Hearing on Hollywood Hacking Bill 375
DaveAtFraud writes "CNN says that Hilary Rosen and the RIAA are once again lobbying Congress for the right to sabotage P2P networks. Of course, Hilary says that the RIAA wouldn't abuse this capability. Luckily, some of the lawmakers are dubious. Also, Rep. Rick Boucher asked, 'What are the implications for the Internet's functionality when the inevitable arms race develops?' and pointed out that overzealous attempts to enforce existing copyright law had all too often targetted legitimate postings." There's also a News.com story.
Let them. (Score:3, Funny)
"They were haxoring my boxxen. I responded with deadly force, as per my rights. It's not my fault their servers couldn't take a link from Slashdot and exploded."
Bring it on (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bring it on (Score:2)
Isn't there?
Re:Bring it on (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously. Just redirect the entire RIAA block to goatse or something.
"Here's a security hole for you!"
Re:Backlash (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what are morals? qjkx (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, technology is our first line of defense when we can't count on the law to be on our side against the RIAA. That doesn't mean that what they are doing is right or okay just because they can, though. That kind of thinking is what makes people believe that "might makes right" and leads to abuses of the powerless in our society.
Also, waging a technological war on the RIAA will only be possible if we are afforded the same legal advantages they are, in order to make the playing field level. I can guarantee if you are caught r00ting the RIAA's site that you'll be branded a terrorist and thrown in jail.
These people are not about fairness and freedom, so we need to do everything we can to constrain them legally.
Interdiction and spoofing details (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Interdiction and spoofing details (Score:3, Interesting)
"...interdiction, which would attempt to suck up a user's outbound file sharing connections with repeated attempts to download a copyrighted file. Interdiction would prevent human users from downloading that file, eventually frustrating them and forcing them to move on, he said.
Isn't this notion of "interdiction" essentially a DoS attack?
And if I'm getting DoS'd -- or if my corporate firewall is getting DoS'd because the RIAA is mistakenly 'interdicting' me -- then I could care less who's doing it.
Will the RIAA get some sort of legal, uber-exemption? And if so, do I receive warning before I'm DoS'd?
I dunno, all this seems frightening. Who controls the RIAA's interdiction efforts?
Re:Interdiction and spoofing details (Score:4, Insightful)
In his opening remarks, Rep. Berman (D-Calif.) claimed that 3 billion files a month were illegally downloaded. Since the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel charges eight cents per digital recording, Berman concluded that the industry is losing about $240 million per month.
I would gladly pay
Rosen must be a business genius, what other CEO can lose more in one year then they made in the last 5 combined, and still turn the same profit as the previous year!
Uhhh, yah....if you could just um... (Score:5, Funny)
[The boss from Office Space] Umm, yeahhhh. Good job guys, now If we could just get you to stop sponsoring DRM chips and bills that allow broad interpretation of "illegal" activity that infringe on fair use, that'd be great, yeah.
Re:Uhhh, yah....if you could just um... (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder about RIAA members like Sony (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wonder about RIAA members like Sony (Score:2)
Re:I wonder about RIAA members like Sony (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue with a company like Sony is that they're much less monolithic than you probably think. Remember, for instance, that their entertainment arm is something that they bought as a chunk, and it still has a lot of American management and an American outlook. Meanwhile, the hardware business is based in Japan and run by a completely different group of people with a different outlook. They're more like two separate companies that happen to be owned by the same big capital fund than they are like one tightly integrated whole. It's only natural that each half would wind up pursuing its own interests first.
Also bear in mind that Sony seems to be more committed to including DRM and the like in its products than other makers. I'm sure that they'd be happy to have only DRM capable players available. But they also understand that consumers don't want DRM unless it's wrapped up with some kind of added benefit that makes the whole package resonably attractive. As long as there are companies out there that are willing and legally able to sell non-DRM equipment, though, Sony will be forced to provide non-DRM stuff or lose a big chunk of their market (and not get the DRM widespread anyway).
Re:I wonder about RIAA members like Sony (Score:2)
Its called making money. (Score:2)
Eaither way they're still standing, and still making money.
Re:I wonder about RIAA members like Sony (Score:2)
Kintanon
Re:I wonder about RIAA members like Sony (Score:4, Funny)
That would be cool.
