Slashdot Log In
Hearing on Hollywood Hacking Bill
Posted by
michael
on Fri Sep 27, 2002 01:00 PM
from the above-the-law dept.
from the above-the-law dept.
DaveAtFraud writes "CNN says that Hilary Rosen and the RIAA are once again lobbying Congress for the right to sabotage P2P networks. Of course, Hilary says that the RIAA wouldn't abuse this capability. Luckily, some of the lawmakers are dubious. Also, Rep. Rick Boucher asked, 'What are the implications for the Internet's functionality when the inevitable arms race develops?' and pointed out that overzealous attempts to enforce existing copyright law had all too often targetted legitimate postings." There's also a News.com story.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Let them. (Score:3, Funny)
"They were haxoring my boxxen. I responded with deadly force, as per my rights. It's not my fault their servers couldn't take a link from Slashdot and exploded."
Interdiction and spoofing details (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Interdiction and spoofing details (Score:3, Interesting)
"...interdiction, which would attempt to suck up a user's outbound file sharing connections with repeated attempts to download a copyrighted file. Interdiction would prevent human users from downloading that file, eventually frustrating them and forcing them to move on, he said.
Isn't this notion of "interdiction" essentially a DoS attack?
And if I'm getting DoS'd -- or if my corporate firewall is getting DoS'd because the RIAA is mistakenly 'interdicting' me -- then I could care less who's doing it.
Will the RIAA get some sort of legal, uber-exemption? And if so, do I receive warning before I'm DoS'd?
I dunno, all this seems frightening. Who controls the RIAA's interdiction efforts?
Re:Interdiction and spoofing details (Score:4, Insightful)
In his opening remarks, Rep. Berman (D-Calif.) claimed that 3 billion files a month were illegally downloaded. Since the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel charges eight cents per digital recording, Berman concluded that the industry is losing about $240 million per month.
I would gladly pay
Rosen must be a business genius, what other CEO can lose more in one year then they made in the last 5 combined, and still turn the same profit as the previous year!
Parent
Uhhh, yah....if you could just um... (Score:5, Funny)
[The boss from Office Space] Umm, yeahhhh. Good job guys, now If we could just get you to stop sponsoring DRM chips and bills that allow broad interpretation of "illegal" activity that infringe on fair use, that'd be great, yeah.
Re:Uhhh, yah....if you could just um... (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder about RIAA members like Sony (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wonder about RIAA members like Sony (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue with a company like Sony is that they're much less monolithic than you probably think. Remember, for instance, that their entertainment arm is something that they bought as a chunk, and it still has a lot of American management and an American outlook. Meanwhile, the hardware business is based in Japan and run by a completely different group of people with a different outlook. They're more like two separate companies that happen to be owned by the same big capital fund than they are like one tightly integrated whole. It's only natural that each half would wind up pursuing its own interests first.
Also bear in mind that Sony seems to be more committed to including DRM and the like in its products than other makers. I'm sure that they'd be happy to have only DRM capable players available. But they also understand that consumers don't want DRM unless it's wrapped up with some kind of added benefit that makes the whole package resonably attractive. As long as there are companies out there that are willing and legally able to sell non-DRM equipment, though, Sony will be forced to provide non-DRM stuff or lose a big chunk of their market (and not get the DRM widespread anyway).
Parent
Re:I wonder about RIAA members like Sony (Score:4, Funny)
That would be cool.
Parent
Due process (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone else have a problem with the word suspect in that sentence. So this bill would grant someone the "right" to take away my pursuit of happiness (most definitely found on most P2P networks) without the due process of law?
Re:Due process (Score:4, Funny)
See my sig.
Parent
Re:Due process (Score:3, Informative)
Ahem. Ninth Amendment. Tenth Amendment.
A right is something inherent to yourself that does not involve taking from others. (You therefore have the right to pursue happiness all you want, but you do not [christtrek.org] have a right to happiness itself.) If it's not been expressly delegated to government, it is retained by the people.
Well, I'd like to say... (Score:4, Funny)
A Dangerous Precidence (Score:4, Insightful)
The next (il)logical step would be to allow bill collectors to hack into your bank accounts to collect on past-due accounts.
