Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

American Movie Execs Could Face Aussie Jails For Hacking 445

Posted by timothy from the but-but-but dept.
pegacat points to a story in the Melbourne Age which says that "American movie, recording and software executives could be arrested if they travel to Australia, could be prohibited from entering Australia, or could be extradited to face criminal charges if Californian Democrat congressman Howard Berman's copyright protection bill, which allows cracking of computers, passes into law." That's because "Under section 9a of the Victorian Summary Offences Act (1966), 'a person must not gain access to, or enter, a computer system or part of a computer system without lawful authority to do so'. The penalty if convicted is up to six months' jail."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

American Movie Execs Could Face Aussie Jails For Hacking More

American Movie Execs Could Face Aussie Jails For Hacking

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @03:43AM (#4016754)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • either that, or a whole slew of checks made payable to Aussie politicians insuring that those "silly" pro-consumer laws get fixed

      • Re:Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Sj0 ( 472011 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @08:14AM (#4017497) Journal
        hacking does't fall under consumer law. It falls under criminal law.

        To put it in a way that makes sense to the impressionable out there, these execs are seeking immunity from acts of cyber-crime on regular individuals(like you...you never used napster or kazaa though, right?).

        to put in a way the rest of us can comprehend, this amalgamation of corporations is seeking the legal permission to the equivilant of vigilante justice. Unfortunately, while this is generally illegal(especially when this form of 'justice' takes the form of an especially illegal act itself) for the common man, it's a-okay for a huge, irresponsible, amoral corporation to have, because they have the money to bribe the oh-so-bribable US polititans. The results of this law passing would be far reaching, possibly setting precident down a long road where corporations begin to gain more and more rights to seek vigilante justice, first on-line, but someday, perhaps in the real world.

        While I disagreed with the imprisonment of dimitry, because it was due to a law which did not make sense, was immoral, and was obviously bought, the thought of imprisoning criminals who happen to be rich enough to get an exemption appeals to me.

        • Re:Amendment (Score:3, Interesting)

          by tomhudson ( 43916 )
          They also can face up to 5 years in jail and up to $1,000,000 in fines per incident in Canada under existing laws regarding destruction of other peoples' data, which (your data) is protected under copyright law.

          Unlike mafiaboy, these are supposedly adults. They won't get the benefit of going through the juvenile court system.

    • Re:Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)

      by YeeHaW_Jelte ( 451855 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @03:47AM (#4016769) Homepage
      Yeah, and a law permitting the US armed forces to invade Australia to free captured media company execs.

      • Re:Amendment (Score:4, Interesting)

        by spongman ( 182339 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @04:01AM (#4016809)
        yeah, like the chief of staff needs a vote in congress (a law) anymore to go to war. the constitution has long gone out the window...
        • yeah, like the chief of staff needs a vote in congress (a law) anymore to go to war.

          The best part is that the JCS have been totally cut out of planning for this Iraq thing. It's less of a true national policy than a nostalgia thing among some administration members. It's also getting quite tiring. [satirewire.com]

          Australia's safe until Paul Hogan starts attending NSC meetings.

      • Re:Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)

        by driptray ( 187357 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @04:14AM (#4016852)

        Yeah, and a law permitting the US armed forces to invade Australia to free captured media company execs.

        Since when did the US need a law to invade foreign countries? Hell, they do it even where there are international laws forbidding them from doing it.

        • Well, maybe they only need laws to invade allied countries like the Netherlands.
          • Well, maybe they only need laws to invade allied countries like the Netherlands.
            Or Australia. Er, wait, since Australia could jail movie execs, it must no longer be an ally...

        • Perhaps in an amazing instance of precognition, media execs have already made a movie about it! [spygame.net]

      • And a law to prohibit dingoes from eating said armed forces' babies.
      • yes, a war should be declared on australia. Movie execs are such honourble citizens and such great contributors to the society. Any body daring to arrest them should be nuked!

    • Re:Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rodgerd ( 402 )
      Australia is trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with the US (you know, that country which is so fond of free trade that it erects massive tarrif and subsidy barriers to all and sundry). I imagine implementation of all so-called intellectual property laws that are in the US but not yet in Australia will be one of the first requirements for such an arrangement, and I imagine the Howard government will bend over so quick that half the country will get whiplash.
    • I suspect that the MPAA/RIAA might actually manage to push something through like this, if they really needed to. But it would be silly to do so.

