RIAA Parses 'P2P' As 'Peer 2 Porn' 722
watchful.babbler writes "Having largely failed to galvanize public and political action against P2P systems, the RIAA has mounted a campaign to link P2P systems with child pornography (NYT, reg. required). The result is H. R. 2885 (available via Thomas), which has the remarkably clear and honest intent 'To prohibit the distribution of peer-to-peer file trading software in interstate commerce.' Amongst other things, the proposed law will require the creation of 'do-not-install beacon products' (do-not-ask, you really don't want to know), force P2P apps to include warning labels that users may be exposed to pornography, and require P2P developers and distributors to obtain and store users' personal information -- ostensibly for age verification, but one can think of other reasons that the RIAA might be interested in that info. Worse yet, even given the 'operation exemption' (Sec. (4)(b)(1)(C) in the bill), applications such as AIM and iChat appear to fall under these provisions."
They're casting too large a net here (Score:2, Flamebait)
Google link, no reg (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Google link, no reg (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Google link, no reg (Score:3, Interesting)
You always see 'free registration required, yadda yadda'. that's code for login: yadda password: yadda
Re:Google link, no reg (Score:4, Funny)
And working links to the legislation on Thomas... (Score:5, Informative)
Check the cosponsor list, your congressperson might be one! [loc.gov]
For more info: Bill Summary & Status [loc.gov]
Re:And working links to the legislation on Thomas. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm virtually certain that an ordinary free download falls within the absurdly broad interpertation given to "interstate commerce".
Lets put it this way. Courts have upheld federal laws prohibiting the mere possestion of obscene porn on "interstate commerce" grounds. Were does crossing state lines come into the picture? Would you belive they successfully argued "interstate commerce" applies if so much as a single screw in the camera crossed state lines? A camera manufactured within the state and used within the state to take the photo. A photo handed for free to an otherwise innocent person, within the state. That person can be held subject to a federal law on interstate commerce grounds for possesion of that photo.
This bill's claimed purpose it to protect the children. Not only that, they are supposedly protecting them from kiddy porn. Congress and the courts are more than happy to twist interpretations beyond the breaking point and even even violate the constition the name of a Nobel Cause.
Sigh. This moronic bill will probably pass because anyone who opposes it will be accused of promoting child molestation.
-
And link to the GAO Report (Score:3, Informative)
You can find the PDF version of the GAO report at the following link: "File Sharing Programs: Child Pornography is Readily Accesible Over Peer-to-Peer Networks." [gao.gov]
Get a fucking life! (Score:3, Insightful)
Since nytimes.com really insists on having a registration system (stupid, I agree, but they seem stuck on the idea), they eventually find ways to close the bypass. I sure hope they don't tell Google to stop spidering their site!
Registration is free, and you can tell them not to spam you. Go and register, and spare us all the noise.
Write your Congressman!! (Score:4, Insightful)
My letter:
Dear Congressman Inslee:
I am a registered voter in your district, and serving my country in the Navy; currently stationed in Pensacola, Florida. I am writing to voice my strong opposition to HR 2885, "Protecting Children from Peer-to-Peer Pornography Act of 2003".
The findings in Section 2 of the bill could easily apply to regular web browsing (HTTP) or USNET Newsgroup readers. As reported on the 7th of September 2003, by Saul Hansell, in the New York Times, "Aiming at Pornography to Hit Music Piracy", the RIAA strongly backs this bill, obstinately for the "protection of children". The truth is that this is another attempt by the RIAA to infringe upon the rights of consumers, to limit the use of new technology to distribute music, and to prevent independent musicians from legally distributing their music outside of the RIAA's monopoly.
The irony of the RIAA's stance is that they are guilty of sexualizing children through the behavior of performers like Brittany Spears, Christina Aguilera, and other young women who project a hyper-sexual image. Teen and pre-teen girls view these performers as roll models, and try to dress and act in their image. Young girls dressing in skimpy outfits encourages the deviant adults who prey on children. The RIAA and MTV put children at greater risk due to the behavior of the artists they promote.
Child pornography is evil, and those peddling in such material should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, excessive government regulation of an entire class of software in the effort to "protect children" is the wrong direction we should take. Sufficient laws are on the books to effectively prosecute Child Pornographers, and more importantly to protect children. HR 2885 is an oblique attempt by the RIAA to further protect its monopoly on the creation and distribution of music.
If this bill comes to a vote, please vote "NO".
Very Respectfully,
Craig Newcomb
So, since the RIAA is heavily looking at content.. (Score:5, Funny)
Townsend Defense (Score:5, Funny)
Worse (Score:4, Insightful)
They are doing worse. They continually market underage (or barely of age) girls in a way that sexualizes them (and their blind followers, the pre-teen crowd). Just look at what the latest so-called pop artists are wearing nowadays. Now look at the 12-year-olds at your local school.
I charge that the RIAA is responsible for creating the image of children (the ones on TV and our own) in sexually suggestive clothing, poses and attitudes.
No, I'm not a parent. But someday I'd like to be (getting married next year).