Re:I wonder about RIAA members like Sony (Score:2)
Note to the RIAA: I will never buy another CD again (and not just because the current music you are trying to sell is crap), and it doesn't matter whether P2P exists or not. All the members of the RIAA (including Sony) deserve to go out of business because of their total disrespect for their customers.
180degree rotation (Score:2, Interesting)
Hopefully Rep. Berman (who is seemengly regretting [yahoo.com] his latest bill, or at least what he supported) will realise this won't do any good to his image or that of his fellow cronies images and not push for this bill.
Re:180degree rotation (Score:3, Insightful)
What if the file being downloaded in question happens to be my own copyrighted file that I allow everyone to view except MediaDefender Inc.? If they're downloading it from my machine, doesn't that violate existing copyright law even with the proposed legislation? If not, does that mean I can download copyrighted files from others with the intention of protecting that copyright? I guess I would need to own the copyright in order to protect it, but then wouldn't MediaDefender need to own it as well? Confusing...
Due process (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone else have a problem with the word suspect in that sentence. So this bill would grant someone the "right" to take away my pursuit of happiness (most definitely found on most P2P networks) without the due process of law?
Re:Due process (Score:4, Funny)
See my sig.
Re:Due process (Score:2)
"Innocent until proven guilty"
and
"right to a trial by jury of your peers"
It seems to me that this bill relegates the roles of prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner (I know, it's not as dramatic as the death penalty, but "executioner" can be someone who implements the judgement/sentence.) to the RIAA in these cases.
Re:Due process (Score:3, Informative)
Not anymore it ain't. Lord Jeffrey 'crap author' Archer is currently in the slamer after being found guilty of perjury by a jury of plebs.
The right of peers to be tried by the house of Lords had not in any case been exercised for 80 odd years. The only reason that people remembered to take it off the statute book was after Obe Wan Knobie (Alex Guiness) made Kind Hearts and Coronets whih reminded folk of the anomaly.
Personally I thing Jeffrey the Liar got off lightly. I think they should have stripped him of his knighthood and degraded him in the manner that Cochrane was. In those days they paid a bloke to stand in as a surrogate, he would be taken off to Westminster Abbey at midnight wearing a knights spurs. These were then ceremonially hacked off with a hatchet and thrown down the steps of the Cathederal together with his banner.
If people are going to prance about being knights and such they should be subject to the whole hog. Plus think of the audience ratings you could get for that sort of thing on TV.
Cochrane was eventually exhonorated and pardoned but only after liberating most of south america from the rule of Spain and then helping the Greeks kick the Turks out.
Re:Due process (Score:3, Informative)
Ahem. Ninth Amendment. Tenth Amendment.
A right is something inherent to yourself that does not involve taking from others. (You therefore have the right to pursue happiness all you want, but you do not [christtrek.org] have a right to happiness itself.) If it's not been expressly delegated to government, it is retained by the people.
Well, I'd like to say... (Score:4, Funny)
A Dangerous Precidence (Score:4, Insightful)
The next (il)logical step would be to allow bill collectors to hack into your bank accounts to collect on past-due accounts.
Re:A Dangerous Precidence (Score:3, Funny)
Law Suit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Law Suit (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, this would be a prime example of Fair Use, so legally they couldn't do a damn thing about it.
Not that they should be trusted however. If they were to take action against you for this, it would pretty much be up to you to prove that you were in the right (side note: isn't it supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? that's not what is happening nowadays). I'd give you some estimates on how much that would cost, but I don't want to give you nightmares. You would of course be legally clear here, and clear according to any AUP your ISP might have, but don't expect overzealous IP lawyers to give a damn about your rights.
It is quite sad how our legal system has been reduced to a system of "survival of the wealthiest."
Re:Law Suit (Score:2)
Hasn't stopped them prior to this....
Re:Law Suit (Score:3, Insightful)
It is quite sad how our legal system has been reduced to a system of "survival of the wealthiest."
To the contrary -- and this is the point of why this bill is bad. Presently, a person who's business had been criminally or tortiously interefered with by Computer abuse would have very solid grounds for fighting back. In other words, "overzealous lawyers" would be fond of working for him as well as for the deep-pocketed bad guys.
Don't forget, there is a serious downside of having a deep pocket -- a judgment against you is highly collectible. These entities CANNOT risk crossing the line into tortious conduct, with the concommitant potential for punitive damages.
