p2pnet - rss feed: Hilarious RIAA training video online
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- It’s called In Trial and it starts off with a judge’s gavel slamming down onto a wooden pad.
Hard.
The latest Hollywood courtroom flick?
Lawyer drama, Yes. Hollywood, No —- unless the MPAA had a hand in it which, these days, is entirely possible.
Because In Trial is a flick made jointly by Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and the National District Attorneys Association, with Jonathan Lamy, Cara Duckworth and Liz Kennedy (no ladies first at the RIAA) as the points of contact.
Starring ex-prosecutor Deborah Robinson and Frank Walters (right), an ex-Maryland State trooper, it was made to “assist in the training of U.S. prosecutors responsible for handling music piracy cases”.
It includes footage from “surveillance” videos and, “techniques on how to identify illegal sound recordings and highlights,” not to mention, “examples of how illegal music is sold”.
And here’s the kicker.
It even claims to provide instructions on, and we quote, “qualifying an RIAA investigator as an expert”.
So that’s where Doug Jacobson and MediaSentry acquired their skills! 
This last bit is particularly ripe given the RIAA’s consistent failure to qualify anyone as anything when it comes to providing technical evidence.
It, ” compliments [the] RIAA’s continued in-person training sessions available to all law enforcement officials interested in learning how to effectively prosecute those who engage in music piracy,” says the RIAA earnestly.
So that’s how they spent the money they scammed out of those university students.
You can download it from Mininova here http://www.mininova.org/tor/1182553
Or if you prefer, contact:
John Curry, northeast region, 212 533-5869
Deborah Robinson, central region, 610 521-8566
Marcus Cohen, western region, 714236-0830
Matthew Kilgo, southern region, 678 402-2000.
We wanted to get this online ASAP so it can be as widely dispersed as possible.
The cut on the left is from what’s supposed to be a hidden surveillance camera showing two hardened criminals engaged in illicitly handling Big 4 contraband ‘product’.
This is going to provide YouTube (and other) fodder for months, Nay!, years to come.
Definitely stay tuned.
(Thanks, catflap)
UPDATE - February 21: Click here for phrackingtoast on RIAA training video. He’s the guy who posted it.
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe
to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
“We wanted to get this online ASAP so it can be as widely dispersed as possible.”
You misspelled “ridiculed”.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:24 am
Rekrul
Raed this. Of waht impratonce is one mssplleed wrod? Did you kown taht wehn we raed, we olny raed the first and the last lettre of each word to get it’s maening?
For example: Rekrul = Lurker = Rukrel
February 19th, 2008 at 5:46 am
some of these people don’t understand a joke rekrul
February 19th, 2008 at 6:08 am
this torrent is legal for me to download, yes?
February 19th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Of course it’s legal to download it, they’re not selling it. I’ll download it today and see if the video is something i can tear apart too. To all the readers, yes, edit, recode and upload to all the video websites. Exposure is important if the video is really lame.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:41 am
It really IS lame
Cheers!
February 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am
they even faked the time!
last half hour or so is just grey screen
so you are faster done then you first feared
for “us”, there is only a few sentences in the whole thingy (online piracy uploading downloading bla bla bla) nothing really important,
And going after people that sell product is imo legitimate.
P.S: I find it also good that the nice lady stupilated to the fact that big 4 product buyers finance terrorist when they buy it!
Is RIAA headquarter already designated as terrorist hideout to be bombed then?
(I haven’t bought a single CD since I heard about Larry scantlebury the vietnam pilot back then! I don’t fund terrorist!!)
February 19th, 2008 at 9:42 am
guys, the video really works!
Already 3 persons could be reprogrammed not to use torrents again!
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4034469/RIAA_Training_Video__Prosecution_of_Music_Piracy
February 19th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Where I say “So that’s where Doug Jacobson and MediaSentry acquired their skills!” I’m joking. I don’t know if that is the case, but …..
Cheers!
February 19th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
“I’m joking.”
That is obvious. There is no need to qualify it
http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/02/riaa-training-v.html
February 19th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
^^ I thought so when I wrote it, but one lawyer took it literally.
Cheers!
February 19th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I downloaded it last night and I’m watching it now.
