Slashdot Log In
RIAA & MPAA Seek Authority To Pretext
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Apr 07, 2007 03:39 PM
from the lie-if-we-want-to dept.
from the lie-if-we-want-to dept.
msblack writes "The RIAA and MPAA are lobbying California legislators for an exemption to proposed legislation that would outlaw pretexting. Pretexting is the practice of pretending to be someone else in order to obtain personal information on a person, such as telephone or banking records. According to an article in the LA Times, the RIAA and MPAA sometimes need to lie in their pursuit of bootleggers. They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting. An interesting line from the article is, '[RIAA's Brad] Buckles said the recording industry had never, nor would it ever, assume someone's identity to access that person's phone or bank records.' Fortunately, Senator Corbert, the bill's author, is unlikely to accept these hostile changes."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Burden of Proof (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it appropriate for government to have a Department of Sock-Puppetism? This rings a lot of alarm bells and there's probably something about this in the constitution already.
Re:Burden of Proof (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it appropriate for government to have a Department of Sock-Puppetism? This rings a lot of alarm bells and there's probably something about this in the constitution already.
Parent
Mostly Correct (Score:5, Insightful)
While you are correct that the U.S. Constitution is largely a matter of enumeration, it has been amended quite heavily to include specific limits as well as enumerations. The Ninth Amendment in particular, which has sadly been both overlooked and marginalized in Supreme Court jurisprudence, makes it quite clear that individuals have certain inalienable rights which actually include limitations on government power that are not enumerated in the Constitution itself.
Note that in this story, we're talking about private entities rather than government employees doing the pretexting, but I think the grandparent post is probably inferring something about de facto law enforcement entities (if the government hires a "private" police force, do they have to read you your Miranda warning?), but it's important that we not lose sight of the dual purposes of the Constitution: to enumerate government powers, and to limit then.
Parent
That's True (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right, but mostly because (with some exceptions recently read back in by the Rehnquist court) the Tenth Amendment is seen as a sort of tautology.
This does fall under the state's police powers, but the Fourteenth Amendment extends the bill of rights to the states. If (and sadly it's a pretty big "if" these days) the Ninth Amendment were construed to strongly support the "Right to Privacy" that has been read into the Constitution since at least the time of Roe v. Wade, then this could be an invasion of privacy and hence forbidden (to the government) despite the state's general police powers.
But the question remains, if something is forbidden to the state, but not to private individuals or entities, and those individuals or entities provide that service (or in this case, information) for the state, is it still unconstitutional? I would like to say "yes," but the answer probably depends more on the judges you wind up with. I don't want my state getting around Miranda rights or search-and-seizure rights or implementing cruel and unusual punishment by "hiring it out." This would be similar; assuming the government is not allowed to pretext, but the **AA is, should evidence obtained (or, likely, created) by **AA pretexting be admissible for civil trials? How about criminal trials?
And that, I think, was the original poster's point.
Disclosure: I am not a lawyer, though I am in law school. But this should not be taken as legal advice.
Parent
Re:Burden of Proof (Score:5, Informative)
You mean, pretexting is essentially a form of wire fraud, which falls under interstate commerce, and therefore covered by Federal [cornell.edu] law.
Parent
Feinstin will probably support it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Burden of Proof (Score:5, Funny)
How stupid could you be, an addendum to a law that basically allows everybody to ignore it, oh my, only RIAA lawyers could have manage that one.
Parent
Anyone who owns a copyright? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Anyone who owns a copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFA"
So they DO want everyone who's a copyright owner (which includes anyone who's ever written anything original) to be exempt. If this passes, you can pretext them on the "pretext" that you're looking for any evidence of them infringing, say, your copyright on your slashdot posts.Also:
Can't argue with the RIAA calling themselves a bunch of criminals ... its truth in advertising.
Parent
Re:Anyone who owns a copyright? (Score:5, Funny)
Our chief weapon is suprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... and pretexting?
