Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Politics

RIAA & MPAA Seek Authority To Pretext 263

Posted by kdawson
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This discussion has been archived.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.

RIAA & MPAA Seek Authority To Pretext

Comments Filter:
  • Burden of Proof (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pipingguy (566974) * on Saturday April 07, 2007 @04:41PM (#18649559) Homepage
    Pretexting is the practice of pretending to be someone else in order to obtain personal information on a person

    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)

      by Dun Malg (230075) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:58PM (#18650331) Homepage

      Pretexting is the practice of pretending to be someone else in order to obtain personal information on a person

      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.
      No, you don't seem to understand what the US constitution is. The constitution is an enumeration of the limited powers of the federal government, and nothing else. Pretexting is essentially a form of fraud, which is generally covered by state laws.
      • Mostly Correct (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Alaren (682568) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @06:27PM (#18650547)

        The constitution is an enumeration of the limited powers of the federal government, and nothing else.

        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.

        • by pipingguy (566974) *
          if the government hires a "private" police force

          Bingo.
      • Re:Burden of Proof (Score:5, Informative)

        by xigxag (167441) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @07:03PM (#18650861)
        Pretexting is essentially a form of fraud, which is generally covered by state laws.

        You mean, pretexting is essentially a form of wire fraud, which falls under interstate commerce, and therefore covered by Federal [cornell.edu] law.
    • Senator Corbert, the bill's author, is unlikely to accept these hostile changes.
      What's the point of the story? If the bill's author won't accept these changes, they aren't likely to be included, and are even less likely to pass, especially in a state as protective of consumer privacy rights as California.
  • by nietsch (112711) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @04:44PM (#18649583) Homepage Journal
    Copyright is by default AFAIK, so anyone who has ever written some original text is exempt from this proposed law? So actually they wish to neuter this law?
  • by jakosc (649857) * on Saturday April 07, 2007 @04:44PM (#18649589) Homepage
    So I since I own the copyright to this post, I should be free of restrictions against pretexting?

    "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.
  • by zoomshorts (137587) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @04:49PM (#18649647)
    FRAUD.
    • by Artifakt (700173) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:42PM (#18650187)
      Exactly!

      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!
      • by pipingguy (566974) *
        You cons all deserve the chair

        Clever use of language in this forum. Did you really mean, "fry" though?
  • I own tonnes of copyrights myself. In fact, any creative, original work is automatically copyrighted by the author. So, even this comment here could qualify as a copyright that I own. Never mind the many web sites that I've created for myself (personal, non-commercial stuff, but it's still a copyright).

    The biggest problem with this proposed exemption (other than giving evil organizations an out) is that it is an exemption that EVERYONE can take advantage of. Any scammer who wanted to pretext could simpl
  • trade secret (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Speare (84249) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @04:50PM (#18649669) Homepage Journal

    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?

  • by dghcasp (459766) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @04:51PM (#18649679)

    ... They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting.

    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."

  • Pretexting? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OpenGLFan (56206) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @04:52PM (#18649685) Homepage
    Pretexting? What's that?
    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: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)

      Ohh. You mean wire fraud.

      Uh, no.

      From your own link, wire-fraud necessarily includes, "to defraud, or for obtaining money or property." The MAFIAA do not claim to want to do any of those, only to get the information so as to further their actions in court.
      • But these are the folks that argue for intellectual property. My information could easily fall under "intellectual property".
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)

          But these are the folks that argue for intellectual property. My information could easily fall under "intellectual property".
          Not in the USA. Because if it did, we would have already had tens of thousands of successful lawsuits over it.
          Until there is at least some precedent for it, that argument won't fly.
      • by Wordplay (54438)
        And why does someone sue in court for copyright infringement? To obtain money or property.

        I agree with the OP's interpretation.
      • Re:Pretexting? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rob the Bold (788862) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @06:05PM (#18650383)

        From your own link, wire-fraud necessarily includes, "to defraud, or for obtaining money or property."

        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.