They say that music piracy is often associated with drug and gun sale and other kinds of badness. I don’t know if this is the case, i have no data on this one way or the other. It might be. Lets give them the benefit of the doubt for a minute. The video is advocating some sort of gateway-prosecution strategy: prosecutors that where “unable to get them for other things” might be able to get them for music piracy, or, piracy is a great way to show probable cause, and thus get a search warrant. I’m all for gun control, and if someone can show how cracking down on drug dealers will increase the quality of my drugs, I’ll support that too (Lazy bastards. I know my neighborhood reefer-man could use a kick in the pants), and its probably not right to sell pirate warez. But i think this raises two interesting points:
1. Is it moral and just to use this foot-in-the-door strategy to bust criminals? If you suspect someone is dealing drugs, shouldn’t you have to have probable cause that they are dealing drugs, rather than going in with a battering-ram on every music pirate on the off chance that they might be selling drugs?
2. The very fact that a black market for music exists, and is thriving…doesn’t that indicate that music is priced too high? or that the legal distribution channels are unacceptable to people for other reasons? the normal, healthy forces of capitalism - the invisible hand of the market-place and all that, are attempting to stabilize the market because price is out of sync with demand. Thats what black-markets mean, right? They are safety valves that prevent the market from collapsing, or satisfy demands that can not be satisfied through legal channels. for Chicago-school economists, the existence of a black market *means* that the market is sick.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
“Raed this. Of waht impratonce is one mssplleed wrod? Did you kown taht wehn we raed, we olny raed the first and the last lettre of each word to get it’s maening?”
You flunked reading comprehension, didn’t you?
Oh, and I’ve seen the trehoy taht olny the frsit and lsat ltretes of a wrod mtetar broefe. Taht wkros wtih sthroer wdors, but it flals aarpt wehn unisg legonr, mroe clepmox wdros taht cna’t be eilsay ulbsemncrad. Srue, you can elatlvuney furige out waht tsehe scetennes say, but it’s not nalrey as esay as ppolee calim it is.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Remember the old days of nettiquite when it was impolite to criticize someone’s spelling? For some people your language is a second language to them. Who cares about ONE misspelled word?
Reminds me of this:
——————————————————–
I have a spelling checker It came with my pea see. It plane lee marks four my revue Miss steaks aye can knot sea.
Eye run this poem threw it. Your sure real glad two no. Its very polished in its weigh, My checker tolled me sew.
A checker is a blessing. It freeze yew lodes of thyme. It helps me right awl stiles two reed, And aides me when aye rime.
Each frays comes posed up on my screen Eye trussed too bee a joule. The checker pours o’er every word To cheque sum spelling rule.
Bee fore a veiling checkers Hour spelling mite decline, And if we’re laks oar have a laps, We wood bee maid too wine.
Butt now bee cause my spelling Is checked with such grate flare, There are know faults with in my cite, Of nun eye am a wear.
Now spelling does not phase me, It does knot bring a tier. My pay purrs awl due glad den With wrapped words fare as hear.
To rite with care is quite a feet Of witch won should be proud, And wee mussed dew the best wee can, Sew flaws are knot aloud.
Sow ewe can sea why aye dew prays Such soft wear four pea seas, And why eye brake in two averse Buy righting want too please.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
“Remember the old days of nettiquite when it was impolite to criticize someone’s spelling?”
Remember the old days when someone could recognize a joke?
Allow me to explain so there will be no further confusion…
In the story, Jon wrote;
“We wanted to get this online ASAP so it can be as widely dispersed as possible.”
Note the part where he says “widely dispersed”
In my first message, I quoted the line above and said;
“You misspelled “ridiculed”.”
If you look at the line he wrote, you will see that the word “ridiculed” wasn’t used, misspelled or otherwise. In fact, no words even come close enough to the spelling of the word “ridiculed” to be mistaken for it. At this point, most people will then begin to look at the line for a word that could be replaced by “ridiculed”. Only two words in the original sentence end in “ed”, “wanted” and “dispersed”.
Let us first try the word in place of “wanted”;
“We ridiculed to get this online ASAP so it can be as widely dispersed as possible.”
That doesn’t quite make sense. Let’s try it in place of “dispersed”;
“We wanted to get this online ASAP so it can be as widely ridiculed as possible.”
This makes sense and it changes the entire meaning of the sentence.
This makes it funny for the following reason;
Many internet users don’t respect the RIAA. Often the “training” materials they put out are full of mis-information and exaggerated claims. Many people often mock or “ridicule” the RIAA and the things they do.