I'll come in again.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Anyone who owns a copyright? (Score:4, Informative)
Some means of registration has been standard for copyright law ever since the very first copyright law, the Statute of Anne, from England in 1710. The first federal copyright law enacted by the then-new United States under the then-new Constitution, was the 1790 Copyright Act, and it granted nationwide copyrights from the date of registration; if you didn't or couldn't register, then you didn't get a US copyright. And that's been how the United States worked until the disastrous 1976 Copyright Act, which is still in force today.
So I'd say the traditional system of which I speak is the entirety of US copyright law for nearly two centuries, with strong influences going back another 80 years.
You're not suggesting that copies of every draft of every document and every element of every creative work be deposited at a modern day equivalent of the stationers office?
No, of course not; that would be nice from an archival point of view, but ultimately silly.
I am suggesting that for every copyrightable creative work for which a copyright is sought, a registration would have to be made, along with a deposit of the entire work. I think that the final form of the work, that is, the form in which it is published or otherwise made publicly known, would be sufficient. In some cases, supplemental information would be required in order that the work would materially and meaningfully be available to the public, particularly looking forward to its entry into the public domain. For example, for a compiled computer program, reasonably well-commented source and notes on the compilers and platforms used would be required so that 1) people could study the source, just as they can study a book, to glean the unprotected ideas from it, and 2) people could reasonably easily alter the program when it entered the public domain (or before if an applicable exception applied).
While it would be nice to get the drafts that were used to create the published work, I think that it would be best to let the drafts fall under the copyright for the published work, without needing to deposit them as well, so long as they were unpublished. If they were published, it would be important to get a deposit and probably a supplemental registration. I don't think that it would be appropriate to extend the term, or to grant a whole new term to the drafts as if they were a separate work, but I don't have strong feelings on that, and I'd be glad to discuss it.
That's a totally insane opinion, even for an IP extremist like yourself.
I have only two things to say to that. First, not only is it not insane, but mandatory registration and deposit were central to US copyright law for a very long time, and to some degree even survived the craptastic 1976 Act for a while. Second, I'm not an "IP extremist." I would describe myself as a moderate. I am interested only in reform to the extent that that reform would maximally serve the public interest. I have no desire to tear anything down just for the hell of it. But I also have no tolerance for abuses of the public, which are sadly commonplace today.
There was a recent proposal by the British library that all UK web sites be archived. It may have been well intended but was nonetheless laughed out of technology and publishing circles - with good reason.
There is no good reason whatsoever, and I support the proposal. A website is no different from anything else. Newspapers that printed two, and sometimes three editions a day had no difficulties with registration and deposit if they wanted a copyright. Website authors would have no difficulty either. If they were unwilling to bother, then we should be unwilling to grant them a copyright. Copyright is, after all, a quid pro quo system. It's not as though it would be particularly difficult for the site authors, and I would strongly support the creation by the Copyright Office of automated methods of submitting the updated sites, paperwork, billing, etc.
I
Parent
Anyone who owns a copyright? (Score:5, Informative)
"They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting."
From www.copyright.gov [copyright.gov] Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
Re:Anyone who owns a copyright? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Let us call it what it IS (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Let us call it what it IS (Score:5, Insightful)
To all you peple who have been argueing that copyright violation is theft, and saying all those 'clever' things about how the people who oppose the RIAA really merely want to steal copies, etc. - By your own logic, the RIAA is now obviously and openly a criminal organization, that wants to commit FRAUD with impunity, and so ALL of you who support it are also Liars, Cheats, Con-artists, Carney Shills, and most of all, FELONS. No-good, Criminal, Scum! You cons all deserve the chair, if we can figure out how to get your high horses in there under you.
Let's call it waht it IS! Let's call ALL the criminals what they ARE!
Parent
trade secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Any case involving "Copyright, Patent, Trademark or Trade Secret"?
Wasn't the whole HP thing about the leaking of trade secrets? Wasn't the whole HP thing the inspiration for this long-overdue-but-should-never-have-been-necessary legislation in the first place?
I.e. Make the legislation worthless (Score:5, Funny)
Since copyright is attached at the moment of creation, anyone who has ever written a letter, blog post, or even a comment on slashdot owns a copyright.
In other words, "everyone should be exempt from this legislation, except possibly pets."