      • by pallmall1 (882819)

        From your own link, wire-fraud necessarily includes, "to defraud, or for obtaining money or property." The MAFIAA do not claim to want to do any of those, only to get the information so as to further their actions in court.
        Oh, you mean those RIAA letters aren't asking for real money?
      • by Eudial (590661)

        Uh, no.

        From your own link, wire-fraud necessarily includes, "to defraud, or for obtaining money or property." The MAFIAA do not claim to want to do any of those, only to get the information so as to further their actions in court.


        Maybe not directly, but if you look at the bigger picture:

        1. Obtain evidence against copyright violators through "pretexting"
        2. Sue copyright violators
        (2½. ???)
        3. Profit!
    • by OakLEE (91103)
      No, wire fraud requires as one of its elements, that the perpetrator be using deception to "obtain[] money or property." [wikipedia.org] Pretexting, while related to wire fraud, encompasses the broader act of obtaining information through deception. I understand your sentiments, but do not call this something it is not.
    • by pipingguy (566974) *
      In order to confuse the maximum amount of unsophisticated people, use acronyms as much as possible. Is that good to go?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by dangitman (862676)

      Pretexting? What's that?

      Pretexting is what happens when pre-pubescent pre-teens use mobile phones.

  • by MollyB (162595) *
    From TFA:
    "Basically, we want criminals to feel comfortable that who they're dealing with is probably some other criminal and let us in on what's going on," said Brad Buckles, the RIAA's executive vice president for anti-piracy.

    I think the word "other" in the preceding should have been given the emphasis. What these clowns want to do is play a criminal in real life, but not be accountable for it. Disgusting, IMO.
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @04:53PM (#18649699)
    I mean, sure they don't get names and addresses directly, but when the **AAs put files up on P2P called "madonna.mp3" or "dirty_dancing.avi", let people download them (often dud files but hey, it's the name that counts), log IPs of people who downloaded them and pressure ISPs to disclose whose computers these IPs were at the time of the d/l, isn't this baiting people? IANAL, but I would think it's just as crass and illegal as outright pretexting.
    • by Lumpy (12016) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:05PM (#18649843) Homepage
      you know what though, they even suck at that. Most people that are big into the "scene" can spot the crap quite easily. the big release guys have a specific pattern to their file names and setup and the RIAA/MPAA shills that try and poison the files are not smart enough to see the patterns.

      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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sumdumass (711423)
      Could I use the defense that the fucking RIAA put the files there, why was I supposed to know I couldn't do it?

      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
  • Therefore I claim an exemption under the law to pretext whenever I damned well feel like it.
  • by Benedick (737361) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @04:54PM (#18649719)
    Remember the big stink about the HP board hiring people who used pretexting to investigate board leaks? Wanna bet HP might have a couple of copyrights and patents? This little exemption the RIAA wants would mean HP was exempt from fraud for that.

    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.

  • This reminds me of Senator Fritz "representing Hollywood from afar" Hollings, and his attempt at legalizing vigilante destruction of alleged infringers' machines. Wouldn't it be nice if the representatives represented people, not industries? Bah, what am I saying... the check(books) and (account) balances of Democracy will fix that.

    • Orrin Hatch made similar commentary, that it should be legal to destroy the computers of copyright infringers. If I were from his home state that one comment would have lost him my vote.
      • by pallmall1 (882819)

        Orrin Hatch made similar commentary, that it should be legal to destroy the computers of copyright infringers.
        Orrin's son Brent is an attorney for the infamous SCO, which would mean that if Orrin and Brent got their way, all computers running linux could be legally destroyed.
  • by Servo (9177) <dstringf AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday April 07, 2007 @04:55PM (#18649729) Journal
    1)

    "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.
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @04:58PM (#18649761) Journal
    for anyone to see that the **AA are purely criminal in nature. What they can't get away with in the courts they are now asking for permission to break the law, or be exempt from it.