      Actually breaking into computers has way too many legal issues. No one is proposing that -- they simply want to DoS computers, and the *only* method I've seen proposed so far is by eating up download slots by trickling out many, many downloads. Polluting the network with bogus files doesn't need the "DoS immunity" law, and that's already being done.

      So, sexy as it may sound to have the RIAA/MPAA trying to "hack" into computers, they really aren't. They aren't trying to gain any form of additional access that a normal random computer on the Internet doesn't already have (at least last I've heard :-) ). They just want to eat up downloads. The Aussie law is probably not going to cover it, unless it also covers things like ping-flooding people.

  • go aussies go!!! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hummer357 ( 545850 )
    Well, since a lot of movies are being made in Aussieland, maybe wel'll get to see a lot of visiting MIAA and RIAA people being thrown in the slammer!

    Go Aussies Go!!!

    or maybe they'll blackmail the Australian government into passing similar legislation, on the threat that there won't be any more films made in their country (so: bye bye dollars...)

  • Symbolic threats are meaningless (Score:3, Insightful)

    by twilight30 ( 84644 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @03:48AM (#4016770) Homepage
    I doubt very much the executives themselves will be attempting any cracking of systems here, don't you?

    And please, don't quote the Gandhi 'First, they laugh at you' thing again. Without a concerted effort from other Western nations (at a minimum), the closest thing this approximates is a soggy spitball and straw against a tank.

    • well (Score:3, Insightful)

      by martissimo ( 515886 )
      i know that if i go pay a man to kill my wife that i can be charged with murder.

      if Rosen pays someone to hack for her why shouldn't she be responsible for it in the same fashion

      • Re:well (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Elbereth ( 58257 )
        When was the last time you heard of a celebrity getting arrested for cocaine possession and serving a minimum sentence?

        The laws don't work the same when you're rich and famous. Don't be so naive.

  • Lawful authority? (Score:5, Funny)

    by richie2000 ( 159732 ) <rickard.olsson@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @03:50AM (#4016775) Homepage Journal
    "without lawful authority to do so"

    Wouldn't the bill be considered lawful authority? If Australian law can be applied to US citizens, it's likely (though I ain't anal) that US law would apply to those same citizens.

    Then again, Australia has a long and distinguished record of being a penal colony for the British, maybe it's time to reinstate that concept and ship RIAA and MPAA execs, all of Arthur Andersen, and all Fortune 500 CEOs to a remote part of the Aussie outback. We can even turn it into a spectator sport - Survivor 2.0 - broadcasting it live with free Internet feeds from ROVs orbiting the area. "Will Bill Gates eat Steve Ballmer? Tune in tomorrow on Survivor 2.0, same time, same server!"

    • Re:Lawful authority? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ColaMan ( 37550 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @04:09AM (#4016838) Journal
      Wouldn't the bill be considered lawful authority? If Australian law can be applied to US citizens, it's likely (though I ain't anal) that US law would apply to those same citizens.

      *snort* Laws passed by any sovereign country are only valid inside that country. The USA can pass as many crap bills as it wants - Australian courts would likely tell you to fuck off and give you six months jail for that kind of argument.

      And as for a "long and distinguished record of being a penal colony" 1788 (first landing) to 1868(last convicts shipped off to Australia) is 80 years, and 134 years ago now. So back off, pal.

      Although , we *do* have a lot of desert out there... maybe a survivor 2.0 as suggested would be ok.
    • Will Bill Gates eat Steve Ballmer?

      *shudders* I don't think I want to know...

    • Re:Lawful authority? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ruhk ( 70494 )
      Then again, Australia has a long and distinguished record of being a penal colony for the British...
      One thing I hate about the American educational system is the way in which we cover history. America was used more extensively by Britain as a penal dumping ground than any other Crown colony bar none. Further, Australia was barely used as a penal colony. The vast majority of colonists in Australia were neither indentured nor criminal. They chose to go. Of course, teaching history in such a way that we don't paint ourselves as The Greatest Country In The World (Now With Extra Freedom!) (tm) would be unpatriotic.