Re:A Dangerous Precidence (Score:3, Funny)
Law Suit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Law Suit (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, this would be a prime example of Fair Use, so legally they couldn't do a damn thing about it.
Not that they should be trusted however. If they were to take action against you for this, it would pretty much be up to you to prove that you were in the right (side note: isn't it supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? that's not what is happening nowadays). I'd give you some estimates on how much that would cost, but I don't want to give you nightmares. You would of course be legally clear here, and clear according to any AUP your ISP might have, but don't expect overzealous IP lawyers to give a damn about your rights.
It is quite sad how our legal system has been reduced to a system of "survival of the wealthiest."
Parent
Re:Law Suit (Score:3, Insightful)
It is quite sad how our legal system has been reduced to a system of "survival of the wealthiest."
To the contrary -- and this is the point of why this bill is bad. Presently, a person who's business had been criminally or tortiously interefered with by Computer abuse would have very solid grounds for fighting back. In other words, "overzealous lawyers" would be fond of working for him as well as for the deep-pocketed bad guys.
Don't forget, there is a serious downside of having a deep pocket -- a judgment against you is highly collectible. These entities CANNOT risk crossing the line into tortious conduct, with the concommitant potential for punitive damages.
And that, at the end of the day, is why Hackback is a bad law -- giving deep pockets strong technical defenses for potentially malicious conduct allows them to use their pocketbooks risk-free to abuse us. At least today, an "overzealous lawyer" can make their life as awful as they can make the public's.
Desperate (Score:3, Insightful)
what could help congress.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In actuality, if the RIAA were to launch a DoS attack against a P2P node, other nearby nodes (eg, cable modems) would also become affected from the influx of incoming traffic against that node. The reason for this is because of how computer networks work and operate.
When writing to your congressman, include this tidbit of info and why that it is the case. Include a short discussion of why it's the case in terms they will understand. Analogies work great for things like this.
CONTACT THE EFF AND JOIN! (Score:3, Funny)
Help make the EFF [eff.org] as strong a lobby as the NRA and this stuff will be stop! Gunowners protect the tools (guns) they think help keep them free. We should too.
Please carve Boucher's head.. (Score:3, Funny)
Who's got the bombs (Score:4, Interesting)
I love this comparison. This indeed seems like an arms race.
On one side you have the big corps armed with heavy lawyers and lots of money.
On the other side, groups of hackers, filesharers, IT-rights activists. We're armed with technology, innovation, and a whole lotta people
RIAA can probably buy the techs though, this evens things somewhat.
It's the case of the an army of the elite Vs the large army of gorillas. The elite may have a lot of neat tricks, but it will probably really hurt if the gorillas manage to close enough to make a few punches.
Deja vu (Score:3, Interesting)
> I love this comparison. This indeed seems like an arms race.
> On one side you have the big corps armed with heavy lawyers and lots of money.
> On the other side, groups of hackers, filesharers, IT-rights activists. We're armed with technology, innovation, and a whole lotta people
It's been done before. Look at the history of alt.religion.scientology -- the Scienos on one side with money, & lawyers, a bunch of activists on the other with hackers & a clue about the Internet. So far it's been a quagmire for the Scienos, whose ideology won't allow them to compromise, let alone cut their loses & run.
Unfortunately, it's not been all that fun for the other side: this little battle has taken its toll in money, careers, & burnout. However, practically every current Scientologist will become an ex-scientologist & thus be interested in picking up the fight where another has left off.
One thing about this one fight is that it has provided a battle plan for Hollywood to follow in its own approach to the Internet & protecting content. A number of actors & musicians are Scienos, & there are only a finite number of lawyers who specialize in media law: anecdotes & experiences from the Scienos battle with the Internet have undoubtedly seeped into the studios & recording music offices. Thus Rosen's interest in attacking the personal computers of anyone connected to the Internet -- something David Miscavige, the head of the CoS, would give his right theta for.
As a result, Hollywood believes they have to fight a war where there really isn't one: as it has been said before, all but a negligible amount of this ``piracy" would vanish if simply music & films were easier to buy or rent online. The industry would make more money, consumers would have more choice -- a win-win situation.