Re:Worse (Score:3, Insightful)
We got rockstars in the Whitehouse
All our popstars look like porn
All my heroes hit the highway
They don't hang out here no more
I mean, yeah... there's nothing wrong with hot-looking popstars, but the current trend of promoting jail-bait-looking hotties is pretty unsettling.
If you don't think the RIAA can get this passed (Score:5, Insightful)
So many people ignored it, simply because it was unconstitutional didn't stop it from becoming a law.
Which is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds appropriate.
Insert multi-subject RIAA rant here
Cheers, Ed.
Re:Might be jumping the gun there... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but it most certainly is. Forbidding the mere discussion of copy restriction schemes certainly runs smack into "Congress shall make no law...." and if you can't figure that much out on your own you are part of the problem. The Constituition isn't a hard document to read, you don't need to be a lawyer or philosopher to understand the plain language of the Founding Fathers. They didn't write any weasel words or leave anything ambigious, it is mostly stark Thou Shalt... Thou Shalt Not sort of rules.
> The concept behind it was rather needed, which is to say extending
> copyright (or at least atempting to define copyright) for digital
> products.
What does the distribution media have to do with copyright? Copyright is copyright, whether graven on stone tablets, stamped onto 120mm aluminum and acrylic discs, beamed down from a geostationary sat or downloaded via a DSL circuit via Gnutella.
> *This* bill however, does nothing to clarify the legal code, nor
> does it help to resolve any existing problems therin. Further most
> people know what P2P is and they can imeditatly see why such a bill
> would be a bad thing. It's not going to go anywhere.
Don't bet on it. They are playing the trump card; "Do it for The Children!" and that trick often works. Sure they only have a pair of jackoff, noname congresscritters for now, but they don't EXPECT to pass it this session. But watch it turn up again next year.... during an election year. As far as I'm concerned no living Congresscritter is innocent of violating their oath of office so we are only safe when the legislature is out of session.
> A rally call of "Remember the DMCA" is all well and good, but there
> are much more dangerous pushes for legislation (see patriot act II)
> out there with a far biger push (see Ashcroft and the US goverment)
> to get them passed.
Actually I'm far more worried about DMCA than Patriot. Patriot was an expected excess after an excessive provacation. But even then Congress at least had enough sense to write in a sunset clause and it is unlikely to be renewed. And while longterm Patriot would pose a greater threat to civil liberties I haven't heard of a lot of abuses of Patriot but DMCA is being wielded as a club against a LOT of people. And DMCA has no sunset clause.
Are you sure you aren't just so blinded by hatred of Bush and Ashcroft you are seeing the ghost of Sen. Mcarthy[sp?] behind every rock? Does seem to be a common meme here on
Re:Might be jumping the gun there... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it is, and I don't need to reffer to fair use or over-broadness to prove it. To avoid repeating myself please reffer to this post [slashdot.org] for the exact argument.
[the DMCA] was rather needed, which is to say extending copyright (or at least atempting to define copyright) for digital products.
Nonsense. Copyright applies to any creative work and it already protected "digital works". The word "digital" should not appear in copyright law whatsoever. Hell, TEXT is "digital" dat
warning labels? (Score:5, Insightful)
They should put those labels on all web browsers too then.
Re:warning labels? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:warning labels? (Score:5, Funny)
They do that here in Montreal.. only they do it in picture form in case you can't read.
Re:warning labels? (Score:4, Funny)
WARNING: Clicking On The Link Contained In This Post May Expose You To Pornography Which Will Fry Your Brain And Turn You Into A Paedophile. We Are Exempt From Any Complaints Delivered Via Postal Service Or Em@Il Of Any Adverse Results Of Clicking On The Link. By Clicking On The Link You Agree To The "Mandatory Octopus On Head" Clause Of U.S. Tax Code 12.7g.
And now, the link [autopr0n.com]
Warning: Reality Ahead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Warning: Reality Ahead (Score:5, Funny)
Unclear on the concept (Score:3, Funny)
And they think that's going to discourage people?
Re:There's a huge difference (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like the seedy side of town, why do you go there?
Of course, this analogy falls flat, because some people are forced by economics to live a place they would rather not. Nobody is forced to use P2P apps. If you don't want your kids to use P2P apps, here's a hint: Don't let them. If you are unable to stop them, then you should think about your parenting skills before you shout "there should be a law..."
Re:There's a huge difference (Score:5, Insightful)
With P2P you really don't know what you're getting. You may think you're downloading The Lion King but you may end up with Debbie Does Dallas.
Let's be serious. How often does this happen. I've been downloading contents from peer to peer networks since the advent of scour.net, and have had no gross misrepresentations of content such as you imply happen. The worst I've ever seen is badly labelled pornography (which was still clearly labelled as pornography). I maintain that this kind of misrepresentation happens on such an infrequent basis as to assume it to be insignificant.
P2P has NO SUCH MECHANISM to warn users about what they may actually be getting. Since the sharers have NO MEANS AVAILABLE to warn users what they're sharing then it's reasonable that the app itself must.
Christ, I know when I was a kid, that warning mechanism did nothing other than to encourage me to enter the site.
"Oh wow, you mean there's naked people on this site? Sweet!"