Re:I.e. Make the legislation worthless (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Pretexting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretexting is the practice of pretending to be someone else in order to obtain personal information on a person, such as telephone or banking records.
Ohh. You mean wire fraud [wikipedia.org] .
Nope. We'll keep that illegal, thanks.
Re:Pretexting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Note the 'or' in the phrase. They could be seeking just to defraud. And "defraud", according to the dictionary, is "to deprive of a right, money, or property by fraud". So the losses could be rights, such as protection from self incrimination, or the security of ones papers and effects, that were being deprived by fraud.
Parent
Re:Pretexting? (Score:5, Interesting)
And so is me transfering money to another person. It might however become a legal issue still depending on why I transfered that money, whom I transfered it to, and what they are going to use it for.
And lying is a perfectly legal activity when it is not done to further a crime.
Try that one when giving a testimony under oath. Even if what you lied about has no relevance to the case at hand, does not further any crimes or anything, it is still punishable. There are many more cases where lying has been made explicitly illegal.
The fact that lying in general isn't illegal is because usually it is too small an issue to deal with it by law, and most cases of lying are better dealt with by parents or employers or such.
Arguing that lying in itself is not illegal is fine from a technical point of view, but you may want to think about the consequences of allowing lying EXPLICITLY by law.
Parent
Don't they already do it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't they already do it? (Score:4, Insightful)
It really easy to spot their crap and avoid it. The ony ones that get caught are the kiddies that download everything in sight and dont have the IQ to clean up their shared folder (most dont even know that they have a shared folder) coupled with guys that compile lists of ip address blocks to blacklist and they are going to do nothing but lose. They will never catch the big time guys as they know what to look for and how to deal with it. Hell the biggest trend right now is to have the files rar packed just to screw with them. I've seen 7z packing showing up as well to throw off the sniffers.
These companies are simply lobbying to have the right to commit wire fraud. And if it passes this sill be complete and irrefutable proof that the US government is completely and utterly corrupt.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if this would pan out in court.
Judge: how do you plead in the charges of illegaly downloading and distributing copyrighted materials.
ME: no guilty your honor.
Judge: would the prosecution like to present their evidence.
RIAA: we put these files on a program designed to share songs videos and other files and this program automatically re-shares the files when you down load them. We noticed th
The Would Have Exempted HP (Score:3, Insightful)
One step further: Probably all large corporations hold copyrights and patents. Does this mean they should all be exempt from fraud charges? Oh, wow, is this a bad, bad idea! I sure hope congress is smarter than this.
What??!? This is way too slipperly slope (Score:4, Insightful)
"Pretexting" aka social engineering aka phishing aka identify theft. RIAA/MPAA should be treated like the criminals they are.
2)
Wouldn't it make it easier for anyone to legally commit "pretexting" by simply filing a copyright or patent? Seems like a legal loophole like this would give too much leeway to would-be professional identity thieves who already out there today.
This should be proof enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Since it would be illegal, never mind impractical, killing off the **AA is not an option. I wish it was easy enough to simply boycott them out of existence. Perhaps this kind of move by the **AA will lead to a boycott that does really hurt them. I hope so.
So now... (Score:5, Funny)
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
They promise they would never shoot innocent people, and in fact, added that being shot by a RIMPAA anti-piracy squad is actually proof that the target was a pirate.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
It's not like they would shoot people without warning. I'm sure they would first give people an offer they can't refuse.
Parent
Fascist mentality and methods (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh that's good logic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, I'll support this bill... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They probably wouldn't mind, so long as you stuffed them with money.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So you should have said
"The moment they add on a rider making it legal to hunt and mount lawyers."
There, that's better.
geez... (Score:5, Insightful)
they're not trying to legallize "pretexting" so that that can pretend to be any one in particular, or in general. I THINK (key word) that they're trying for this so that they can legally run P2P client/servers and then use the resulting log files as a way of gathering evidence.
Currently, if they did so, the easiest case someone could make would be to say "well, THEY made those files available on a P2P network, they should have known someone would download them" or it could go so far as "that was entrapment".