By saying that Jon mispelled the word “ridiculed”, I was suggesting that by making the video available on the internet, it would be “widely ridiculed” and that saying so would have been a more accurate prediction of what would happen. Of course Jon probably wouldn’t say such a thing himself since it could be seen as unprofessional, so I posted my comment to illustrate what most people are thinking.
Additionally, if Jon HAD written the sentence that way, it wouldn’t have been humorous at all. True, but not funny. The humor comes from the implication that Jon either couldn’t say what was actually on his mind, or that the thought that it would be ridiculed didn’t occur to him. The first implies that he is a savvy author who knows what will happen when most internet users watch the video, but he is too professional to say it. The latter implies that he is naive enough not to understand that people WILL ridicule this video. Both are funny, although it’s up to the reader to decide which they believe and which provides the most laughs.
Personally, I believe the first is the most accurate depiction of events, because he has written anti-RIAA articles in the past. However, first time visitors might not know that and might think that the second explanation is true. In either case, the joke still works.
Also, if you look closely, you will see that at the end of my original comment, there is a small, winking face, like this
In the real world, a wink is often used to indicate that what is being said isn’t being stated in a serious manner, or that the statement could be interpreted in a less than literal manner.
In this case, it means both. I wasn’t being serious about a word being mispelled and never intended for people to take my message literally. It was meant to help people understand that they should insert the word “ridiculed” in the quoted sentence to achieve a humorous result that would hopefully make people laugh.
Hopefully, this explanation has been sufficient to explain my original message, but in case it hasn’t, you might want to read the following pages;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wink
Got it?
February 21st, 2008 at 1:01 am
Reader’s Write:
Allow me to point out just how much of a thick-headed moron you obviously are. Rekrul was making an oblique joke, implying that the word “dispersed” should have been “ridiculed” instead. Now, owing to an incredible lack of imagination on your part, YOU are the one now being ridiculed…
February 21st, 2008 at 9:36 am
OH HAI!
PLEASE SPEL RIGHT! I CAN’T READ!
February 21st, 2008 at 10:34 am
[quote]”I downloaded it last night and I’m watching it now.
They say that music piracy is often associated with drug and gun sale and other kinds of badness. I don’t know if this is the case, i have no data on this one way or the other. It might be. Lets give them the benefit of the doubt for a minute. The video is advocating some sort of gateway-prosecution strategy: prosecutors that where “unable to get them for other things” might be able to get them for music piracy, or, piracy is a great way to show probable cause, and thus get a search warrant. I’m all for gun control, and if someone can show how cracking down on drug dealers will increase the quality of my drugs, I’ll support that too (Lazy bastards. I know my neighborhood reefer-man could use a kick in the pants), and its probably not right to sell pirate warez. But i think this raises two interesting points:
1. Is it moral and just to use this foot-in-the-door strategy to bust criminals? If you suspect someone is dealing drugs, shouldn’t you have to have probable cause that they are dealing drugs, rather than going in with a battering-ram on every music pirate on the off chance that they might be selling drugs?
2. The very fact that a black market for music exists, and is thriving…doesn’t that indicate that music is priced too high? or that the legal distribution channels are unacceptable to people for other reasons? the normal, healthy forces of capitalism - the invisible hand of the market-place and all that, are attempting to stabilize the market because price is out of sync with demand. Thats what black-markets mean, right? They are safety valves that prevent the market from collapsing, or satisfy demands that can not be satisfied through legal channels. for Chicago-school economists, the existence of a black market *means* that the market is sick.”
Today I was driving above the posted speed limit in my car, thus breaking the law. Does that give the so called authorities the right to kick down my door? I won’t say that the American government has to much power per say. What I will say is they are deceitful with it. They say you have a freedom of privacy and other freedoms, yet they find loopholes to take those freedoms away. They in fact have turned a suspicious eye on everyone within and everyone is guilty until proven innocent, even then you are still presumed guilty. It is of my opinion that people in government are so far out of touch with the masses that they do not see the snow job that the lobbyists are handing them. It is all about the financial backing and The MPAA and the RIAA have more money than any one of us alone
Some one here mentioned that the market is sick, (black market) I would absolutely agree and say the reason is because it is being poisoned by greed.
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:13 pm
F*ck the RIAA!!!!
February 27th, 2008 at 9:10 am
“Remember the old days when someone could recognize a joke?”
I didn’t recognize it because it was so UNFUNNY!
March 7th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Seriously. It’s just a misspelled word. Everybody does it. Get over it.