12 October 2001. See report on Safeweb pings and third message from leaker of the alleged secret RIAA meeting:
http://cryptome.org/riaa-safeweb.htm
11 October 2001
From 14 users of Safeweb scattered around the US and several overseas, the same range of IP addresses were used to log onto Cryptome. Which makes sense if all users logged into the same Safeweb home page and from there logged onto Cryptome. A few users logged in from their own addresses just before or after using Safeweb for comparison.
No triangulation with that method.
One thing our expert found by pinging Safeweb is that a few of the last hops leading up to Safeweb appear to be in the NYC area:
13 lga1-ord2-oc48-2.lga1.above.net (208.185.156.158) 112.562 ms 111.984 ms 112.53 ms 14 core2-lga1-oc192.lga2.above.net (208.184.232.198) 114.423 ms 113.431 ms 112.688 ms 15 main1colo45-core2-oc48.lga2.above.net (216.200.127.174) 113.138 ms 113.855 ms 111.581 ms 16 208.184.48.189.safeweb.com (208.184.48.189) 113.78 ms 115.876 ms 113.534 ms 17 64.124.150.130.safeweb.com (64.124.150.130) 112.797 ms 112.937 ms 112.228 ms
This is on the assumption that "lga2" refers to "La Guardia," but that is not certain for the tag may have nothing to do with physical location. However other above.net hops used airport tags.
If you would like to ping Safeweb from your location we would appreciate getting the logs for comparison. Just be alert to this being a scam to snarf your true identity, so leave off the first hop if you like, or just send in the last four or five hops leading up to Safeweb.
The IP addresses of 64.124.150.130 et seq. is what we are tracking, but note the other Safeweb address in the ping log. So we would like to get any fresh safeweb addresses in ping logs beyond this range (and altogether different domains):
64.124.150.130 - 64.124.150.144
Send logs to: jya@pipeline.com
Thanks.
11 October 2001
Thanks to help from an expert Cryptome has developed a likely source for the RIAA meeting messages, and at the moment it appears likely Safeweb.com was used to send the messages as well as to check on this file.
Safeweb appears to dynamically assign addresses to users, though within a limited range which might be set by the location of the user, but we are not sure of that. Indeed, if Safeweb does not cloak location by avoiding a predictable range that would be a serious weakness. But we need to test that.
Safeweb is hosted, at least in part, by the giant ISP Abovenet, home-based in San Jose, CA, with facilities all around the US and overseas. To help us triangulate a likely location from which the messages were sent, we need to log Safeweb accesses to Cryptome from a variety of US and overseas locations.
For example Cryptome gets the same range of addresses as those of the RIAA messages and file accesses by logging in from New York City to Safeweb.com then using Safeweb's browser to request a Cryptome file. What we don't know is whether those same addresses would be used from other physical locations around the world.
For anybody who wants to risk giving away their own location we ask that accesses be made from the Safeweb.com from any location in the world to request a fictitious file on Cryptome:
http://cryptome.org/this-is-safeweb-xxxxxxxx.htm
Replace xxxxxxx with a clue to your location, say, texas, germany, whereever I could identify.
The request will generate an error code and an originating address from Safeweb which we can use to compare to what we've got for the RIAA messages and for NYC. Presumably Safeweb will cloak your actual IP address.
Let us emphasize that we do not yet believe the source was perpetrating a hoax, or if so whether the hoax was run to benefit RIAA which is the current outcome. Our intention is not to expose the source if the leak is legitimate, but we damn well want to broadcast it if RIAA, its friends or a TLA cooked up the ruse.
Declan McCullagh has jumped the gun on assigning blame to The Register, apparently doing little more checking on the source of the alleged hoax than The Register did to check the original leak. But hell that's snotty Net journalism competition at its best: fire, aim, oh, the safety was off.
-- Cryptome
10 October 2001: Cryptome writes to the source of the RIAA meeting allegation:
Response to your message last evening:The Register has today recanted its story about the RIAA meeting.
How do you want to handle this now? Ready to be named, your full messages published on Cryptome, or do you want to provide substantiation for your messages and keep your identity concealed? Or perhaps another thoughtful approach to loft this story to a higher level. Interest will be high for a few more hours -- or many days if you come through with authentic evidence. Want to talk on the phone, be on TV with a mask, then fax us your meeting notes for one of the prime participants, provide proof of employment with a media corporation. All as easily done as this message.