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:00PM (#18649775)
    So now the RIAA and the MPAA want to actually pose as me and download music and movies, so that they can sue me?
  • by CharonX (522492) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:02PM (#18649787) Journal
    The RIAA and MPAA have been lobbying for a bill that would allow them to shoot people, whom they suspect of being so-called pirates, on sight.
    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.
    • by zCyl (14362) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @06:58PM (#18650807)

      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.

      It's not like they would shoot people without warning. I'm sure they would first give people an offer they can't refuse.
  • They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting.

    IANAL, but wouldn't this pretty much make the bill in question completely worthless? I'm thinking that companies like HP, Microsoft, etc. would be exempt if the **AA gets what they're asking for here.

  • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:04PM (#18649817)
    This is what the RIAA has and demands. It is one thing to harass people with lawsuits and it is other to demand special powers for themselves to enforce their own interests. This is akin to the difference between a rich individual saying very stupid things and using the law to his own advantage and this [wikipedia.org].
  • by Tokerat (150341) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:04PM (#18649823) Journal
    When it comes to capturing murderers, rapists, druglords, and pedophiles, the government has decided that this method has too much potential for misuse, even in cases of good intent. ...but the RIAA feels it's ok to use it for something as minor as copyright infringement? A prefect example of what is wrong with this world. Rampant fucking greed.
    • by sconeu (64226)
      When it comes to capturing murderers, rapists, druglords, and pedophiles,

      <SARCASM>
      Hey, only people are hurt by them. When it comes to [alleged] copyright infringement, *CORPORATION* might be losing money! Get your priorities straight!!!!
      </SARCASM>
  • It is time for people to ask the PR departments of each of the companies behind these front organizations why their company thinks they can ethically do, even through a proxy, what HP did or worse?

    The word pretexting itself does not express the sheer anger at the wire fraud that Sony and their coinvestors are attempting to buy with the grubby con-men they have on salary at the RIAA and MPAA.
    • by Dunbal (464142)
      why their company thinks they can ethically do, even through a proxy, what HP did or worse?

            Because HP got away with it?
  • by Firethorn (177587) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:06PM (#18649847) Homepage Journal
    The moment they add on a rider making it legal to hunt and stuff lawyers.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ScrewMaster (602015)
      The moment they add on a rider making it legal to hunt and stuff lawyers.

      They probably wouldn't mind, so long as you stuffed them with money.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by deacon (40533)
      The correct term is "mount" not stuff.
      So you should have said

      "The moment they add on a rider making it legal to hunt and mount lawyers."

      There, that's better.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Khaed (544779)
        Yeah but the mental image of mounting David Boies is just too gross, even for /.
  • [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.

    Why should we believe anything any RIAA mouthpiece says? I might believe that they haven't done this yet, but if they aren't intending to then why are they lobbying for this exemption? What is with these people?
    • by zappepcs (820751)
      I think you missed the point. They have been doing this, but can't use it in court yet as they don't yet have permission to use it.

      By getting an ok on this, they will be able to use most of the information that they have collected fraudulently.
  • geez... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by um... Lucas (13147) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:10PM (#18649879) Homepage Journal
    it seems like everyone's missing the point of this. or else i'm seeing it as being something else.

    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.
    • by Stumbles (602007)
      then they can set up servers that do nothing but send files to P2P clients

      There is nothing to stop them from doing that now.

      For them to seek this kind of exemption, or in other words to allow themselves to be placed above the law shows just how hard these idiots have fallen off their rocker.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dun Malg (230075)

      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"
      Entrapment only applies to law enforcement.
  • "Pretexting", my ass. What they're asking for is a license to commit fraud.

    -jcr

  • by The Living Fractal (162153) <banantarr.hotmail@com> on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:21PM (#18649993) Homepage
    That they're asking for permission to do it... because they've already done it?

    I do.

    TLF
  • Why stop there? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by erroneus (253617) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:23PM (#18650013) Homepage
    What they are asking for is a license to defraud.

    But why stop there? Why not go all the way and ask for a license to kill?
  • by The Master Control P (655590) <ejkeever.nerdshack@com> on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:23PM (#18650015)
    "[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."