And that, at the end of the day, is why Hackback is a bad law -- giving deep pockets strong technical defenses for potentially malicious conduct allows them to use their pocketbooks risk-free to abuse us. At least today, an "overzealous lawyer" can make their life as awful as they can make the public's.
Re:Law Suit (Score:2)
But more importantly, in order to find that they used the law improperly, and are liable, you must show that they had no reason to suspect that you were sharing files that contained their copyright.
I don't understand the specific definitions for the language in the bill, so I don't know how you go about proving something like that. Seems all but impossible to me.
Re:Law Suit (Score:2)
Which would mean they'd have a reason to suspect. The law was *really* *really* vague in terms of the cause that they'd need.
Re:Law Suit (Score:2)
Re:Law Suit (Score:2)
Or rather .... (Score:2)
Desperate (Score:3, Insightful)
what could help congress.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In actuality, if the RIAA were to launch a DoS attack against a P2P node, other nearby nodes (eg, cable modems) would also become affected from the influx of incoming traffic against that node. The reason for this is because of how computer networks work and operate.
When writing to your congressman, include this tidbit of info and why that it is the case. Include a short discussion of why it's the case in terms they will understand. Analogies work great for things like this.
Re:what could help congress.... (Score:2)
Attacks that affect other users - such as DoS attacks - ARE EXPLICITLY DISALLOWED. I'm against this bill, but people here are being just as stupid as the RIAA - if not stupider, because what the bill allows and not is set out in black and white - because they haven't investigated the matter.
CONTACT THE EFF AND JOIN! (Score:3, Funny)
Help make the EFF [eff.org] as strong a lobby as the NRA and this stuff will be stop! Gunowners protect the tools (guns) they think help keep them free. We should too.
READ to see how the EFF is taking action in COURT. (Score:2)
Here's a great link: EFF legal actions [eff.org] You'll see how your contributions can actually help.
Re:CONTACT THE EFF AND JOIN! (Score:2, Interesting)
Not only that but If you purchased you gun from a show or Gun Shop then you would have seen all of the NRA pamphlets and posters while shopping.
Add all of that to the 1 or 2 membership letters that one usually receives after a gun purchase and you begin to understand why they have such a large membership (and influence.)
How many computer stores or music/video stores have you been to that you've seen EFF membership info everywhere you turn. I don't see them at Best Buy or Comp USA.
The only way that we can help the EFF is to make them as well known as the NRA. Every gun shop and most gun owners support the NRA. Do your relatives even know about the EFF?
Don't just donate. Talk to people. Let them know what is at stake and where they can go to help. Give flyer's out at Best Buy. Take a speech class and give all of your speeches on the DMCA(worked for me and got me researching.) Anything to get the word out.
We might not be able to get a "Support the EFF" sticker sent out with every PC but we can get the word out any way we can...Bill Boards anyone?
Bandwidth consumption and cable economics (Score:2)
Well, since these DOS attacks would consume all of the cable provider's bandwidth, as well, I think that they'd have something to say about it. I mean, if half of their customers who AREN'T filesharing have no bandwidth because the RIAA has decided to DOS their neighbor, they would have a LOT of irate customers in a hurry, and I imagine that they would be inclined to sue the RIAA for stealing bandwidth.
(or, they'd just preemptively cut the connections of all the file traders. but somehow I doubt that it could be anything but economic bad news for cable companies if a large entity has authority to launch non-discriminatory DOS attacks on mere suspicion against a large portion of their users.)
Re:what could help congress.... (Score:2)
I'd pay to see the smackdown put on the RIAA in that event.
Please carve Boucher's head.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Please carve Boucher's head.. (Score:2)
Who's got the bombs (Score:4, Interesting)
I love this comparison. This indeed seems like an arms race.
On one side you have the big corps armed with heavy lawyers and lots of money.
On the other side, groups of hackers, filesharers, IT-rights activists. We're armed with technology, innovation, and a whole lotta people
RIAA can probably buy the techs though, this evens things somewhat.
It's the case of the an army of the elite Vs the large army of gorillas. The elite may have a lot of neat tricks, but it will probably really hurt if the gorillas manage to close enough to make a few punches.