Seriously, though, the name of the file being downloaded is usually enough. Very few people have anything to gain from misrepresenting their content in such a large manner, and the few who do are just sick. Thankfully, some networks (such as KaZaA) have rating mechanisms for content. If it's being misrepresented, it's almost always marked as poor quality.
Ultimately, kids who want to view pornography are going to, much like kids who want to drink and kids who want to smoke. Prominently labelling content as being pornographic will only cause it to gain attention. Kids won't see the warning--their attention will only be brought to the fact that it's pornography. And as any good marketer knows, having attention brought to your product is the most important thing. Whether or not it's seen in a bad light or good light is secondary.
I also maintain that if such a mechanism is wanted by a sufficient number of people, someone will implement it without being under threat of law--and, even better, it will probably be implemented in a technologically sound way. If Sharman Networks wants to increase its subscriber base, it will add features that its clientele want. If they want this feature, it will be added.
Even better than all this, though, is that parents already have mechanisms for blocking kids from doing things that might be deemed inappropriate by the parents. Parents can restrict their children's user's rights, and they can actually parent their kids, watching them while they're on untrusted networks. Just as you wouldn't leave your kid alone on the streets of New York, you shouldn't leave your kid alone while he or she is surfing the internet. Sure, many parents don't have the desire nor time to do these things. However, are these same parents likely to put forth the time and effort to implement a mechanism for blocking access to peer to peer networks? How can parents even trust these mechanisms, in times like these where children often know more about the operation of computers than their parents?
Re:There's a huge difference (Score:3, Insightful)
P2P? Hell, that's true of the ENTIRE INTERNET. Or perhaps you haven't noticed any of the goatse.cx links here on slashdot? The text of the link can say anything whatsoever. If someone mis-labels a link or file it is not slashdot's fault and it's not the P2P's fault.
Slashdot happens to choose to make some effort to tell you where what serever hosts a file, but not w
This is logical. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is logical. (Score:5, Interesting)
Wouldn't be the first time the RIAA has shot itself in the foot...
Re:This is logical. (Score:5, Funny)
Makes one wish that they would miss and shoot themselves in the head.
Well of course people use p2p for child porn (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, spam emails are a worse menace (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well of course people use p2p for child porn (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrap your head around this worldview for a minute and you'll be much better placed to oppose them. If they succeed in getting laws passed against P2P (and they will simply keep trying until they do - it makes no difference how many times they fail, because they only need one success to set precedents they can build on) then they will certainly move on to other methods of data transfer, and eventually the Internet and personal computing as a whole.
Final straw (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Final straw (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Final straw (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop giving them your money.
No, really.
Stop giving them your money.
I know it's hard. (Although it's a hell of a lot easier than blowing yourself up, I suppose.)
But that's the only way we can get through to them.
Stop giving them your money.
Re:Final straw (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, only music (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately for them, a search for a common song rarely turns up porn. Not a lot of porn around with MP3 headers. So rather than implementing a list of all subscribers, file sharing services could filter out all non-music files. Just like the RIAA made Napster do with certain songs.
So with only music on the P2P network, the RIAA could only object to "their" "copyright" being infringed upon. And nobody would care.
fp?
Re:Nope, only music (Score:5, Interesting)
This Orrin Hatch? [slashdot.org]
Something sure smells rotten in Washington DC.
--K.
Re:Nope, only music (Score:5, Funny)
Oooops!
Re:Nope, only music (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an intresting statement. While true, for how long? We know that the RIAA (or an oursourced company) is interjecting junk mp3's into the system now, whats to stop them from retagging porn with mp3 headers to make their point?
Ya ya it would probably be illegal but looking at their track record they are toeing the line now as it is by sending out mass supinias (sp?) with little to no evidence. Isn't stoping them one bit though is it?
This whole idea scares the crap out of me to put it bluntly. A massive collection of lawyers who are more underhanded then most. We know that they pull every underhanded and questionably legal stunt they can to get what they want. Now I'm wondering if the cops are going to be knocking on my door because I use DC or bittorent and claim im part of some child porn ring.
Another thing, this is beyond coat tailing a law, this is pretty much blatenly lying or stateing the overly obvious to get their way. One has to think that the public or atleast congress will see that not only is this NOT any of their business (since when did the RIAA care about porn or even kids?) but is nothing more than a thinly vailed attack against totally legal programs.
Of course, the DMCA passed and is still a law.
Wow, not only is the RIAA kicking and screaming all the way down, but now they are calling in imaginary pink elephants to help!
Re:Nope, only music (Score:3, Insightful)
So when I go to open the pr0n-labeled-as-mp3 in Winamp...its broken, I delete it, and try to download from another source. I seriously doubt how anybody would think....HEY, this must be a movie renamed as an mp3!
It would do no good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nope, only music (Score:3, Interesting)
Protest! (Score:4, Funny)
And you can all protest this by downloading lots of pr0n this weekend.
Re:Protest! (Score:4, Funny)
Peer @ Porn
--Azaroth
As a guy... (Score:5, Funny)
Has this guy even seen Kazaa? Doesn't he know you have to type in what you are looking for?
