Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Revisiting Berman-Coble Copyright Bill 11

Boone^ writes "Rep. Berman is thinking about rewriting a portion of his bill to explicitly disallow 'hacker-style' attacks against P2P users suspected of sharing copyrighted files such as movies & music. Coble is astonished at the amount of bad press over a bill he says he isn't responsible for, although he and 2 others did co-sponsor it. On the other end of the fight, Rep. Rick Boucher cited a threatening letter telling an ISP to remove a user because they were sharing the Harry Potter movie, but after an investigation it was discovered that it was actually a kid's book report. Good thing the MPAA didn't have the right to DoS him into oblivion for sharing a school assignment."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Revisiting Berman-Coble Copyright Bill

Comments Filter:
  • He did sign off on the thing. Is this a case of misrepresenting his interest in the bill after the fact to try to get us to let him off the hook for supporting something this awful or does he regularly support legislation without reading it first?

    What are we voting these guys in for, if not to actually support bills in our interest and discard bills that are not? I always thought it was essential to, like, examine the things to do your job. This doesn't sound like a situation where the bill has evolved from something good to something horrible... it's been horrible to begin with, so why did he back it?

    • it's been horrible to begin with, so why did he back it?

      Because he either didn't read it, or didn't understand it? Probably he was bribed with "campaign contributions" and a less-than-accurate summary... IIRC, he has publicly admitted that he doesn't understand anything about computers.

  • Everyone knows book reports should be shared at special sites like http://www.term-papers-4u.com/ [term-papers-4u.com].
  • False Positives (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bwt ( 68845 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @05:12PM (#4339990)
    On the other end of the fight, Rep. Rick Boucher cited a threatening letter telling an ISP to remove a user because they were sharing the Harry Potter movie, but after an investigation it was discovered that it was actually a kid's book report.

    Such false positives exactly why "counterattack" is not a viable method for combating *allegedly* illegal activity. Counterattack violates due process of law to the people who happen to be false positives.
  • by Schmelter ( 563031 ) on Thursday September 26, 2002 @05:16PM (#4340008)
    This is the perfect cas of why giving the RIAA powers to hack networks suspected of sharing files illegally. The fact is, even if they turn out to be right about hacking the correct network, there's no system in place for "innocent until proven guilty". Basically, the punishment, getting DOSed, is also the same as the method of investigation, getting hacked. It's even worse when the RIAA turns out to be wrong, with no recourse for the victim. What's the difference between the RIAA hacking a network because they think there might be illegal files and being wrong, and the RIAA hacking any ol' network for whatever reason and then not finding illegal files? And of course there's no system of warrants or documentation as to the RIAA's reason for hacking.

    It took us approximately 2500 years to go from Hammurabi's Code of laws to our present law system, it's simply ludicrous to throw out all that advancement and give any corporation immunity from illegal acts in the name of justice.

    PS: Is it that hard to tell the difference between a 2 Gig movie and a 20 k book report?!
  • it was actually a kid's book report. Good thing the MPAA didn't have the right to DoS him into oblivion for sharing a school assignment.

    Get real, they should have DOS's the little bastard right off the net. Hell, they should have melted his damn motherboard.

    It was a book report about "Harry Potter" for gods sakes, Of COURSE it contained copyrighted material from the movie!

    And don't start with that socialist "fair use" crap either! We have to do it to protect the children... errr, I mean to protect the economy!

    -

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Working...