John
Tel: 212-873-8700
Fax: 212-787-6102
10 October 2001. Tony Smith with The Register claims his October 8 story about a secret RIAA meeting was in error:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/31/22138.html
10 October 2001: The source of this message has provided additional information which gives credence to the message: specific role in the meeting; reaction by attendees to reports of the meeting; investigations into who leaked information about the meeting; why there are denials the meeting took place; and measures used beforehand and afterwards to conceal attendance at the meeting.
9 October 2001. Questions have been raised by several readers about the authenticity of this report. Two alleged attendees deny that there was a meeting, another attendee left the named organization a year ago, and there appear to be contradictions within the message (see reader comments below). We have inquired about the authenticiy of the message from its source but have not received an answer. Information welcome: jya@pipeline.com
9 October 2001. Add comments. See also Tony Smith's earlier report in The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/22087.html
8 October 2001
By Anonymous
On Thursday [October 4] there was a closed-door meeting at the Ritz-Carlton, which was "a direction setting" meeting. The individuals of note attending were:
Hillary Rosen - RIAA ChiefSteve Heckler - Sony Music
Strauss Zelnick - BMG
Edgar Bronfman - Universal
Gerald Levin - AOL Time-Warner
Ken Berry - EMI
Leonardo Chiariaglione - SDMI Chair (Leaving Soon)
Francis Jones - Codex Data Systems
Fritz Hollings - Senator
Ted Stevens - Senator
Michael Eisner - Disney CEO
Jack Valenti - President, MPAA
Andy Grove - Intel CEO
Lou Gerstner - IBM
Yoishi Morishita - CEO Matsushita
Tsutomo Kawata - CEO Toshiba
Jay Berman - IFPI Chair
Paul England - Microsoft Advanced Cryptography research group
The meeting began this morning at 9 AM with a keynote from Hillary Rosen, the topic being digital rights management and stopping internet piracy. Much of the topic of the topic was relating to the pending lawsuit againts fastrack, grokster, musiccity, and kazaa.
Some notable excerpts of her keynote include:
"The new generation of rogue file sharing applications have set a disturbing precedent. The encryption technology used is clearly aimed at thwarting our anti-piracy operations. We must go after the parties involved, and force them to give up their encryption keys so our anti-piracy operations can begin reporting those who infringe upon our works to their internetservice providers""We will develop whatever technologies necessary to make our music pirate proof, so legitimate services can flourish online. Recent trials of four anti-rip technologies have been extremely encouraging, as no one has been able to circumvent them".
"We will work with our friends in Washington to develop tough new laws that go after the hackers, and file sharers themselves. Such is the aim of proposed new legislation under the Security Systems Standardization act developed by our friends present here today."
"We are working with sound card manufacturers to implement technology that will block the recording of watermarked content in both digital and analog form."
The reference here is to the 4C verance watermark that the RIAA will require.
"The industry has spent over one hundred million dollars in research and development to develop technologies to stop piracy of our member's works.""We must work together with computer manufacturers to find ways to block the spread of legacy content."
"The failure of the CPRM specification to be applied to computer hard drives was a giant step back for the publishing, music, and entertainment industry, and we will work to develop a new specification that accomplishes what CPRM would have done."
"The drop in CD sales can be directly attributed to the new generation of file swapping services. Because of their de-centralized nature, it is impossible to determine whether usage has surpassed that of Napster at its heyday."
"We must ask that the safeharbor provision of the DMCA be removed. Because of the magnitude of the problem, Internet service providers can no longer be shielded from the wrath of the law."
"Once we stem piracy, we will be able to raise prices in order to regain lost profits from piracy."
After the keynote, there was a symposium. Notable things brought up:
Universal will be using Key 2 Audio on all CD's sold starting in Q2 2002.
AOL Time Warner has said they will begin to experiment with Safe Audio and Cactus Data Shield, and implement copy protections on all its CD's in Q3 2002.
Sony's Heckler stated that, "Once consumers can no longer get free music, they will have to buy the music in the formats we choose to put out."
Disney's Eisner stated, "Privacy laws are our biggest impediment to us obtaining our objectives."
Gerald Levin stated, "There has been an unconfirmed break in the DVD audio encryption scheme in Russia. We cannot ignore this threat, as DVD Audio represents the future of this company. We will have to be vigilant, and prosecute anyone who posts a program or source code to defeat CPPM in an extremely expeditious manner."