  • Hang on a minute! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @03:50AM (#4016776)
    The UK has similiar legislation, and I'm pretty sure most of the rest of EU has similiar legislation.

    Does this mean that movie executives will not be able to travel outside of the US at all?! Cool!

    Yeah, so I'm a dreamer. I know full well that Tony "Grining Laky" Blair would never arrest an American movie executive for something like this. It would make George Bush (His pal) cry, and we can't have that!
    • The Australian federal government is currently controlled by the Liberal Party, which is sort of like the Republicans except without the Christian Coalition. I.e., a socially conservative, pro-corporate party. In addition, the Prime Minister loves Bush and would do anything for him, from unconditionally committing Australian troops to any U.S. military campaign to neglecting to raise agricultural trade issues when visiting the U.S. If the U.S. asked him to, he would push hard to indemnify MPAA/RIAA cracking/DoS attempts in Australia, under the guise of "protecting movie industry investment" or "harmonising computer crime laws".

      The upper house is dominated by the Liberals, but they don't have a majority; the balance of power is held by the fashionably left-leaning Democrats, who would probably oppose a Bermanesque law here. Though if the Labor opposition (think like Tony Blair's mob in the UK) is persuaded to get behind it, the Democrats are irrelevant.

      • ...the balance of power is held by the fashionably left-leaning Democrats, who would probably oppose a Bermanesque law here.

        I have doubts about that. The Dems supported the Copyright Act Amendments (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 (i.e. the Australian DMCA) and, like the Labor Party, tend to support the entertainment industry. Given their courting of the corporate dollar before last year's election (publicity of which they tried to avoid by holding fundraiser events at undisclosed locations), they're just a little too close to the vested interests in this issue for my tastes.

        It's entirely possible that any sort of Bermanesque bill will pass without any significant opposition, which, given that the media tends to only report issues about which there is political conflict, means that there would probably not be much coverage at all.


    • Does this mean that movie executives will not be able to travel outside of the US at all?! Cool!

      Didn't Disney executives have an US aircraft carrier sent to Pearl Harbour just before the opening of the film ??

      ... the United States, like every other state past and present, pursues policies that reflect the interests of those who control the state by virtue of their domestic power, ...
      Noam Chomsky -- Necessary Illusions (c) 1989

    • ‘The Computer Misuse Act 1990’ Section 1; (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Martin S. ( 98249 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @06:41AM (#4017101) Journal
      Indeed, this would also be illegal in the UK under Section 1 of the 'The Computer Misuse Act 1990' ;

      (1) A person is guilty of an offence if--
      (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
      (b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
      (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
      (2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at--
      (a) any particular program or data;
      (b) a program or data of any particular kind; or
      (c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
      (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.

      http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_19900 01 8_en_1.htm

      As for the possibility of Tony Blair (UK Prime-Minister), some how excusing this, that is not likely. There is plenty of separation between the UK Judiciary and Politicians. UK Judges are not elected but appointed and once appointed are nearly impossible to remove. UK Judges also seem to regularly take delight in giving politicians the finger, when the latter attempt to step on their toes. i.e. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2162940.stm

  • Not just aussies people!!! (Score:3)

    by sofar ( 317980 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @03:55AM (#4016790) Homepage

    Same laws that prohibit entering and breaking in computer systems are in effect all around europe, and personally, I as a dutch person would love to see someone from the RIAA or MPAA hang in front of the new ICC in The Hague (That would be a laugh!)

    DoS my gnut and come over if you dare!!!

  • Black/While/Grey (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xA40D ( 180522 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @03:57AM (#4016799) Homepage
    Things are right, wrong, or grey.

    If something is wrong don't do it. Take cracking or DoS attacks. Totally wrong. Lock them up and throw away the key.

    But you start to legislate that it's okay for some users (I don't care how much money Hollywood has, they are still users just like you and me) to crack and DoS others then you make it grey. So the next time you catch a cracker you've got a much harder job dealing with him. And the next time it's harder still. And fairly soon cracking just becomes one of those things you live with.

    At least the Aussies are doing their hardest to keep it black and white.

    But I don't think it makes much differance. The US Government doesn't seem to give a toss about what the rest of the world thinks. As long as those campaign contributions keep pouring in nothing else matters. (Don't you just love democracy.)