Fortunately, these industries are far more interested in making money than in pushing an ideological point-of-view. Hopefully if we keep defeating these misguided acts, the PHB running these companies will get the message, & at last see how to make money by offering an effective online point of sale.
Geoff
Who's stealing from whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does RIAA really think they'll win? (Score:3, Redundant)
You have to wonder how people this obvlivious to a free market managed to become an executive anywhere. It's simple: There is a demand to easily share music files. Users will use the least expensive means to satisfy that demand. As long as the RIAA's members insist on charging too much for access to an inferior system, users will refuse to use that system. It doesn't matter how many p2p networks or users you take down if the easiest solution is still to just set up another p2p network.
If the RIAA wants to make a killing on music sharing, they'd just offer a system that actually WORKS. People WOULD pay for a system that offerred reliable connections to the files they wanted. Don't sell the music, sell the connection to the music.
All too easy (Score:5, Funny)
Funny, I bet lots of Slashdotters know what bullet could solve this problem.
Re:All too easy (Score:3, Funny)
This [adameve.com] is the silver bullet she really needs.
National Association of Realtors isnt much better (Score:3, Informative)
again its a case where the net is helping industry but the industry doesn't want to "lose control"
What about the rest of us? (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone is breaking the law shouldn't they be charged with a crime and shouldn't we use the judicial system and due process?
If someone steals something from my house I don't have a right to break into their house and steal it back, or burn their house down.
This is outrageous.
I'm amazed. (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens when the RIAA kills someone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Much of the PTP swapping happens on university networks.
Universities often have medical facilities, and share the network.
Say the RIAA launches an attack which inadvertently damages a medical database -- someone gets the wrong prescription or diagnosis and dies as a result of the RIAA.
Or the RIAA launches a DOS attack which just happens to deny service to an important medical service, as a result some patient's treatment is delayed/denied and dies.
Deaths would be acceptable "collateral damage" to the RIAA perhaps, but I have to wonder WTF legislators are thinking when they give even one picosecond of consideration to this bill.
This isn't as unlikely as it sounds. Despite what one might think, university hospital systems are more often than not NOT FIREWALLED and NOT PROTECTED and suffer from the same poor security as the rest of the university networks.
Legislated FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
She described the P2P scene as a harbor, where everyone has their "house" on the shore. There's a lot of traffic in the harbor, and the RIAA is going to "interdict" in this traffic to prevent illegal file transfers from taking place. She completely glossed over the fact that this involves interfering with my property and privacy. She assumed that there was some reason that the citizens of the United States should transfer police duties to a corporate funded self-interest group.
Unfortunately, the EFF spokesperson wasn't much of a match for her. Her argument was too soft. If you're going up against a corporate self-interest group, go for the throat, go for blood, and go quickly. She should have pointed out that this sets a legal precedent to commit digital vandalism from afar with legal immunity (terrifying to the average person). She should have mentioned that there is no way for the RIAA to differentiate between American citizens legally exercising their fair-use rights and criminals (uninteresting, but...) and she should have likened this to burning books if the RIAA doesn't know how you got it (terrifying). She failed to represent the loss of privacy and liberty in the name of closed-market corporate profits.
She should have pointed out that TV studios don't sell TV shows for $18 each to consumers, newspapers don't derive their profits from selling content to readers, movies sell an in-theater experience for a reasonable price, and radio is free. We would need legislation to sell each of these to the consumer for $2 a song/article/episode, because doing so would artificially prop up a broken business model. Nobody complains about bands' merchandise and concert ticket sales - because consumers feel that there is value in these products. Take the hint - consumers do not want to pay $18 for crappy CDs.
Is this not an American market economy, where failing business models and unpopular products fail due to a lack of demand? It's looking more and more like a command economy where useless and unpopular products are perpetuated by beauracracy.
In summary, I was horrified to see Hilary Rosen acting like a complete fool, mocking the EFF name, spreading untruths, and all the while being accepted by the anchors as someone trying to do the right thing, while the EFF spokesperson was treated as some sort of hippy wacko. The EFF person should have been more cunning and critical, and she should have immediately and unquestionably taken up a stance as protecting the American people from corporate corruption, a very effective angle these days.