Paul England stated, "By tweaking hardware slightly, we can stem content piracy by making software attacks a thing of the past."
One particularly disturbing fact is that Codex Data System's DIRT software is supposed to be restricted to law enforcement agencies, yet the RIAA, MPAA, and IFPI have all purchased it, and use it routinely to monitor servers which are suspected of infringing content, yet are password protected such as servers which require one to sign up for a password account like hotline servers that have no guest download.
Reader comments:
From: NameBase
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:00:09 EDT
Subject: Conspiracy or spoof?
To: jya@pipeline.com
[Snip list of RIAA meeting attendess.]
I find it hard to believe that you could get these people in the same room at the same time just to discuss music piracy on the Internet.
I'd try to confirm the travel schedules of some of them before posting something like this from "anonymous."
If you can confirm it, then never again can anyone question the use of the word "conspiracy."
-- Daniel
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 06:26:24 +0100
To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
From: Donald
Subject: Re: RIAA Secret Meeting
I have read the full report, and it seems to me that:
"Once we stem piracy, we will be able to raise prices in order to regain lost profits from piracy."
Amounts to a price fixing policy within a cartel, which I believe ( and I may be wrong IANA[US]L) is a criminal offence in the US. Perhaps this info should be sent to the DoJ.
This was pretty disturbing (and Ironic):
Disney's Eisner stated, "Privacy laws are our biggest impediment to us obtaining our objectives."
You can bet your bottom dollar (sic) that whenever such as these gather together no good will come of it. The rank hypocrisy of the hardware manufacturers is a bit steep, with Sony etc making copying devices and some even have built in hacks to their equipment (DVD regional code hacks) and still they participate in such as this.
So they want to say who, what, why, when and where "their" software is accessed with little regard to the consumer. The fact that the consumer may have paid through the nose several times for the software or may wish to access the legimately purchased content in a particular way is irrelevant and they are prepared to trample your basic human rights in the process of acheiving their objectives of telling you how to use "their" product.
In case you are in any doubt as to whether this has any crypto content, this should dispel that:
"The new generation of rogue file sharing applications have set a disturbing precedent. The encryption technology used is clearly aimed at thwarting our anti-piracy operations. We must go after the parties involved, and force them to give up their encryption keys so our anti-piracy operations can begin reporting those who infringe upon our works to their internetservice providers"
Remember the MPAA have used strong arm tactics not only in the US, but here in the UK on universities and individuals.
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 09:42:08 +0100
From: Derek
To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Subject: Re: RIAA Secret Meeting
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 06:26:24AM +0100, Donald ramsbottom wrote:
> "The new generation of rogue file sharing applications have set
a
> disturbing precedent. The encryption technology used is clearly
aimed at
> thwarting our anti-piracy operations. We must go after the
parties
> involved, and force them to give up their encryption keys so our
> anti-piracy operations can begin reporting those who infringe upon our
> works to their internetservice providers"
A bit disturbing if they manage to ram their new SSSA (?) law down the EU's throat, ala the DMCA equivalent.
One of the good uses for end-to-end encryption (Transport mode IPsec) is that it should (if it ever gets deployed) force ISPs to provide what they're meant to - simply bandwidth.
i.e. the games that BT Openworld are alleged to be playing with restricting the bandwidth available when certain TCP ports are in use would be unworkable. Mind - such ISPs might then switch to bandwidth limiting encrypted transmissions.
dF
From: "Nexus"
To: <ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Subject: Re: RIAA Secret Meeting
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 08:56:04 +0100
> One particularly disturbing fact is that Codex Data System's DIRT
> software is supposed to be restricted to law enforcement agencies,
> yet the RIAA, MPAA, and IFPI have all purchased it, and use it
> routinely to monitor servers which are suspected of infringing
[snip]
This is no great surprise - DIRT had been around for 3 years or so and the guy who was/is selling it, SpyKing, did time for fraud - coincidence I am sure. From a technical perpective it has always lagged behind the latest remote control tools such as BO2K and SubSeven. At one point, the programmer for it approached some independant security groups requesting unpublished exploit information with which to install this software - the group I know of refused on ethical grounds. I have not seen the latest version since I'm not an LEA or a music Mogul but I am sceptical of some of it's claims purely from a technical point of view. One of the biggest dangers with such software, it that if [they] can control the remote host, then someone else could as well.....