Re:As a guy... (Score:2)
Has this guy even seen Kazaa? Doesn't he know you have to type in what you are looking for?
its unsurprising that he comes across lots of kiddie porn on the internet really if thats what he searches for...
o wait.... what am i saying :(
Re:As a guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't seem to be shocked when his barbies (there's no way I'm calling them artists) were tongue-kissing then strip-teasing in front of millions of kids.
Re:As a guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
heck, even elvis was pr0n(admittedly he made some good music as well but mostly he was pron for teenage girls, and they got exploited to sillyness with all the elvis movies and shitload of songs).
yeah i don't make much difference between ass marketing and straight pr0n, except straight XXX pron is honestly what it is, most of the time it lacks the fake glamour that 'music' videos have too that makes the girls wanna act like whores-for-free.
and yea i used three different words for pr0n=porno=pron, and actually i am not against porno at all(except if actors are forced to it), and i'm not for making distributing it shameful and the age-limit should be around 16 because at least then everyone figures out how to access it ONE WAY OR ANOTHER anyways(be it your dads video/mag collection, your uncles video/mag collection, shoplift, loan from a friend, buy on a trip to country *, vcr late night tv, hotel tv, watching baywatch, mtv late night videos, or gosh: dial in bbs's and internet!). i'm just against hypocrats that use it as a weapon to achieve their own goals.
all that being said.. man do the teens nowadays have it easy.. i had to nick mags from my brother at least before we got 14.4k modem and even then the best jpg bbs's around here had ratios!
Re:As a guy... (Score:5, Funny)
Now the real question is, is he talking about child pornography or the music Sony produces?
Re:As a guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I tried to get Matrix Reloaded when it first came out in theaters, and some people had renamed other movies to it (why, I'm not sure; perhaps to boost their "share rating" but they should have just gotten Kazaa Lite).
I downloaded 7 different movies before finding it at a BitTorrent site (most of the torrents are correct). I got I Spy, Almost Famous, Joy Ride, Saving Private Ryan among others -- and one of them was Swedish porn with money shots and everything: Lustgarden.
I don't have kids, but I wouldn't want my kids searching for Matrix Reloaded and getting porn instead. Yeah, it's not the kiddie porn that this idiot is blathering about, but the point is you've got to parent your children! You can't sit them in front of a box, any box, and ignore them. You need to work through issues with them, watch what they're doing, offer advice and corrections, and lock down the computer so they can't install software (if you want to shelter them).
They'll get to an age where they don't need sheltering, but until then it's the parents' responsibility to shelter them the way the parents see fit -- and it is most definitely not the government's responsibility.
Their best move yet? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is really slick, on their part, because they can try to humiliate their opponents, reglardless of the validity of their arguments. How can people easily claim that this is just profiteering and securing a closed market in which to play?
Obviously, I don't want to see this go through, and it likely won't (not on the first try, anyway). But, it is an interesting tactic.
Re:Their best move yet? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can't argue against them, argue along side them. The purpose of copyright is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". If congress opposes pornography, why do they promote it with copyrights? The RIAA is not going to be happy if congress cancels copyrights on all sexually-explicit material.
Worse yet? Wrong! (Score:2, Insightful)
What's a "beacon"? (Score:5, Interesting)
The story doesn't explain what the bill sets out a 'beacon' to be, but basically the intent is to (within a year of the bill's passage) develop a US standard for a magical 'beacon' one can set on a computer that will prevent people from installing P2P software on it. While it's a great idea IF YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS (hey, parents can keep kids from using evil Kazaa! and workplaces can prevent employees, too!) it's a stupid act. Stupid act. Anyone who votes for this act should it ever come up in Congress should be publically ridiculed in every venue available.
I see it's time to start the letter-to-Congress process...
Re:What's a "beacon"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, you may think this is encouraging piracy, socialism, and all those evil things. But the fact is that most pre-school teachers don't see it that way. They see it as necessary socialization of those selfish little monsters. Granted, a tiny minority
Huh... (Score:2)
Soo... Does this mean that someone could get immunity from the RIAA by simply deleting all their stuff once they get a court order? Or would they have to do that before the court order?
Peer-to-peer metworks? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks RIAA, I'm sending you my Excedrin bill for next month
"Compromise" (Score:5, Insightful)
I find this sort of bill among the more reprehensible things our legislature does. This bill has no chance of passage, and the authors undoubtedly know this. Further, if it were to pass it would be the target of a million legal challenges.
The purpose of this bill is almost certainly to force a "compromise" bill that achieves the achievable portion of these effects. By staking out an extreme position, the sponsors paint opponents as staking out the opposite extreme, and suggest that the difference be split.
Honest congressfolk: don't give in. There is no honorable compromise here. P2P is just folks communicating via computer---to restrict the medium of the net is the beginning of the end of free speech in America and around the world. I would rather see our civil liberties go down fighting than turn to the dark side voluntarily.
I feel great! (Score:5, Funny)
Now just give me some newly released Apple G5 benchmarks and the day will be perfect
Take your 30% and shove it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. 30 whole percent. What's that leave the profit margin at? $12 on a $15 dollar CD? I'll bet most of that %30 is coming out of the artists paycheck. Whoops! They never made %30 to begin with.
wow, this is really ironic.. (Score:5, Interesting)
interesting. since the RIAA's members are promoting so much smut this days which is passed as "art" by them - eminem anyone?
