bigc wrote:I opened it, and read it...it said they were SUCKERS.

This made me chuckle audibly.

the first thing that tipped me off was that it was signed...

RIAA

No name what so ever. Just RIAA.

It should have been signed

Lawyer for the RIAA or The RIAAs mean big brother.

bigc wrote:I opened it, and read it...it said they were SUCKERS.

Well done, sir.

Rick Reuben wrote:Unrelated- there has been a rash of official-looking phishing emails purporting to be from irs.gov going around, promising tax refunds. It's all Russian bullshit.

I got a lot of those a couple of years back. One from the CIA, one from the FBI, and one from Cairo International Bank. They were all very poorly written and insisted I download the same sketchy-looking executable file.

The British spelling of "offense" gave it away. Luckily, English is such an inconsistent language, even the best-educated furriners are always going to stick out.

Rick Reuben wrote:Unrelated- there has been a rash of official-looking phishing emails purporting to be from irs.gov going around, promising tax refunds. It's all Russian bullshit.

blah blah soviet russia blah blah taxes collect you etc etc what a country

Skronk wrote:There's nothing really the RIAA could do besides taking the site down completely.

And/or sue.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/04/riaa ... l-awarded/
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/31/know ... s-calling/

newberry wrote:

Skronk wrote:There's nothing really the RIAA could do besides taking the site down completely.

And/or sue.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/04/riaa ... l-awarded/
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/31/know ... s-calling/

Oink had upwards of 180,000 people if I remember correctly. What just opened, and they've got at least 15,000. The RIAA doesn't have that vast amount of time or resources to track down more than a handful of people, and it probably wouldn't make it to trial. Soulseek's a bit different.

They rely on scare tactics, and underhanded shit like paying Media Defender or hackers to fuck with sites. Or they get helped by proxy by some stooge in England with too much time on his hands.

Skronk wrote:

newberry wrote:

Skronk wrote:There's nothing really the RIAA could do besides taking the site down completely.

And/or sue.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/04/riaa ... l-awarded/
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/31/know ... s-calling/

Oink had upwards of 180,000 people if I remember correctly. What just opened, and they've got at least 15,000. The RIAA doesn't have that vast amount of time or resources to track down more than a handful of people, and it probably wouldn't make it to trial. Soulseek's a bit different.

They rely on scare tactics, and underhanded shit like paying Media Defender or hackers to fuck with sites. Or they get helped by proxy by some stooge in England with too much time on his hands.

I agree it's not likely that anything will happen, but I was responding to your earlier post:

There's nothing really the RIAA could do besides taking the site down completely.

newberry wrote:

Skronk wrote:

newberry wrote:

Skronk wrote:There's nothing really the RIAA could do besides taking the site down completely.

And/or sue.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/04/riaa ... l-awarded/
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/31/know ... s-calling/

Oink had upwards of 180,000 people if I remember correctly. What just opened, and they've got at least 15,000. The RIAA doesn't have that vast amount of time or resources to track down more than a handful of people, and it probably wouldn't make it to trial. Soulseek's a bit different.

They rely on scare tactics, and underhanded shit like paying Media Defender or hackers to fuck with sites. Or they get helped by proxy by some stooge in England with too much time on his hands.

I agree it's not likely that anything will happen, but I was responding to your earlier post:

There's nothing really the RIAA could do besides taking the site down completely.

One could get sued by the RIAA to the tune of $222,000.