down ..what happen to the p2p software the next day? - this will onlywill help promote new development of a bitTorrent V2 ..

      GO RIAA !!!!!!!!!!!
    • Slovenian6474, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Promoting new development wasn't really my point. I kinda meant that the RIAA is stuggling to pull the whole record industry off a cliff while we try to pull it back onto "sane" ground. I'm suggesting just letting go and watch the RIAA pull the whole damn thing down.
  • ZeRux, on 02/08/2008, -2/+1Well they have a point...piracy can be a serious crime, especially when considered how much money is being lost because of it. In upholding justice and law, there should be no compromises. Go RIAA!
    • simg, on 02/08/2008, -2/+2whilst their approach does suck , they _do_ have a point.

      if nobody pays for film and music production (which is very expensive) there will be no more high quality video and music production.
      anyone who thinks that "royalty free" film and music can compete with the quality of "commercially produced" music needs to either a) actually watch some royalty free movies or b) have a go at making a living with royalty free media.

      agreed, the music industry is shooting itself in the foot by trying to screw us multiple times for different media formats but downloading movies _is_ jeopardising future film production.
      • TheLD, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1You have been watching too many of their propaganda videos
    • StarlessKnight, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1That's why they sue people using substandard evidence obtained using questionable methods that may even end up blaming the wrong person, because it's about Truth, Justice, and the RIAAn way. Maybe they should spend all this money making piracy unnecessary instead of going on a rampage, bowling over any and all that stand in their way. They seem to have enough money to think of some creative idea that'd make them a player in the minds of consumers after all.

      "The more you tighten your grip, [RIAA], the more [...] systems will slip through your fingers."
    • TheWindBlows, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1No money is really lost in it really people who pirate don't even have the cash to buy the product.
      If they didn't pirate they'd look for free alternatives.
  • polyGone, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Couldn't we just not install it? Wow, these guys are real thinkers....
    • jim1977, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2They'd have the ISP do it from their end under the guise of 'virus protection,' or build it into your cable/ADSL modem.
      • BlackMask, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1in that case i will switch to mobile broadband. you know, the kind of connection that comes with a express card only that i would need to insert into my laptop's express card slot to use their service?
      • sarixe, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1SHUT UP AND STOP GIVING THEM IDEAS for *****
  • jim1977, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4The RIAA: Earning more money than most artists, and using more underhand and borderline legal methods everyday.
  • sx66gns, on 02/08/2008, -2/+9no worries , use linux.

    I bet the don't like FOSS , ***** em'.
    • DestroyFascism, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1too bad....its on now.....
    • NewOntario, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2Or OS X. That could work just as well.
      • BlackMask, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Using leopard here. nearly forgot definitions of terms such as virus, malware, spyware etc.
  • borez, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1That guy is completely delusional.

    Standards: Seat belts, airbags, Ipods ( with lousy batteries )...err a downloaded tune.

    WTF?
    • CrazedLeper, on 02/08/2008, -2/+1buried for questioning the sanity of a total stranger based upon a webpage.
  • garvallagh, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1When are we getting open source AV ?
  • ainsworthboyle, on 02/08/2008, -6/+3I'm seeing a new Get A Mac ad.
  • GOVATENT, on 02/08/2008, -2/+9I use Linux
  • jooje, on 02/08/2008, -4/+2Modem chip mods, 20$ , any one wanna sign up?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.