This strategy seems bizzar to me. the RIAA should know what those "warning - explicite lyrics" stickers did for rap and hip hop..
Re:wow, this is really ironic.. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is precisely this idea that has so ruined contemporary art (or obscured through a floodwave). Art *must* have a defensible manifesto. Art
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Art is in essence the foremost expression of human creativity. As difficult to define as it is to evaluate, given that each individual artist chooses the rules and parameters that guide her work, it can still be said that art is the process and the product of choosing a medium, a set of rules for the use of
Well then... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in America (Score:3, Insightful)
Choice Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Portraying the intent of P2P app developers in this manner is beneath contempt. Hiding behind his "shock" and "parenthood" while making them is cowardice. Coming from the upper eschelons of Sony, a company which has released more than its share of violent, sexual content in the form of movies and games, is pure hypocrisy. 'Lack' is truly an apt name for such an individual.
PORNO.txt (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't actually download them huh. Well, they must be porn. I'm now off to download everything on project Gutenberg and rename all the files 'porn underage kiddies sluts with barnyard animals.txt'. Won't the RIAA be disapointed when they find copies of Emma and The War of the Worlds.
Best quote (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think I've ever heard Kazaa or such being associated with a product image specifically created to get kids to damage their health. She (Laura A. Ahearn, the director of Parents for Megan's Law) makes it sound like Kazaa is luring "kids" and then just giving them child porn.
I wonder how much she is getting paid to say stupid crap like that.
stuff that is REALLY ugly... (Score:3, Funny)
Some of the most vile, disgusting, and just plain horrible stuff is distributed on P2P networks. And after your kids download all the Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys and N*Sync albums, their's pornography too!
Yikes (Score:4, Insightful)
Section 2: Findings spells out their beef with p2p software and it seems to be the same beef people have with that pesky first amendment.
Peer-to-peer file trading software has been very widely distributed. The most popular of these programs has been downloaded over 200 million times, and at any one time, there are over 3 million people using it.
Strange that they want to outlaw something that a substantial percentage of the public find useful enough to download. The people behind the bill obviously carry some heavy political currency.
(2) Peer-to-peer systems are emerging as a conduit for the distribution of pornographic images and videos, including child pornography. Child pornography is easily found and downloaded using peer-to-peer systems.
Emerging as a CONDUIT?!? Sense when do we go after the conduit. Speech is a conduit for unsavory ideas as are the radio, magazines, books, our minds. Shall we outlaw those too?
If the RIAA is behind this it is really the hight of hypocrisy. This is an organization that is happy to dress up a teenage Brittany Spears in next to nothing and pay here to wiggle around in front of a bunch of horny boys, but threaten their profits and suddenly they are the keepers of the moral flame. What a crazy world.
No group has done more to sexualize children... (Score:5, Insightful)
MTV actually did a promotional show for the snoop dogg girls gone wild video, the way they'd promote a hollywood movie. Not only is MTV's audience primiarly made up of kids, but the producers of those videos are probably going to go to jail for using minors in their tapes. Not one or two who slipped through -- several dozen young girls.
Don't get me wrong -- I believe in free speech, and I will defend their rights to promote music that sexualizes children, glorifies cop killing, rape, and drug use, and all of the rest of the stuff they promote. I don't like it, but I'll defend their right to do it.
But the sheer disingenuous of these sorts of statements is hard to take. I don't know where they find guys with the chutzpah to make them.
Re:No group has done more to sexualize children... (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention the early videos were shot by porn director Greg Dark. He has also shot videos for Mandy Moore and was profiled in Esquire. The hypocracy runs deeper than you think.
Newsflash (Score:3, Funny)
He also explained that their clients will now look for other explanations for their lost profits and ways to stop them, starting with beating up school children that play loud music in parks and other public places, and breaking into houses of people believed to sing under the shower.
Child Rape (Score:3, Insightful)
Children are NOT the people who seek out CHILD pornography. I know this as a fact because I have 2 boys in my home. They want to see MATURE (looking) women with great big 'bazookas', not flat chest-ed 9 year old little girls. For a 15 yr old boy, this is normal, natural and even healthy (not to mention reassuring that I may one day be a grandfather).
The people that seek out child porn are adults, sick adults, but adults none the less. The RIAA seems to think that it's children seeking this stuff out. They are truely lost souls...
This is the equivalent to outlawing cars because pedophiles use them to abduct kids.
Back to the rape, maybe the RIAA is getting jealous after watching the kiddy porn on the P2P networks.
RIAA's intent with this bill: "Nobody can rape those kids but the RIAA"
How do they define P2P? (Score:5, Informative)
(A) enable a computer on which such software is used to transmit files or data to another such computer;
(B) enable the user of one such computer to request the transmission of files or data from another such computer; and
(C) enable the user of one such computer to designate files or data available for transmission to another such computer, but which definition excludes, to the extent otherwise included, software products legitimately marketed and distributed primarily for the operation of business and home networks, the networks of Internet access providers, or the Internet itself
So...