Cheers,
JJ
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 01:03:41 -0700
From: andrew
To: jya@pipeline.com
Subject: RIAA Meeting (Grove not CEO)
The RIAA Meeting notes list Andy Grove as the Intel CEO, but this is no longer true. It is now Craig R. Barrett. Grove may still be on the board but I am not sure.
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 11:30:52 -0400
From: Greg
To: cypherpunks@lne.com
Subject: Re: RIAA Secret Meeting
Astounding quotes from Hilary Rosen:
"The drop in CD sales can be directly attributed to the new generation of file swapping services. Because of their de-centralized nature, it is impossible to determine whether usage has surpassed that of Napster at its heyday."
gbn translation: "Even though CD sales have increased, they haven't increased as much as we dreamed. Therefore, we need to blame something we can't even measure. The only sound alternative is to consider that our lowest-common-denominator pablum-puking crappy products simply suck."
"We must ask that the safe harbor provision of the DMCA be removed. Because of the magnitude of the problem, Internet service providers can no longer be shielded from the wrath of the law."
gbn translation: "I am the law" (spoken with a Judge Dredd sneer)
"Once we stem piracy, we will be able to raise prices in order to regain lost profits from piracy."
gbn translation: "If we're unable to stem piracy, we will need to raise prices to fight piracy better."
I'm a little worried that "Anonymous" misspelled Hilary Rosen's name, but at least he/she got the gender right (http://images.google.com/images?q=Hilary+Rosen) for pics.
The only remaining question is whether the fact of the meeting can be verified via other sources.
-- Greg
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 15:15:51 -0400
From: Seth
To: John Young <jya@PIPELINE.COM>
Subject: http://cryptome.org/riaa-secret.htm
John, I think that document is a hoax.
Think about it - getting Eisner AND Valenti AND Grove AND Hollings all in the same place and the same time? That strikes me as extremely difficult, bordering on the impossible.
Moreover:
"One particularly disturbing fact is that Codex Data System's DIRT software is supposed to be restricted to law enforcement agencies, yet the RIAA, MPAA, and IFPI have all purchased it, and use it routinely to monitor servers which are suspected of infringing content, yet are password protected such as servers which require one to sign up for a password account like hotline servers that have no guest download."
But compare even cryptome's link:
http://cryptome.org/dirty-secrets2.htm
5 June 2001: See expose of DIRT as a scam by Thomas Greene in The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19480.html
The time to be most skeptical is when someone is feeding you a "secret" report alleging everything you want to hear.
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 15:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ben
Subject: "Secret RIAA Meeting"
To: jya@pipeline.com
Odd that Strauss Zelnick would be there as a representative of BMG, since he left almost a year ago...
Ben
From: rms
To: <jya@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: The secret RIAA meeting in DC
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:35:46 -0400
Has there been an independent confirmation that this secret RIAA meeting really occurred? I asked one of the "attendees" what went on at the meeting, and he said that there was no such meeting.
Richard
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 15:16:26 -0700
From: Karsten
To: Cypherpunks List <cypherpunks@lne.com>
Subject: Fwd: [free-sklyarov] Fwd: Smell Test for a Certain Unconfirmed Meeting
Report
Following post calls to question the legitimacy of the Cryptome RIAA meeting report. Others have expressed doubts as well. I don't agree with most of its points (see free-sklyarov archives for my response), but would appreciate back-propogation to point of origin for response.
John, anything you can do?
on Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 02:16:20PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> (Forwarded from p2p-legal list)
> -----Original Message-----
From: hal@finney.org
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 10:38:05 -0700
This report fails the "smell test". It sounds like the quotes have
at least been doctored to provide red meat to the opposition.
"The failure of the CPRM specification to be applied to computer hard drives was a giant step back for the publishing, music, and entertainment industry, and we will work to develop a new specification that accomplishes what CPRM would have done."
CPRM was never intended to be applied to computer hard drives. It was for removable media. The reason it was added to the spec in question was for support of Compact Flash drives, which are accessed via the ATA hard disk spec but which are removable.
There was considerable debate about this point at the time the accusations were made that it was part of a conspiracy. IMO the defense won. There were a lot of technical people involved in that committee who were not the conspiratorial type and they had a good explanation of what was involved. The purpose of the CPRM spec was to allow writing the data encrypted on one drive and reading it back on a different drive which lacked the same encryption keys. This is a technical complication which CPRM was designed to solve. There is no need for this complexity if the data is being written and read on the same drive, as the accusers suggested, since the same keys would be available for both steps.