    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.
  • by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:30PM (#18650063)
    I just watched, "The Corporation" again.

    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

    • by pipingguy (566974) *
      "The Corporation" is insightful as a movie but it is also one-sided. Having written the previous sentence my assumption is that many people feel that corporations are evil incarnate.

      It is stock market-traded companies that tend to be evil.
  • Isn't that almost every single corporation in america, but virtually no citizens?

    Brilliant!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Cid Highwind (9258)
      Scroll down a bit.

      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"
    • by geekoid (135745)
      Have you ever written something down? you own copyright on it.
      This exception, as summerized in the post, would apply to all people.

    • by nietsch (112711)
      Copyright applies by default. You have to take extra steps to i.e. place your works in th epublic domain. Things change when you get paid to write/sing/fsck/act, but most people are able to do that even when not being paid. Copyright even applies to a letter you write to your mother.
      So everyone would be eempt form this proposed law if this amendment were included.
  • So, if piracy is a crime, then why are the *AAs worried about their own ability to investigate? Shouldn't investigation and evidence collecting be up to a piece of government that we, the people (at least on paper) control?

    People are worried about governmental intrusions into privacy (i.e., Patriot Act-type stuff). Why on earth should it *ever* be OK to allow another organization, one that's even *less* accountable to the public, the ability to fraudulently obtain information from us with the intent of pr
  • Since when have private individual have an explicit exception to the law? The members of the RIAA and MPAA are corporations, thus making them individual under the law. Fine, if they get an exception like that, I want an exception for me to the tax laws and all the criminal codes. Just me though because I'm that special.
  • by tji (74570) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:49PM (#18650251)
    I don't like attributing these things to the lobbying organizations, MPAA and RIAA. That helps them hide the real source of this behavior. The companies who think they are above the law, and fund those organizations to use tactics like this. Why no give full credit where it is due:

    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.
    • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Saturday April 07, 2007 @06:38PM (#18650651) Homepage Journal
      We're talking about large, well known companies, which would think twice about their means if they started to get bad press.

      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.
    • by Dun Malg (230075) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @07:25PM (#18651013) Homepage

      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 think we all know who the members of the RIAA/MPAA are. When's the last time you heard anyone say anything nice about any of those guys?

      ** I'm not supporting piracy here. They have the right to protect their property
      Copyright is not a property right. They do not own those songs/books/records/movies, we do, all of us. Those things are artifacts of our common culture. We have granted them a limited monopoly on copying, and nothing more. At some point, their lobbying to extend this limited monopoly into perpetuity ought to call into question their right to exercise this monopoly at all. I leave at as an exercise to the reader whether that point has been reached yet.
  • Hi, I'm:

    a) a friend of a friend
    b) in your church
    c) in your class at school

    but you've never heard of or seen me before. Can you let me copy your music downloads please?

  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @05:58PM (#18650325)
    They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting.

    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?"

  • Typical. Article about legislation without the bill number or a link to the bill text.

    It's SB 328. [ca.gov] Hearings on Tuesday in Sacramento.

  • Lynch of few of these motherfuckers. Seriously. If they are above the law then so am I. Let's kill a few of them and see where that goes.
  • Well, that pretty much covers anyone that has done anything in their life. Remember anything you write is technically copyrighted to you, unless you give that ownership away on the item in question.

    And what the hell is this, they now want to have the right to commit fraud? These people need to be stopped. In many ways this is worse then them wanting to physically destroy people's equipment because they *suspected* there was a file on a pc they didnt like.
  • by BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) on Saturday April 07, 2007 @08:13PM (#18651313) Journal
    > lobbying California legislators for an exemption to proposed legislation that would outlaw pretexting.

    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!
  • by FellowConspirator (882908) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @07:01AM (#18654265)
    Under current US law, anything you create -- anything you write/type/doodle/paint/record is a work to which you have the copyright. If there is an exemption to a law that applies to copyright holders, and everyone is a copyright holder, then logically everyone is exempt.

Time sharing: The use of many people by the computer.

Working...