If this goes through for them, then they can set up servers that do nothing but send files to P2P clients, log the IP addresses and forward requests for information about those addresses to DSL and cable companies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone else get the feeling.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I do.
TLF
Why stop there? (Score:4, Insightful)
But why stop there? Why not go all the way and ask for a license to kill?
Warning, warning, bullshit overload... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, that's right, you can trust us. Because [slashdot.org] the MAFIAA [slashdot.org] has a long history [slashdot.org] of adhering to the highest standards [slashdot.org] of ethics and professional conduct [slashdot.org] in all of it's affairs, [slashdot.org] and would never engage in douchebaggery [slashdot.org] or outright lying [slashdot.org] to get what it wants. It would never bully innocent people [slashdot.org] or harass schools [slashdot.org], because that's immoral. But you can trust us, we'd never lie about our identity to access your personal information. How's that quote about obvious abuses, denial of intent, and intent to do exactly that ASAP go?
Fuck the MPAA, Fuck the RIAA, Fuck the suits behind the BSA, and fuck them all for the DMCA! [futuristicsexrobotz.com]! The Recording Industry: Sometimes, the Two Minute's Hate is justified.
Criminally insane. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA and MPAA are obviously psychotic. (The basic premise of the film is that corporations, which are considered 'people' under the law, are psychotic in nature. Real people have moral boundaries and consciences. Corporations, by comparison, don't have these handy little programs running in the background.)
My question is that if corporations are considered people under law, then shouldn't they also be subject to the same kinds of provisions set aside for the criminally insane?
--That is, shouldn't they have their citizen's rights limited so that they cannot do harm?
-FL
The real source of this. (Score:5, Informative)
RIAA is primarily: EMI, Sony/BMG, Universal, and Warner
MPAA is primarily: Disney, Sony, Paramount/Viacom, Fox, Universal, and Warner
So, we're not talking about some evil rogue organization that wants to legalize their fraudulent activities.. We're talking about large, well known companies, which would think twice about their means if they started to get bad press.
** I'm not supporting piracy here. They have the right to protect their property, and should crack down on those pirating it. But, they should do it within the law, and without subverting our political system to buy congressmen and legislation to change the rules.
Re:The real source of this. (Score:4, Insightful)
We're talking about large, well known companies which hack people's computers and sue little kids. "Bad press" is pretty obviously not a deterrent.
Parent
Re:The real source of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
MPAA is primarily: Disney, Sony, Paramount/Viacom, Fox, Universal, and Warner
So, we're not talking about some evil rogue organization that wants to legalize their fraudulent activities.. We're talking about large, well known companies, which would think twice about their means if they started to get bad press.
Parent
In Other News... (Score:4, Funny)
RIAA and MPAA lobby to be exempt from jail and fines for anything they do. Spokesman quoted saying, "Hey, diplomats have this already, so it's hardly unprecedented."
And...
Applications for copyrights, patents, trademarks, and claimed Trade Secrets rise to an all-time high, especially in California. U.S. government spokesman reports, "If this continues, soon every American and illegal immigrant will have laid claim to some piece of intellectual property. I wonder why they'd all want to do this now?"
Goose, Gander, Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Well why not? These guys already write in the DRM and Copyright extension laws for Congress. Right now everyday they break into tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of people's computers(*) to snoop around in the hope they might find you've got something of theirs. If you or I did this, we'd be sitting in a jail cell that has 'Kevin' scratched into the wall.
(*) = Try this: Load PeerGuardian 2 from http://phoenixlabs.org/ [phoenixlabs.org] and watch them come!
Re:I love lawyers and their doublespeak (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's worse: the very fact that scumbag lawyers are even trying to get this exemption proves that they feel they have a chance to get it, which says a lot about the incompetence and/or corruption of the legislators. That alone is sad and worrying.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2007 OSTG.
Congratulations, after posting that comment you now own a copyright. Enjoy your "pretexting"* rights in California.
*a practice formerly knows as "fraud"
Re:Almost everyone owns copyrights (Score:5, Funny)
Allows them to trick others
Merely pretexting
© 2007 El Torico
Parent