  • Not extradition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lpontiac ( 173839 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @03:59AM (#4016802)

    No way Australia would be able to extradite anyone from the US for doing this. Generally, extradition treaties only come into effect when a crime is recognised as such by both countries. So Germany can extradite someone from the US for murdering a German national, but they can't extradite someone from the US for claiming that the holocaust never happened. (A serious offense in Germany).

    This can even extend to whether the country holding a person believes the penalties they face will be fair and reasonable. My understanding is that countries such as the UK have refused to hand over criminals because they may face the death penalty in the country requesting extradition.

    Incidentally, other state and federal laws present greater penalties than 6 months (as apparantly the Victorian laws do). Where I am (Western Australia), it's up to 2 years jail for simply breaching security and having a look. Up to 10 years if I actually cause damage.

    • Re:Not extradition (Score:2, Informative)

      by CaptainZapp ( 182233 )
      It's likely, that the US would never extradite a US citizen in the first place. Very few countries (non that I know of) extradites it's own citizen.

      Now, if Valenti is responsible for hacking a computer in China which is punished with 30 years in the slam^H^H^H^H re-education institution and Valenti visits Liechtenstein and Liechtenstein has an extradition treatie with China, then Valenti is up for some extended re-education.

      But the US would never have hime extradicted.

      You're quite right that no (EU-)European country extradites anybody, who potentially faces the death penalty.

    • Just label computer crimes as terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Hektor_Troy ( 262592 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @05:40AM (#4016983)
      If the US wants to fight terrorism all around the world, then it'd be rather difficult to argue that terrorism isn't terrorism when wealthy companies does it ... :-)

    • Re:Not extradition (Score:2, Insightful)

      by GauteL ( 29207 )
      Extradite no... but if they ever went to Australia after commiting a crime against Australians, they will be imprisoned.

      This bill will also sour the relationship between Europe and USA A LOT if the media-companies start cracking into European sites, protected by the american government.

      Frankly, doing this could be considered an act of war, so I seriously doubt the US-government is going to allow US-media companies to use this bill outside of US-jurisdiction.

      I wonder.. what is to stop the media companies from DOSing legitimate businesses and organizations stating that they did suspect music/movie piracy.
      This is the job of the police (and the courts for giving out warrants).

    • Re:Not extradition (Score:3, Insightful)

      by barberio ( 42711 )
      One word. 'Skylerov'

      In this new global age, it dosnt matter if the crime you are 'extradited' is not illegal in the country you come from.

  • How much does it cost? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Epeeist ( 2682 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @04:03AM (#4016818) Homepage
    How much does it cost te set yourself up as a recording company in the USA? If you are a recording company and this law passes then presumably all you need to do is to have a suspicion that the RIAA is stealing your copyright material and away you go.
  • those are the problems that can, and will arise more and more, the more we communicate and exchange globally. remember the Yahoo! lawsuit [ft.com] where a french court ordered them to block french people from access to neonazi sites? Same problem. In the us, there is no law that would block you from viewing nazi stuff (I'm not from the us, but I think that's covered by the 2nd amandment to the constitution), but in france, it's illegal. Or, the story about the italian police shutting down an us-based website [slashdot.org] because of blasphemous content. It's the same in realworld-land. say, you go to holland, smoke a joint in a coffeeshop, and then go to a land where the consumation of marijuana is illegal. eventhough you smoked it in holland, where you are allowed to, you can still get fined for drug abuse elsewhere. we live in a global word (sorry for that buzzing), with laws that apply to local groups. this will be a problem for quite some time. just think, there are probably lands where child porn is legal, or where critical writing about politicans is illegal.. all sorts of problems. the only solutions I can think of would be "one global law" (which is pretty much impossible before there is one global land), specific "net laws" that state that "analog laws" do not apply to the internet anymore, or anarchy. don't ask me what would be best, I'm a geek, not a philosopher. :)
    • Have any US citizens been successfully prosecuted under US laws for smoking marijuana in the Netherlands?
      • None, and there is nothing that stoppes a US citizen from going to netherlands and smoking marijuana, just don't bring any back with you.
        However at the same time if the company you worked for had a drug policy that restricted drug use and you tested has having used drugs, just thoses during the time you where in the netherlands, you would probably not have a defense saying You only used them in the Neterlands where it is legal.
  • Since the most important company information, and indeed in many cases the company assets are stored on electronic media, I'd say that cracking a company's computer network is a more intrusive crime than smashing in the door to their offices and stealing the hard-copy.