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/16300.html for a "response" article and you will see that the specific accusations about CPRM have been dropped altogether in favor of a general set of complaints about copy protection.
Hence it is highly unlikely that Rosen would say that CPRM was intended for computer hard drives, but it feeds exactly the fears of the conspiracy theorists at whom this document is apparently aimed.
"Once we stem piracy, we will be able to raise prices in order to regain lost profits from piracy."
Again this is a highly improbable quote. In the first place it is too obvious, everyone there would already have such thoughts in mind. In the second place it can only hurt the group in the event that it was leaked out. And in the third place it assumes that piracy is forcing them to keep prices down, which seems unlikely (although not impossible).
Sony's Heckler stated that, "Once consumers can no longer get free music, they will have to buy the music in the formats we choose to put out."
Again, an unlikely thing to say unless the intention is to get consumers riled up.
Gerald Levin stated, "There has been an unconfirmed break in the DVD audio encryption scheme in Russia. We cannot ignore this threat, as DVD Audio represents the future of this company. We will have to be vigilant, and prosecute anyone who posts a program or source code to defeat CPPM in an extremely expeditious manner."
I'm not familiar with this. What is DVD audio? Are they distributing songs on DVD disks now? And what about the well known decss DVD encryption breaking algorithm? Doesn't that already retrive the audio stream? Levin represented AOL Time Warner. Do they really think that DVD audio is "the future of this company"? It's a pretty big company to be betting its future on one unproven technology.
Paul England stated, "By tweaking hardware slightly, we can stem content piracy by making software attacks a thing of the past."
This seems technically unlikely and in a group like this which has been burned so often by broken copy protection schemes, it would seem strange that someone would make such a bald claim. These people are not idiots and they would be highly skeptical that any such technological fixes could work.
One particularly disturbing fact is that Codex Data System's DIRT software is supposed to be restricted to law enforcement agencies, yet the RIAA, MPAA, and IFPI have all purchased it, and use it routinely to monitor servers which are suspected of infringing content, yet are password protected such as servers which require one to sign up for a password account like hotline servers that have no guest download.
I don't know much about this but I'm skeptical that there is automated software to break into hotline servers. Besides, those which have no guest downloads are used by only small groups, typically no more than a few dozen users, and are unlikely to be a significant threat to the RIAA. They don't care that much about small scale piracy, it is the big systems which they want to shut down.
All in all it looks like at least some of these quote have been manufactured or enhanced for political purposes.
Hal Finney
_______________________________________________
p2p-legal mailing list
p2p-legal@dtype.org
http://dtype.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-legal
_______________________________________________
free-sklyarov mailing list
free-sklyarov@zork.net
http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov
From: Choe
To: "'senator@hollings.senate.gov'" <senator@hollings.senate.gov>,
"'jya@pipeline.com'" <jya@pipeline.com>
Cc: [Deleted]
Subject: Regarding SSSCA
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 16:09:03 -0700
It is my understanding that you, Senator Fritz Hollings, as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, are attempting to pass legislation that would in effect limit and thus violate our constitutional and God given rights to First Amendment freedoms. By wording this act with such broad, undefinable terms, most people should have no problem coming to the realization that this act has been proposed simply to benefit the major media conglomerates (i.e. Disney, AOL Time Warner, etc.) at the expense of and detriment to our rights as American citizens.
I ask you Senator, being that you are a public servant in the exclusive service to the American, tax-paying citizens, to cease and desist these thinly veiled attempts to empower "Big Brother" with this sort of Orwellian legislation that would make Lenin shed tears of pride, while mocking the freedoms which American men and women shed blood for. Statements such as "Privacy laws are our biggest impediment to us obtaining our objectives." by Michael Eisner from Disney, and "Once consumers can no longer get free music, they will have to buy the music in the formats we choose to put out." from Steve Heckler of Sony Music, reflect the intent behind this legislation. This type of rhetoric can be expected from supporters of the likes of Khomeini, Pinochet, and Hitler - but not from a free society such as ours. We do not seek to be repressed by our government, nor will we accept it.
I would ask that all freedom loving persons who see this plot for what it is: a scheme concocted by a group of industry evildoers to benifit their bottom lines, to express their feelings at:
http://redhat.rgc2.com/servlet/website/ResponseForm?koEahsspgnlzNkOLR
or write Senator Hollings and also to your local and state representatives. These politicians must be made to know that the American public will not accept this type of patently absurd, and wholly corrupt legistation on our behalf.