Re:Who's got the bombs (Score:2, Funny)
I don't know.. gorillas, while they may be stronger, are still pretty stupid. I mean, throw some bananas their way and that will keep them occupied. Guerillas on the other hand...
Deja vu (Score:3, Interesting)
> I love this comparison. This indeed seems like an arms race.
> On one side you have the big corps armed with heavy lawyers and lots of money.
> On the other side, groups of hackers, filesharers, IT-rights activists. We're armed with technology, innovation, and a whole lotta people
It's been done before. Look at the history of alt.religion.scientology -- the Scienos on one side with money, & lawyers, a bunch of activists on the other with hackers & a clue about the Internet. So far it's been a quagmire for the Scienos, whose ideology won't allow them to compromise, let alone cut their loses & run.
Unfortunately, it's not been all that fun for the other side: this little battle has taken its toll in money, careers, & burnout. However, practically every current Scientologist will become an ex-scientologist & thus be interested in picking up the fight where another has left off.
One thing about this one fight is that it has provided a battle plan for Hollywood to follow in its own approach to the Internet & protecting content. A number of actors & musicians are Scienos, & there are only a finite number of lawyers who specialize in media law: anecdotes & experiences from the Scienos battle with the Internet have undoubtedly seeped into the studios & recording music offices. Thus Rosen's interest in attacking the personal computers of anyone connected to the Internet -- something David Miscavige, the head of the CoS, would give his right theta for.
As a result, Hollywood believes they have to fight a war where there really isn't one: as it has been said before, all but a negligible amount of this ``piracy" would vanish if simply music & films were easier to buy or rent online. The industry would make more money, consumers would have more choice -- a win-win situation.
Fortunately, these industries are far more interested in making money than in pushing an ideological point-of-view. Hopefully if we keep defeating these misguided acts, the PHB running these companies will get the message, & at last see how to make money by offering an effective online point of sale.
Geoff
Who's stealing from whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does RIAA really think they'll win? (Score:3, Redundant)
You have to wonder how people this obvlivious to a free market managed to become an executive anywhere. It's simple: There is a demand to easily share music files. Users will use the least expensive means to satisfy that demand. As long as the RIAA's members insist on charging too much for access to an inferior system, users will refuse to use that system. It doesn't matter how many p2p networks or users you take down if the easiest solution is still to just set up another p2p network.
If the RIAA wants to make a killing on music sharing, they'd just offer a system that actually WORKS. People WOULD pay for a system that offerred reliable connections to the files they wanted. Don't sell the music, sell the connection to the music.
Re:Does RIAA really think they'll win? (Score:2)
All too easy (Score:5, Funny)
Funny, I bet lots of Slashdotters know what bullet could solve this problem.
Re:All too easy (Score:2)
Re:All too easy (Score:3, Funny)
This [adameve.com] is the silver bullet she really needs.
How do you expect to be taken seriously.. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Yeah, this is off topice and I will take a karma hit, but there is only 12 stripes on your icon.
I have emailed people at
Quite frankly, its embarrassing.
sure, I can mis spell somthing, and 5 people come down on me, but get the US flag wrong, nobody cares. Maybe it's not just the people in congress that need to get there priorities straight.
note to moderators: yes I am off topic, but is this so horrible you need to waste your point modding it down?
I won't complain if you do, but there are usually worse thing outthere.
Dude, fuck it, it's is close enough. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How do you expect to be taken seriously.. (Score:2)
That's right. I don't care. I also don't care when they misspell articles. My priorities are fine.
Re:How do you expect to be taken seriously.. (Score:2)
National Association of Realtors isnt much better (Score:3, Informative)
again its a case where the net is helping industry but the industry doesn't want to "lose control"
What about the rest of us? (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone is breaking the law shouldn't they be charged with a crime and shouldn't we use the judicial system and due process?
If someone steals something from my house I don't have a right to break into their house and steal it back, or burn their house down.
This is outrageous.
I'm amazed. (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens when the RIAA kills someone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Much of the PTP swapping happens on university networks.
Universities often have medical facilities, and share the network.
Say the RIAA launches an attack which inadvertently damages a medical database -- someone gets the wrong prescription or diagnosis and dies as a result of the RIAA.
Or the RIAA launches a DOS attack which just happens to deny service to an important medical service, as a result some patient's treatment is delayed/denied and dies.