    I don't think even our politicians in the UK are quite corrupt enough to consider passing a law to allow this kind of behaviour from corporates with big pockets. Hopefully it really is the sort of thing we'll only see going on in the US...

  • Wrong dept., timmy (Score:3, Funny)

    by Talisman ( 39902 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @04:14AM (#4016854) Homepage
    It should be from the butt-butt-butt dept.

    I expect that bad things happen in Aussie jails...

    "G'day, mate! Wouldya like jelly or syrup?"

    (((shudder)))

    Talisman

  • "Under section 9a of the Victorian Summary Offences Act (1966), 'a person must not gain access to, or enter, a computer system or part of a computer system without lawful authority to do so'. The penalty if convicted is up to six months' jail."

    and

    "...if Californian Democrat congressman Howard Berman's copyright protection bill, which allows cracking of computers, passes into law."

    Well, it seems to me that if the American bill does become a law then it will not be a long journey to find sympathy among the Australian government. Keep in mind that Australia and the US have good relations, particularly when it comes to law enforcement. The pasing of this law by the American Government may be all the "lawful authority" that the Australians require. The important thing is to write your congressman and senators, to anyone you can. Point out that this law would be like allowing business owners to booby-trap their places of business. It would also open a loophole by which ANY vicious hacker would gain the "right" to viciously hack, simply by releasing an album on his own label and then "finding" mp3's being shared on peer-to-peer.

    • Re:Um, look again folks, this is a strange one... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Quila ( 201335 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @04:45AM (#4016905)
      The pasing of this law by the American Government may be all the "lawful authority" that the Australians require.

      The break-in would be occurring in Australia, not the U.S. If such international authority of U.S. law existed, there would be no law besides U.S. law. Remember the Helms anti-Cuba act, which let the U.S. sanction any foreign business doing business with Cuba? That didn't go far because the EU (which does lots of business with Cuba) didn't like the U.S. trying to extend our laws onto their turf.

      Claiming immunity under the Campaign Contributor Hacking Permission Act might have just the same effect.

      Contrary to calling congressmen to stop this thing, I'm thinking of calling them to keep it going. It's a gamble, but this law is sooo bad on both sensible and constitutional grounds (14th Amendment) that maybe it'll be the one to finally raise public awareness as to what's going on.

      Aussies, time to amend your act to say that if someone performs hacking as a company employee, all officers in that chain of command are liable for jail terms up to the level the general action was even informally approved. We know Rosen loves the idea, so bye-bye.

      Interestingly enough, Valenti is backing off because he realizes the bill allows any copyright holder to hack, not just the big guys.

    • Lawful authority means lawful in terms of jurisdiction. USA != Australia, therefore if the law doesn't overlap (as it doesn't in this case), it's not lawful. No-one will read this post unfortunately, but the courts here in Oz do not always follow governmental preference. Witness Mabo for an example. If they don't like the law, think it's unjust, or think it's encroaching on their territory, they get pretty pissed.

  • Steve the Crocodile Hunter (Score:5, Funny)

    by Associate ( 317603 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @04:35AM (#4016894) Homepage
    I envision Steve, the Crocodile Hunter, sneaking up on a Recording Exec and sticking his thumb up his bum hole. Ah, this one's angry! Look at his markings. He's a beaut'. Now ordinarily we would let him go. But, as it turns out this is one of the most dangerous creatures in the world. Up there with Lawyers and US Congressmen. No, instead, we're going to take this one back with us. We'll put him in a nice safe place where he can listen to Britney Spears all day long.

  • Down under and copyright vs consumer rights (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This isn't the first case where copyrights versus consumer rights have been clashed (often with the consumers winning):

    1) Jukebox CD burner machines are legal
    2) A small video chain wins case with respect to rental vs retail DVD prices
    3) Use of Mod chips in Playstations ruled to be legal
    4) DVD zoning currently under investigation by the local consumer protection watch dog
    5) Watch this space.... (probably a few more)

    Is there something culturally different between the two continents?