1. It is illegal to transfer files between two FTP-servers or HTTP-servers.
2. But if you use it for business, you are allowed to operate software like gnutella or kazaa.
America really got a problem with sex (Score:3, Interesting)
Such biased puritanism is contemptuous and says a lot about mentality of a nation.
The RIAA should talk! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks, RIAA. (Score:3, Interesting)
More likely than not, people will simply resort to participating in file- and song-trading parties like we used to in the 80s. Unless you're prepared to raid all the Incredible Flying Pizza Society locations (any Austinintes here?) or other places we're known to gather, how about you just sit back and have a nice cup of Shut the Fuck Up?
The sad thing is, Joe Q. Public will actually buy into the idea that P2P programs are stomping grounds for pedophiles. While there may be an isolated number of child porn traded over P2P (I've never run across any, but I'm not looking for it) I imagine this isn't the norm.
The words escape me.. (Score:3, Informative)
Next you thing you know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Preposterous you say. Again, think about it some more. MS is pretty good at buying politicians (and business execs, but that is for discussion on another day) so they could easily get something as ludicrous as this pushed through Congress. You think most Congressmen and women really have a serious clue about technology and stuff? If the RIAA successfully gets P2P associated with kiddy porn, the hammer will fall. I am certainly against child porn but this is a quite low-handed advertising. Nevertheless, this could be just the thing needed for Microsoft to really push the DRM. The thought of this just makes me shudder.
RIAA aims at FreeNet (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA knows that once that happens, their ability to stop piracy will be absolutely NIL. So their only hope is to criminalize P2P software before it gets to that point. If they can make it illegal to distribute (and eventually own) file sharing software, then FreeNet ceases to become an issue.
And you know where those "beacons" are headed, don't you? Think mandatory on every new computer, automatically contact your ISP if you so much as ATTEMPT to run P2P software.
I always wondered how the next generation of P2P was going to mix with the
Microsoft's Palladium (and its ilk) is going to be the champion platform for this, because the users can't control what is going on. The government can mandate anything they want, Microsoft complies, and the users don't get a choice.
Expect Palladium type controls to become mandatory within 3 years as well. They're just going to turn the internet into a passive entertainment medium like they've always wanted it to be. Just with more advertising.
Has anyone here actually TRIED P2P? (Score:3, Insightful)
Install a P2P system that lets you see what people are searching for, and guess what...something like 99% of it is indeed commercial music and porn of questionable legality.
It is pretty amazing to watch.
Can't the RIAA do a good deed and... (Score:3, Insightful)
Learn from the adult industry (Score:5, Insightful)
"The adult industry, like others, is against the illegal downloading of their videos," said Gary Kremen, the chief executive of Sex.com, a directory of sexually explicit Web sites, "but they are much smarter than the music industry. They see p2p as money to be made."
"
With this logic, (Score:3, Interesting)
And cars are equal to date rape, because date rape happens a lot in cars.
And Dungeons and Dragons leads to witchcraft. And Marylin Manson leads to killing. And watching Arnold Shwartzengovernor movies turns you into a carrot. And masturbating leads to killing kittens. And being a catholic leads to pedophilia. And using linux leads to never having sex. Ever. And watching too much anime leads to a sudden fascination with schoolgirls and tenticles.
Wait, the last one was true...
Still, what I see this as is a final act of desperation. The lawsuits are just giving them a bad name, and finally they realized instead of letting the internet badmouth them, they should badmouth the P2P services. What next, badmouth Sean Fanning?
Still, the scary thing is what I see here is a potential legion of child porn pics being uploaded onto the networks by the RIAA, with the titles 'michaeljacksonsfacemelting.jpg, madonna.jpg, coolpic.jpg, or tatugirlskissing.jpg,' then they'd somehow (using secret RIAA black magic) track these files, and turn the hapless bastard who downloads them into the authorities. That way they'd save money on lawsuits...
So Privacy is a Crime? (Score:4, Insightful)
They seek to enlist the aid of a government which has been rampantly trampling (say that 3 times fast!) the civil rights of its Citizens. And doing so with increasing enthusiasm for the past few years.
Their argument says, essentially: "We cannot see what a given individual is doing. They could be doing anything!. Therefore, we MUST monitor and regulate each individual!"
The premise of our society (in the US) is exactly the opposite of that view: "...Chief among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." The "liberty" part means that Yeah--you could be doing anything. Go ahead. We presume that what you're doing is none of anyone else's business.
In that context, the RIAA's argument "Unmonitored, unregulated private citizens are probably criminal, and must be treated as such." sounds absurd. Not to the folks making the laws.
This or similar regulation has a good chance of being enacted. Remember the "war on drugs" in its heyday. I personally know people who had property siezed and sold at auction because the property (a car) was "involved in a drug-related crime".
Problem is--the "crime" was an alleged crime--the person involved was never convicted of anything. Yeah, that sorta violates the fourth amendmant of our Constitution. And the law was overturned. But, he still lost his car.
The upsot of it is that there is (and always will be) a persistant layer of the legal system which undermines the same rights that are guaranteed by that same legaly system.
At any given moment, we can fight more or less diligently and determine the weight of that layer.