Deaths would be acceptable "collateral damage" to the RIAA perhaps, but I have to wonder WTF legislators are thinking when they give even one picosecond of consideration to this bill.
This isn't as unlikely as it sounds. Despite what one might think, university hospital systems are more often than not NOT FIREWALLED and NOT PROTECTED and suffer from the same poor security as the rest of the university networks.
Re:What happens when the RIAA kills someone? (Score:2)
free to flood, not to hack (Score:2)
Now as far as havking people's system (which they have seemed to smartly back away from) or even blocking file-sharing to people's systems, that is just plain wrong. They do not have the authority to perform a DOS (which is basically what they are doing) to a system or to kick that person of the P2P network.
Griffin? (Score:2)
Steve Griffin? The same guy that thought it was ok to rip off Amazon affiliates is making suggestions on how to be fair?
Pot, this is kettle. Come in kettle.
riaa.org slashdotted? (Score:2)
I vote yes for it! (Score:2)
I waste 2 hours watching a crappy film, I get to break into the box office and steal $100 (2hrs @$50 ea). The term were are missing in this arguement is Vigilante. Heck let's make this kind of selfhelp the law of the land! If someone breaks into your house you can find them and beat the crap out of them, protected by law. We promise not to abuse them that are not criminals,
CD
Legislated FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
She described the P2P scene as a harbor, where everyone has their "house" on the shore. There's a lot of traffic in the harbor, and the RIAA is going to "interdict" in this traffic to prevent illegal file transfers from taking place. She completely glossed over the fact that this involves interfering with my property and privacy. She assumed that there was some reason that the citizens of the United States should transfer police duties to a corporate funded self-interest group.
Unfortunately, the EFF spokesperson wasn't much of a match for her. Her argument was too soft. If you're going up against a corporate self-interest group, go for the throat, go for blood, and go quickly. She should have pointed out that this sets a legal precedent to commit digital vandalism from afar with legal immunity (terrifying to the average person). She should have mentioned that there is no way for the RIAA to differentiate between American citizens legally exercising their fair-use rights and criminals (uninteresting, but...) and she should have likened this to burning books if the RIAA doesn't know how you got it (terrifying). She failed to represent the loss of privacy and liberty in the name of closed-market corporate profits.
She should have pointed out that TV studios don't sell TV shows for $18 each to consumers, newspapers don't derive their profits from selling content to readers, movies sell an in-theater experience for a reasonable price, and radio is free. We would need legislation to sell each of these to the consumer for $2 a song/article/episode, because doing so would artificially prop up a broken business model. Nobody complains about bands' merchandise and concert ticket sales - because consumers feel that there is value in these products. Take the hint - consumers do not want to pay $18 for crappy CDs.
Is this not an American market economy, where failing business models and unpopular products fail due to a lack of demand? It's looking more and more like a command economy where useless and unpopular products are perpetuated by beauracracy.
In summary, I was horrified to see Hilary Rosen acting like a complete fool, mocking the EFF name, spreading untruths, and all the while being accepted by the anchors as someone trying to do the right thing, while the EFF spokesperson was treated as some sort of hippy wacko. The EFF person should have been more cunning and critical, and she should have immediately and unquestionably taken up a stance as protecting the American people from corporate corruption, a very effective angle these days.
Re:Legislated FUD (Score:3, Informative)
Surprisingly, the interviewer and Tyler Mathison seemed to pick up on this as well and really did a great job of grilling Hilary. Whether they were playing devil's advocate I'm not sure, but the EFF and others have done a really good job of setting the tone for this debate. For example, the interviewers asked Hilary about the ramifications of legalized hacking etc. Hilary's responses were quite laughable and she came off as being computer illiterate and very naive for selling a "just trust us" approach that doesn't play well with the media these days. They basically ignored her sometimes rambling remarks and continued to use language that framed the RIAA and the bill as being vigilante measures and they expressed concern about the RIAA impeding technical innovation and progress. Actually, because of the EFF spokesperson's almost passive stance, I think a casual viewer would have come away from the discussion as thinking that the journalists themselves believed that the bill was bad and that the industry lobbyist was probably flat-out lying about its consequences.
