RIAA & MPAA Seek Authority To Pretext

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."

Anyone who owns a copyright?

[jakosc]

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.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Actually that was just an error by the lawyers. They really only want to have the right for pretexting given solely to them. As you can see in this flowchart [bbspot.com], it fits in the area where they want to lobby Congress for stronger laws (read stronger laws and additional government enforced corporate privileges like the DMCA). This helps prevent them from having to pray for someone to cave from an extortion letter when they could easily make something up with their extra privileges and sue them outright (not that they don't do that anyways).

Warning, warning, bullshit overload...

[The Master Control P]

"[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.

Re:Pretexting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

The real source of this.

[tji]

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.

Re:Burden of Proof

[xigxag]

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.

Re:Mostly Correct

[Anonymous Coward]

And the tenth says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

This falls under a state's police powers.

Re:Anyone that owns a patent or copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a better one....

I'm the president of the RIAA and I hereby give official written consent for all persons who are holders of slashdot.org accounts on or before April 8th, 2007 to legally copy and distribute all works that are intellectual property of the Recording Industry Artist's Association. All persons with user numbers of six (6) or less digits are automatically included in this article of consent, all persons with user number greater than six (6) digits in length must submit to a review period of no more than two (2) weeks.

We apologize for the inconvenience we have caused you and would appreciate any cooperation you could offer in making this declaration widely available knowledge.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

What "traditional system"?

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