Make no mistake, however--it is the nature of power to concentrate itself. And if you don't take some of that power by speaking out, embarrassing politicians, joining your local zoning board, challenging that traffic ticket, etc.--then you are giving that power away.
Don't be embarrased to "take power" by taking action. Your very desire to protect your own freedoms conflicts with someone else's desire to regulate (restrict) those freedoms. You are in the game whether you like it or not. "I'll leave you alone and you leave me alone." is good in principle, but impossible to implement in practice.
Laura A. Ahearn (Score:3, Insightful)
She states that Kazaa has been deliberately used to "attack children".
The mind boggles.
If you give your kid a $2000 computer, broadband internet access, no supervision, and they type in "porn" as a search (on Google, newsgroups, P2P or even just as a URL) - is this an attack? No.
YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN WATCHING YOUR CHILD.
It's called good old PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. The same way you shouldn't let your kid roam around town alone or talk to strangers.
Web Servers. (Score:5, Insightful)
(A) enable a computer on which such software is used to transmit files or data to another such computer;
This is Apache's main purpose.
(B) enable the user of one such computer to request the transmission of files or data from another such computer; and
HTTP is a two way thing, not broadcast. The "client" needs to be able to send data to a server to request files. If not GET, the POST directive meets this. I'm using it to send this post.
(C) enable the user of one such computer to designate files or data available for transmission to another such computer, but which definition excludes, to the extent otherwise included, software products legitimately marketed and distributed primarily for the operation of business and home networks, the networks of Internet access providers, or the Internet itself;
Okay, this part is kind of vague. Designation of the files is program specific, but but Apache and most P2P software do something along the lines of "you put the files in a shared dir". The excluded part is REALLY vague. P2P software IS legitimately marketed and distributed. It only fails to meet that part is it is already illegal by this bill.
The actual exclusions seem to be written by someone who has no clue about networking. Lets see... Home(non-business) and business networks are excluded. Government networks are about the only thing that isn't excluded. ISP networks, which are yet another business network, are then specifically excluded.
Of course, if that isn't enough, the internet itself is excluded. WTF do they think "the Internet itself" is??? Some palpable item? The internet is formed OF the other types of networks(most of which were excluded). They either include the application layer in these exclusions, or they don't. P2P is excluded if the other servers are excluded. For that matter, it's possible to use Apache FOR P2P type things. P2P is just another service on the internet.
Or is there something I'm missing and I need to RTFA better next time?
NYTimes Swallows RIAA's Load (Score:5, Insightful)
The NYTimes has become more of a shill for the RIAA and conservatives in the government. In the article they actually printed this as credible information:
They go on to present the opposing side of the issue, but it doesn't really refute the meme of massive amounts of child porn on the net:By even lending any credence to a study that did not actually download the files the NYTimes is showing how easily they can be used.
A little clue here folks, these descriptions are what's commonly referred to as false advertising. 99% of that "42 percent" will not contain child porn. At most you'll get some badly dubbed European movie from the 80's where some 30 year old woman is wearing pony tails and trying to act coy. Those sorts of mile-long filenames with every sex search term you could think of are leftovers from files that have been passed around for years on services like Hotline where you either pay or upload other files in trade to download pirated porn or software.
These file names are just like the stupid search engine spamming where porn sites used to put as many porn words in their meta tags and white-on-white body text to get to the top of the results. Someone sharing on Hotline wanted to generate as much traffic as possible to their server. Then in order to download this forbidden fruit, you had to upload more warez or pr0n or pay them, thus increasing the size of the server owners collection and/or wallet.
Later in the article they (correctly) pick up on another reality of P2P porn: a lot of it is now just advertising for pay sites. Now let's see... do you think that the porn site operators name the files that they share in a way that clearly shows that you're going to download an ad? Well, no they also use the same sorts of filenames with every graphic description that you could imagine - which often doesn't have much to do with the actual contents.
If the RIAA members had half a brain, they'd stop pouring money into getting songs on the radio and MTV and just load up all the good singles and videos onto KaZaA. Then they'd all take a few clues from Apple and UMG and make it easier and cheaper to get the albums electronically or on CD. Oh, but wait, they've stopped making good albums.
Maybe this is a bad example, but I really can't comprehend the school of thought in journalism where you just report the statements of opposing sides of an issue with equal weight and little personal analysis. In this particular case it would be very dangerous for a reporter themselves to download potential child porn. If they actually found some they would be committing a serious crime.
The real problem here is that I read far to many articles by journalists who are generalists. They are taught that there is this universal approach to researching and writing stories and they can apply it to any subject - which is complete bullshit. Sure you can start learning from a general standpoint, but journalism should be about trying to present the facts as they are. That requires an understanding of the subject matter, which requires some expertise and experience.
Unless this particular article was completely watered down and edited to death, I get the impression that the reporter has never actually downloaded porn through a P2P service.
More Corporate BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, somebody is using the P2P technology for something illegal. That goes for HTTP, FTP, IRC, and so on.
I never saw any advertising on any P2P services saying "Here kids! Look at this disgusting porn!"