This was the first time I had ever seen Hilary Rosen on TV and I was expecting to see some very impressive arguments from her and cowtowing from the press. But from my point of view, the EFF clearly won the debate before it even started, even if their spokesperson didn't go in for the kill. Hilary also made a complete fool of herself by calling the EFF names - the interviewer made a point of this at the end that didn't paint her in a good light at all and she seemed flabbergasted.
Berman's gas for less... (Score:3, Interesting)
A more legit comparison would be if I were to steal gas. Lets look at that, shall we...
I pull up to a gas station and fill up w/o paying.
What happens now?
Does Texico come by by house and slash my tires? Does Chevron sneak in and fill my tank with water? No. They call the cops.
The Way It Should Be!
I still don't get why the RIAA thinks that age old method should differ for them.
Love the last line... (Score:2)
Maybe this only stikes me as funny because I'm from Chicago, but I seem to think that this has become the main function of government.
And what about the CDR tax in Canada and the blank tape tax here in the US? Record companies wanted more money so they lobbied the government to confiscate ours and pass it out to them. I don't see the difference.
I was there (Score:5, Interesting)
Prior to the hearing, while waiting, I talked to an MPAA lobbyist (brand new to the game, he was complaining of having to stay up the prior night and bone up on the subject). When I said, half in jest, so you guys support this bill--he responded by saying it does not have all they would like, they really want to go after irc channels as well. I hope there is never a hearing on irc, with videod demos showing irc channel traffic (as there was showing a d/l of "save the best for last" off of KaZZa).
The two main contradictions I saw were this:
1)RIAA described how big the IP industry was, and how important it is to preserve it with these laws. However, she then bemoaned the fact that they are engaged in litigation with Verizon who is much bigger then them, in fact bigger then the whole RIAA member companies. Umm, so shouldn't we then focus on the ISPs, if according to her logic, we need to help the big industries? Also, she characterized the lawsuit as just a disagreement over a minor legal technicality (you know, the LAW is a minor technicality--the case revolves around RIAA demanding names of Verizon subscribers that they properly need subpeonas to obtain, but are not getting, it is to protect subscribers privacy).
2)Rosen also said that they need this bill to stop piracy b/c the DoJ is too busy with other matters to enforce the laws, and civil suits cost so much money, more than the recoverable damages. YET, she claims that they would be under bigger restrictions with the bill passed, b/c there are remedies for users that they can bring up in civil case (which I guess would not be expensive to do????) or the DoJ can enforce criminal sanctions (which they have a lot of time to do over a few missing files, or whatever--no one would say what they want to do with the powers granted by the bill). Just such distortions.
On the plus side, Boucher was great when he brought up the letters referring to the harry potter book report (again a stupid RIAA response: "our members would not do that." Boucher responded, "it was done by the copyright holder"--AOL/TW, which I believe is a member of RIAA). Also Zoe Lofgren pointed out the meaningless aspect of the remedies for innocent hacked users. I gained a new respect for her, and I am on the other side of the aisle.
Congress signing a deal with the devil (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice try Hilary. I think we all see what happens to artists who sign a contract with you.
I'm sure it doens't say anywhere in your contracts that you're allowed to make indentured servants out of your artists, but you are able to get your lawyers to do just that!
I envision a dream parody where all the senators are lined up to sign this bill. And afterwards Hilary cackles in glee, "All your future bills are belong to us!"
And then we see congressmen having to actually PAY money at the end of the year, just to stay in office. They propose bill after bill, but the RIAA denies all the ones they don't like. And then someday on slashdot, we'll all be asking, "Dude, why would anyone want to become a politician?", and we'll all answer, "Because the Big-5 lure them with big $$$ and fame!"
I made it Better!! (Score:2)
SD
I doubt it will pass. (Score:4, Interesting)
This essentially allows the RIAA to take justice into their own hands, by-passing due process, and presuming suspects guilty rather than innocent. I highly doubt this will fly, and if it does, it just confirms who's lining who's pockets with cash.
America - Land of the tightly controlled free.
Yeah... that makes sense (Score:2)
And I think that this argument shows that Texaco should be able to inhibit the use of somebody's car since they have "reasonable suspicion" that that person pumped gas yesterday without paying for it.
DA's office: Hello, This is [enter name here]
Texaco on 3rd and Main: Yes. I had a red SUV pull up yesterday and pump gas without paying for it
DA's office: And what is the address of the suspected offender
Texaco on 3rd and Main: [etner address here]
DA's office: Ok. I'll file a report.