    Or is it that some people in Australia believe that all this extra copy protection (real and legal) does nothing for the problem and harms the legitimate users?

    [Coward hiding under his rock]
  • I dont want to be trolling, but come to think of it most countries have laws which Prohibit breaking into computer networs. I cant seem to get the point in this story. Of course of you crack a EU computer, you will be punished as soon as you go to EU. Whats happening to slashdot.. This is no news! Whats Next "Stealing Illegal in germany....Murder illegal in sweden..."
  • Yes, and they can be exicuted if they traveled to China.

    But, they won't be.

  • So do most states . . .. (Score:4, Informative)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @05:52AM (#4017000) Journal
    The conduct complained of here would also violate computer crime laws in most states. Thus, while Valenti might avoid federal prison for violation of the CFAA, he might still have to face charges and related civiil actions for violation of State laws in Florida.

    Absent an express preemption clause, the bill would not have the desired effect for its authors -- and if they added an express preemption clause, the bill might become defective as unconstitutional under a host of theories.
    • From Berman-Coble: 514. Remedies for infringement: use of technologies to prevent infringement of copyrighted works on peer-to-peer computer networks (a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any State or Federal statute or other law, ...

      Pre-empting state law is part of what Berman-Coble intends. They'll claim their authority comes from commerce clause and copyright clause powers.

      From the U.S. Constitution: Art. I Sec. 8: The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states . . . ; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; . . ."
  • However, I think putting media moguls in prison is a great idea.

    So, on with the madness.

  • I vote we start a slush fund to send all RIAA and MPAA mangement to Aussieland..just to see the expression on their faces when they go to jail..

    I got $5 is anyone else in?
  • ...for making all those crap films/music in the first place.

    Anyway, this is great if it means that they can not leave the US for fear of being prosecuted!

    P2P is the greatest thing that came out of the net these last years, those guys should be shot just for trying to stop it.

    Anyway, whatever they try will just makes the movement stronger, and in a few years, we will be able to download any film or music from the net. Everybody will have 500Gb disks shared with broadband...

  • Mad Max 4 is out of the question now
  • Who has no clue of the morass his bill would cause. What this guy simply doesn't understand is that if this bill passes, it's open season for hacking...and the hackers know 10,000 times that of the RIAA and MPAA'S 'experts'. This is yet another example of the technologically clueless setting technology policy. What this guy is doing is setting up a technology 'cold war'... You'd think that they would have figured out by now that the cold war was a failure...but I guess you can't teach lessons to the stupid.

  • EULA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jacer ( 574383 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @08:34AM (#4017601) Homepage
    What if the P2P hackers (coders) were to include a clause into the EULA about no profit organization can use the software, make it a license violation if the mpaa or the riaa use the software. I'm not saying it's a solution, however, it may buy some time. That or we can pay the kids at their isp to null route them into an intranet

    • Re:EULA (Score:3, Interesting)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )
      Well, if that's the license, and you suspect them of copyright violation, it would be your right to check, by breaking in to their computers.

      Perhaps some kind of public corporation could be formed, with membership limited to, say, humans who could be identified with a physical body. And stock could be purchased by submitting a work of GPL software for ownership by the corporation (so that there would be a large number of pieces of copyright stuff to check for). (I didn't say it had to be good software. Perhaps a variation of "Hello, World." would suffice.) Then all owners of the corporation would be entitled to check for the presence of copyrighted works on suspect computers. (Bet'cha they've got something substantially similar of one of the thousands of variations of "Hello, World." that would be owned by the corporation.)

  • Claim your prize! (Score:4, Funny)

    by xant ( 99438 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @08:44AM (#4017657) Homepage
    Dear [Michael Eisner]:

    You have been selected as the winner of this month's fabulous appliance giveaway! You may claim your free Koala-brand washer/dryer set, Antarctic Refrigerator or Shrimp-On-The-Barbie barbecue set! Your plane ticket for coming to claim this prize is included in this envelope. Simply fly to Australia round-trip on us, and be available for us to capture on film as we photograph the winners*.

    Don't delay - act now to claim your prize.

    Sincerely,

    Australian Bureau of Law Enforcement and Consumer Marketing

    *In front and side shots

Slashdot Top Deals

Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.

Close