Re:Legislated FUD (Score:3, Informative)
Surprisingly, the interviewer and Tyler Mathison seemed to pick up on this as well and really did a great job of grilling Hilary. Whether they were playing devil's advocate I'm not sure, but the EFF and others have done a really good job of setting the tone for this debate. For example, the interviewers asked Hilary about the ramifications of legalized hacking etc. Hilary's responses were quite laughable and she came off as being computer illiterate and very naive for selling a "just trust us" approach that doesn't play well with the media these days. They basically ignored her sometimes rambling remarks and continued to use language that framed the RIAA and the bill as being vigilante measures and they expressed concern about the RIAA impeding technical innovation and progress. Actually, because of the EFF spokesperson's almost passive stance, I think a casual viewer would have come away from the discussion as thinking that the journalists themselves believed that the bill was bad and that the industry lobbyist was probably flat-out lying about its consequences.
This was the first time I had ever seen Hilary Rosen on TV and I was expecting to see some very impressive arguments from her and cowtowing from the press. But from my point of view, the EFF clearly won the debate before it even started, even if their spokesperson didn't go in for the kill. Hilary also made a complete fool of herself by calling the EFF names - the interviewer made a point of this at the end that didn't paint her in a good light at all and she seemed flabbergasted.
Berman's gas for less... (Score:3, Interesting)
A more legit comparison would be if I were to steal gas. Lets look at that, shall we...
I pull up to a gas station and fill up w/o paying.
What happens now?
Does Texico come by by house and slash my tires? Does Chevron sneak in and fill my tank with water? No. They call the cops.
The Way It Should Be!
I still don't get why the RIAA thinks that age old method should differ for them.
I was there (Score:5, Interesting)
Prior to the hearing, while waiting, I talked to an MPAA lobbyist (brand new to the game, he was complaining of having to stay up the prior night and bone up on the subject). When I said, half in jest, so you guys support this bill--he responded by saying it does not have all they would like, they really want to go after irc channels as well. I hope there is never a hearing on irc, with videod demos showing irc channel traffic (as there was showing a d/l of "save the best for last" off of KaZZa).
The two main contradictions I saw were this:
1)RIAA described how big the IP industry was, and how important it is to preserve it with these laws. However, she then bemoaned the fact that they are engaged in litigation with Verizon who is much bigger then them, in fact bigger then the whole RIAA member companies. Umm, so shouldn't we then focus on the ISPs, if according to her logic, we need to help the big industries? Also, she characterized the lawsuit as just a disagreement over a minor legal technicality (you know, the LAW is a minor technicality--the case revolves around RIAA demanding names of Verizon subscribers that they properly need subpeonas to obtain, but are not getting, it is to protect subscribers privacy).
2)Rosen also said that they need this bill to stop piracy b/c the DoJ is too busy with other matters to enforce the laws, and civil suits cost so much money, more than the recoverable damages. YET, she claims that they would be under bigger restrictions with the bill passed, b/c there are remedies for users that they can bring up in civil case (which I guess would not be expensive to do????) or the DoJ can enforce criminal sanctions (which they have a lot of time to do over a few missing files, or whatever--no one would say what they want to do with the powers granted by the bill). Just such distortions.
On the plus side, Boucher was great when he brought up the letters referring to the harry potter book report (again a stupid RIAA response: "our members would not do that." Boucher responded, "it was done by the copyright holder"--AOL/TW, which I believe is a member of RIAA). Also Zoe Lofgren pointed out the meaningless aspect of the remedies for innocent hacked users. I gained a new respect for her, and I am on the other side of the aisle.
Congress signing a deal with the devil (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice try Hilary. I think we all see what happens to artists who sign a contract with you.
I'm sure it doens't say anywhere in your contracts that you're allowed to make indentured servants out of your artists, but you are able to get your lawyers to do just that!
I envision a dream parody where all the senators are lined up to sign this bill. And afterwards Hilary cackles in glee, "All your future bills are belong to us!"
And then we see congressmen having to actually PAY money at the end of the year, just to stay in office. They propose bill after bill, but the RIAA denies all the ones they don't like. And then someday on slashdot, we'll all be asking, "Dude, why would anyone want to become a politician?", and we'll all answer, "Because the Big-5 lure them with big $$$ and fame!"