*Texaco owner puts up cement baricade to stop the usage of the vehicle that might have been used to "pirate" his gas*
Now.. does it get any more ridiculous than that?
it's just a way to get their foot in the door. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that, but this opens the door for all kinds of shady business practices (Not that this is a big leap for the Big-5)
They could look around your computer, find other legal mp3's (from non-RIAA) and delete them. Or more likely corrupt them so it mysteriously doesn't work. They could plant Trojan Horses on your computer so that whenever anyone in the FUTURE connects to your computer, they can then track that person.
It doesn't have to end with RIAA and MPAA. It could open the door for Software companies. Root around your computer and see if ANY application is pirated. If so, then fubar your whole machine.
Damn and I thought we Canadians were screwed up... (Score:2, Insightful)
This flies in the face of due process so much that it's insane! Ugh stupid governments always making more and more and more laws - even when there's perfectly cromulet (hehe) laws around to cover situations.
Unauthorized copying of music etc., is already illegal, they need to use those laws. And if they can't keep up, then tough crap. Cops can't keep up with all of the speeders, but that doesn't mean they can shoot the tires out of parked Ferraris because they suspect that the owners might use them to speed (of course they are using them to speed, but you still gotta catch 'em and ticket them).
Why not solve the real problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
User-Moderated P2P? (Score:2)
But one part of the story intrigues me. The RIAA is making spurious files on P2P networks in an attempt to fool users, so that 'nine out of ten versions on a peer-to-peer network may be empty shells'.
So am I to understand that there is no moderation or filtering on P2P networks? Doesn't any of the clients out there allow users to vote on a file's usefulness, so that other users can highlight files known to be good and filter out files known to be bad? I'd think that would be a basic feature for any peer network. 90% of everything is crap, after all, and nowhere is that more true than on the internet.
Re:User-Moderated P2P? (Score:3, Insightful)
From a paper i just wrote... (Score:4, Interesting)
Whether or not infringement and impairment systems can meet the economic loss exception of the Berman-Coble bill, the costs for development and implementation of any scanning and impairment system will likely be passed on to consumers. Because copyright attempts to strike a balance between access to copyrighted works and incentives to creators, the Berman-Coble bill could increase incentives and thus increase the creation of new works because it creates a new means of self-help for rights holders. However, this might not fully be the case. Because costs for this system will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, demand for works might be decreased. Further, it has been argued that users of peer-to-peer systems are low-reserve price consumers of music who are willing to spend time, but not money on acquiring music. Raising prices to cover the additional enforcement costs will add to the pool of consumers for whom the market price is above their reserve price--users of peer-to-peer networks. However, since the aim of the Berman-Coble bill is to impair the ability of peer-to-peer networks to traffic in copyrighted works, it will eliminate whatever social value these networks created through the increased access to copyrighted works. If low reserve consumers weren't going to buy music anyway (thereby creating no new incentives for creators), the reduction in their access to it is essentially deadweight loss. Since the Berman-Coble bill will likely result in increased prices for music, possible economic loss for ISPs, and reduced access to works, it would seem to reduce overall social welfare, while at the same time overtly shifting the balance of copyright from access towards protection of incentives.
Open Season (Score:2)
It would be even better if someone created a central repository of logged copyright infringements, indexed by the source. Want to hack Microsoft or IBM? Just look for a company IP address in the repository.
Re:Open Season (Score:2)
Not that I'm suggesting anyone should actually do that
So.... (Score:2)
[sounds of crickets chirping]
They are being givent he right to break the law (Score:2, Insightful)
Now we are saying that if this bill passess, then the RIAA well be alowed to DOS psp networks. Now considering how DOS works not only is the guy next to my house get DOS, but I get it to. It would affect the general area to be honest. Now lets say my system takes damage, software messed up
There are countless examples I can go into but hey my time is worth cash. But also noote one thing, this is a US bill. I am in canada, so what happens when they do a DOS attack that goes over the border. If my companey is hit because soem one ran kazaa on our network even tho its not alowed. Then well they can mess up corporate data and such. Now this just became a VERY tuchey subject.
my 2 cents plus 2 more
Re:They are being givent he right to break the law (Score:3)
Allow me then to make it a less touchy, much clearer subject:
When in the hell is the DoJ going to take anti-trust action against the RIAA?