=======
SOURCES
=======
SSSCA Draft Bill by Sen. Ernest Hollings (Dem-S.C)
http://img.cmpnet.com/nc/graphics/sssca-draft.pdf
Secret RIAA Meeting
http://cryptome.org/riaa-secret.htm
LEGISLATIVE ALERT: SSSCA - Security Systems Standards and Certification Act
http://www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/article2.html
Matthew Szulik's Speech
http://www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/speech.html
From: rms
To: "'John Young'" <jya@pipeline.com>
Subject: RE: The secret RIAA meeting in DC
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 20:40:55 -0400
The anonymous write-up claims that Paul England of Microsoft attended the RIAA meeting. Here's what he said to me:
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul England [mailto:pengland@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 5:11 PM
To: Richard
Subject: RE: Question about the DC RIAA Meeting
I'm afraid the very existence of the meeting was made up.
Paul
It appears that Mr. Anonymous is likely playing monkey games here.
Richard
From: rms
To: "'John Young'" <jya@pipeline.com>
Subject: RE: The secret RIAA meeting in DC
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:30:43 -0400
Looks like The Reg is now saying that the story is probably a fake:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/31/22138.html
I wonder who was behind the hoax. Can you send me any email headers of the original anonymous message that was sent to you?
To: rms
From: jya@pipeline.com
Date: 10 Oct 2001
Subject: RE: The secret RIAA meeting in DC
Yes, we put a link to The Register retraction.
We got a second message from our source last night in response to a request for substantiation. A bit more forthcoming, and a lot of stuff about leak investigations, threats, panic and so forth. Could be more fabrication -- that's could -- but I'm still not sure who would be doing this -- an exposed hoax would benefit RIAA.
After seeing The Register retraction I sent another message to my source asking for a response to the retraction, for firmer substantiation, or, if preferred, for me to publish the full contents of the messages, headers and all. No answer yet.
Since there is a chance the source is a friend of RIAA looking for sympathy legislation, we are most interested in learning who is behind the deception if it is not a bonafide leak.
Since we don't want to finger anybody to keep anonymous stuff coming our way, we prefer not to identify this source unless something weirder happens -- like The Register being faked out a second time in making a retraction. My message to The Register reporter yesterday asking about authentication has not been answered.
Disinformation and deception is what we publish, so this story fits along with challenges to it -- all one soup.
John
From: TB
To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com>
Subject: Re: RIAA secret meeting memo fake
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:39:40 +0100
Even if it is a fake, I think the reason people were so interested in the message is that it appears to confirm that the RIAA are as ruthless as they act.
In this instance, I certainly 'want to believe', I hope you manage get some extra evidence to back this up.
-----Original Message-----
From: jya@pipeline.com
Sent: 10 October 2001 17:55
To: cypherpunks@lne.com
Subject: Re: RIAA secret meeting memo fake
We're pursuing the matter though Tony Smith at the Register seems to be washing his hands of it. And we have asked a couple of wizards help check out the source of the messages we have received, now two -- the latest last evening (with a possibility the source is a provocateur of the infotainment industry aiming for sympathy legislation).
Here's our latest message to our always trustworthy source:
Response to your message last evening:The Register has today recanted its story about the RIAA meeting.
How do you want to handle this now? Ready to be named, your full messages published on Cryptome, or do you want to provide substantiation for your messages and keep your identity concealed? Or perhaps another thoughtful approach to loft this story to a higher level. Interest will be high for a few more hours -- or many days if you come through with authentic evidence. Want to talk on the phone, be on TV with a mask, then fax us your meeting notes for one of the prime participants, provide proof of employment with a media corporation. All as easily done as this message.
John
Tel: 212-873-8700
Fax: 212-787-6102
We get sucker punched occasionally and don't mind for it allows respondents to critique and smoke out phonies, which has long been big business, name your titans of fakery in all fields, not least entertainment, media, gov, mil and intel.
Indeed, without sophisticated fakery, deception, disinformation, lying, cheating, exploitation of the yokels, lying about the truth, this list would have little reason to exist, not to say a huge swatch of the globe's economy, led, yes, yes, by the USA USA.
Valenti claims the interests of the USA USA are identical to MPAA MPAA, and why not RIAA RIAA and the supplicants for billions like NY NY.