Companies only do things through motivation. What are the entertainment companies' motivation for smearing P2P? Obviously, because their music is being traded on P2P.
If some people are using the technology for trading child porn, law enforcement agencies have many ways to track those people down and send them to jail. Why is the entertainment biz trying to get involved? Are they really concerned citizens? Hardly. Every one of us is a number to them. They want to "monetize" us all using any means necessary, even to the detriment of society's values. They are the last people who should be trying to uphold what is right.
Sure, okay. If you read between the lines, what they want is everyone to either be of legal age on P2P, or make the parents knowingly allow their children to use the services. That way, it's a sure bet they can either sue who's using the service, or that person's parents. No more fruitless crackdowns on 12 year olds.
Wow, lawmakers need to know stuff like how viruses are spread. Better talk to them REALLY LOUD so they can hear you over the Microsoft Windows vulnerability reports.
Better brush up on your acronyms, Lackey.
Only those without a basic understanding of how the Internet works would dispute that.
Here's a good one. So, if you're sharing child porn on your P2P node, you should disclose that fact? Uh. It's highly illegal already, what the hell is a label going to do? It's not like the labels on an album cover say "WARNING: This package contains cocaine."
I
Pop Music *is* pr0n ... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, yeah, but if you can't stop your own member organizations from defrauding kids, why do you think the gub'mint will do any better?
Oh... you want us to think you're talking about Kazaa... riiiiiiightttttttt.
Come on! (Score:4, Interesting)
Give me a break...
I had to laugh when i read this though.
2 things.
1) Britney... No kiddin. Look to MTV for the reasons there! I believe that many outraged people (who wrote piles of letters to newspapers) would consider the 2-second kiss to be of that nature.
2) So, the lessons to be learned here are:
a) Files can have misleading search information associated with them, and
b) Some people will use "common" search terms to attract attention to specific files that have no association with them.
Well of course they say they didn't download them, admitting they did if they did would be a crime.
But wait, didn't we learn from 2a & 2b above that often people use search terms to attract attention to files that don't necessarily have any association, just to generate interest?
Non sequitur and propaganda, plain and simple.
So which US slashgeeks are going to run for office and replace these incompetent people [loc.gov]?
Toss the two named terms in google and find dozens of "legitimate" sites seeking the same type of attention.
This is sad.
-dave-
Looking for YOUR peer-to-porn engine? Get it here! [bearshare.com]
the contradiction in RIAA's position (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, here's my thought. RIAA argues that p2p is depriving the content creators of their fair buck. They are saying, if p2p survives, it will drive content creators out of business.
Well, guess what, porn is a content business also. By their reasoning, p2p would drive content creators out of business, rather than the other way around. Maybe we could say that p2p is the best way to fight commercial porn!
I don't blame RIAA for trying to throw this argument out. But it reveals the shaky foundations on which they argue that p2p kills content creation.
On the porn/harm issue, I have two thoughts. First, the typical 13 year old (boy and girl) today probably has already viewed hardcore pictures and maybe videos. It's unavoidable,and perhaps will inure them to these images/video experiences. Second, it would be easy enough for kazaa to filter out certain keywords, although ultimately kids understand the technology better than adults will. Although not very sophisticated now, it's only a matter of time before traded files to be rated by other traders (if only to prevent viruses and other malicious software).
With regard to videos pretending to be something else, it's more likely that a vid will promote itself as a hardcore and turn out to be a music promo or some ad.
Congress needs a lecture on the reality of IT (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, there is a general lack of understanding which is causing silly bills like this to even be considered. This is in dire need of correction. There seems to be a common trend assumption that computers--software especially--are something controllable. Ultimately, this is a failure to realize their very nature as programmable devices. People who start talking of "beacon software" and prohibiting certain types of generic program design prove that they have absolutely no fundamental understanding of computers whatsoever. There is a strong "manufacturing fallacy" as well -- the false assumption that software can be viewed as a manufactured, scarse product. As such, software begins to sound to them like something they can regulate to protect somebody's interests, much as safety belts were eventually required by law in all new automobiles. Some of these guys probably mean well--they're just poorly informed and as a result, knee jerk reactions get made. The big question: how to educate these clueless politicians.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I love it! (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news, searching for "murder" and "torture" is likely to bring you results with titles or descriptions associated with violence, searching for "cuddle" and "kiss" will bring the results associated with tenderness and sentimentality. Like searching for "robbery" and "burglary" bight turn up some links to materials associated with criminal acts and searching for "shithead" and "moron" will give you some RIAA-related materials.
Sometimes I feel like Anakin from Attack of the Clones. We need someone to make all people behave right. Someone like Darth Vader. No kidding.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything has drawbacks, but sometimes they aren't really that big. You can't just go around being more strict when a little problem arises.
Re:Democrat favorite slogan "It's for teh children (Score:3, Informative)
Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. JOHN, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. PENCE, and Mr. DEMINT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Pitts, Joseph R. - REPUBLICAN
Pence, Mike - REPUBLICAN
DeMint, Jim - REPUBLICAN
John, Christopher - DEMOCRAT
Sullivan, John - REPUBLICAN
So, it seems this is a bi-partisan bill, with primarily GOP suppor