Hard drive interdiction...I can see it now... (Score:2)
Arrg!!! Copyright is *not* property. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Howard Coble [house.gov])
and
(Howard Berman [house.gov])
They both need to be marched into the woods for legal re-education. Copyright has nothing to do with property rights. All it represents is that someone has a temporary government-granted monopoly on copying a work. Someone does not "own" the work itself just because they have been granted the copying monopoly.
I understand the copying industry's desire to cast it in this light. After all, property law is much stronger than the actual copyright law they really fall under. In fact, they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't try and twist the truth like this. But that doesn't mean we have to swallow it.
Hilary and the EFF on CNBC Last Night (Score:2, Informative)
Amongst others, Rosen made the following amazing assertions (I am summarizing, not quoting verbatim):
1) That the record industry's business is down 10% this year over last, yet normally in tough economic times people spend more, not less, on things like music so downloading must be the culprit
2) That the bill will give people more, not less, protection against intrusion into their computers (and that people currently have no protection) - that P2P is wide open and a means by which currently anyone can do damage to your computer with impunity by "planting a virus" (amongst other things)
When confronted by one of the hosts with a question as to why he should feel comfortable with the RIAA invading his computer to look for their IP, Rosen said that the RIAA would not in fact be doing this. She then likened the P2P community to a harbor with many, many small bays and said that the RIAA would be "policing the harbor", looking for their IP to cross it and then follow its route to the offender. Rosen also stooped to name calling - referring to the EFF as the "Everything for Free Foundation".
Fair Use was not discussed.
Rosen was smart and focussed and showed a politician's gift for evading issues and distorting facts. Twisted as they may be, she got her points across. The person from the EFF (her first name escapes me but her last name was Steele) was, in my opinion, not up to the challenge. Admittedly, a 5 minute rapid fire forum is not a good place to discuss a complex issue, but she seemed not to have a clear message that would speak to the average person. The only point that she got across well was that people want to download music from home for a reasonable price and see the artists fairly compensated. She never touched on the very important issue of invasion of privacy and potential damage that can be caused by IP bounty hunters.
They also aired one of the new "downloading is theft" commercials which equated downloading music to stealing a CD from the store. Like a music video, it was fast cut and fast paced and seemed to be aimed at under 25's.
Who owns the copyright on unreleased material? (Score:2, Insightful)
- Piracy is only piracy when the pirate is compensated; this does not happen in P2P networking since material is freely distributed.
- The idea that material freely distributed is equal to lost sales is simply wrong; what if I never intended to buy that record in the first place - it's not a lost sale if there was never going to be a sale.
- People like me have actually purchased more CDs since getting involved in file sharing due to increased exposure to more bands that I find I like. I would never have heard of more than half the CDs I bought in the last year were it not for P2P sharing. God knows the radio ain't playing any of it.
- Finding obscure and out of print material does not cost the record company a dime since they're not offering it for sale in the first place. Who the hell are they kidding?
- Most people don't download Britney Spears records from P2P networks - they tape it off each other or the radio. Honestly, why would someone take the time to download a song that gets played on the radio constantly? Besides, those artists that are already successful seem to be the most freaked out by this; does the equation 'Increased exposure equals increased sales' mean anything to anybody? I know I'd like as many people as possible to hear my band for free - that's marketing and exposure - but if someone charges for it and I don't see a dime then that's piracy (*which when it comes down to it, is exactly what record companies do the artists).
Finally, I'd really like to see Eminem kick the ass of 'those guys on the internet that are downloading my songs' as he so intelligently put it. Cripes, I think I'll go download as much Eminem as I possibly can, burn it to CD and then set it on fire. That'll show 'em.
-B
Web hole? (Score:2)
Sure, posting a web page might be considered to be giving implicit permission. But I could always put a notice at the top of my webpage (in lawyer-sized type of course) denying that permission to anyone but myself. Then I just need to look at my web server's logs to see what networks I'm leagally allowed to hack.
BGP, backbones, and the slashdot community (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IRC (Score:2)
what do you expect.... (Score:2)
Libertarianism is unworkable. (Score:2)
Yes, Hollywood. (Score:2)