I doubt it will pass. (Score:4, Interesting)
This essentially allows the RIAA to take justice into their own hands, by-passing due process, and presuming suspects guilty rather than innocent. I highly doubt this will fly, and if it does, it just confirms who's lining who's pockets with cash.
America - Land of the tightly controlled free.
it's just a way to get their foot in the door. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that, but this opens the door for all kinds of shady business practices (Not that this is a big leap for the Big-5)
They could look around your computer, find other legal mp3's (from non-RIAA) and delete them. Or more likely corrupt them so it mysteriously doesn't work. They could plant Trojan Horses on your computer so that whenever anyone in the FUTURE connects to your computer, they can then track that person.
It doesn't have to end with RIAA and MPAA. It could open the door for Software companies. Root around your computer and see if ANY application is pirated. If so, then fubar your whole machine.
Why not solve the real problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
From a paper i just wrote... (Score:4, Interesting)
Whether or not infringement and impairment systems can meet the economic loss exception of the Berman-Coble bill, the costs for development and implementation of any scanning and impairment system will likely be passed on to consumers. Because copyright attempts to strike a balance between access to copyrighted works and incentives to creators, the Berman-Coble bill could increase incentives and thus increase the creation of new works because it creates a new means of self-help for rights holders. However, this might not fully be the case. Because costs for this system will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, demand for works might be decreased. Further, it has been argued that users of peer-to-peer systems are low-reserve price consumers of music who are willing to spend time, but not money on acquiring music. Raising prices to cover the additional enforcement costs will add to the pool of consumers for whom the market price is above their reserve price--users of peer-to-peer networks. However, since the aim of the Berman-Coble bill is to impair the ability of peer-to-peer networks to traffic in copyrighted works, it will eliminate whatever social value these networks created through the increased access to copyrighted works. If low reserve consumers weren't going to buy music anyway (thereby creating no new incentives for creators), the reduction in their access to it is essentially deadweight loss. Since the Berman-Coble bill will likely result in increased prices for music, possible economic loss for ISPs, and reduced access to works, it would seem to reduce overall social welfare, while at the same time overtly shifting the balance of copyright from access towards protection of incentives.
Arrg!!! Copyright is *not* property. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Howard Coble [house.gov])
and
(Howard Berman [house.gov])
They both need to be marched into the woods for legal re-education. Copyright has nothing to do with property rights. All it represents is that someone has a temporary government-granted monopoly on copying a work. Someone does not "own" the work itself just because they have been granted the copying monopoly.
I understand the copying industry's desire to cast it in this light. After all, property law is much stronger than the actual copyright law they really fall under. In fact, they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't try and twist the truth like this. But that doesn't mean we have to swallow it.
BGP, backbones, and the slashdot community (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bring it on (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously. Just redirect the entire RIAA block to goatse or something.
"Here's a security hole for you!"
Parent
Re:Backlash (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what are morals? qjkx (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, technology is our first line of defense when we can't count on the law to be on our side against the RIAA. That doesn't mean that what they are doing is right or okay just because they can, though. That kind of thinking is what makes people believe that "might makes right" and leads to abuses of the powerless in our society.
Also, waging a technological war on the RIAA will only be possible if we are afforded the same legal advantages they are, in order to make the playing field level. I can guarantee if you are caught r00ting the RIAA's site that you'll be branded a terrorist and thrown in jail.
These people are not about fairness and freedom, so we need to do everything we can to constrain them legally.
Parent
Re:180degree rotation (Score:3, Insightful)
What if the file being downloaded in question happens to be my own copyrighted file that I allow everyone to view except MediaDefender Inc.? If they're downloading it from my machine, doesn't that violate existing copyright law even with the proposed legislation? If not, does that mean I can download copyrighted files from others with the intention of protecting that copyright? I guess I would need to own the copyright in order to protect it, but then wouldn't MediaDefender need to own it as well? Confusing...
Dude, fuck it, it's is close enough. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:User-Moderated P2P? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They are being givent he right to break the law (Score:3)
Allow me then to make it a less touchy, much clearer subject:
When in the hell is the DoJ going to take anti-trust action against the RIAA?