Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Howard Berman Talks About P2P Piracy Prevention Act 352

Posted by timothy from the strange-idea-of-self-help dept.
An anonymous reader writes "I know Rep. Berman is not held in high regard on Slashdot, but he has posted an article on Findlaw where he discusses his self- help for P2P piracy bill. He has not convinced me that this is about preventing theft, rather than preserving old business models, but the bill does appear to have a lot of safeguards built-in." I'm confused about what measures Berman believes would be acceptable, after reading the many disclaimers here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Howard Berman Talks About P2P Piracy Prevention Act More

Howard Berman Talks About P2P Piracy Prevention Act

Comments Filter:

  • "Old business models" QWZX (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @07:47PM (#4377664)

    Ah, is this the new justification for stealing? I'm starting to see this phrase more and more. "You see, your honor, I didn't actually steal this stereo. It was that Circuit City has an outdated business model!"

    How about this: if you like the product and think it's worth the money, pay for it. If you don't, then don't buy it. Maybe I'm just old fashioned and "out of touch" to think that people should be paid for their work.

    Yeah, that must be it.

    • while I see your point and agree with it. The community at large will not.

      It seems to me that we are playing Robin Hood here. The RIAA/MPAA is charing WAY too much for the media they distribute. It's one market that does not have to abide by supply and demand.

      They set the prices (they have settled and been fined a minimal amount) and we have to pay them. There's no real other option for music lovers.

      P2P networks allow us to "get something back" for which we have long been paying for.

      I say fuck the King (no not Elvis, his new album is owning in 17 countries) and I say we should keep fighting our grass-roots campaign. It seems to be working a bit.

      The MPAA has learned a little and has reduced prices for most titles over time, they have included other material along with their movies, and they are less annoying than the RIAA.

      We are still paying the same prices for CDs that we did in 1991 and they never seem to drop in price no matter how old the album is.

      That's my opinion at least.

      • Other labels (Score:2, Insightful)

        by yerricde ( 125198 )

        They set the prices (they have settled and been fined a minimal amount) and we have to pay them. There's no real other option for music lovers.

        If you can't afford Britney Spears, switch to another band on another label. In addition to the Universal label, Vivendi also offers the mp3.com label, which has mostly new bands, and a CD usually costs less than $10.

      • This common misinterpretation of the Robin Hood story is often trotted out to justify all sorts of bad behavior. The misconception is in the idea that the story suggests it is inherently just to 'take from the rich to give to the poor.' This is not so; the story of Robin Hood deals specifically with a corrupt government which taxed, under threat of force, its citizens into poverty. Robin Hood and his merry band's mission was to take from the government and give back to the citizens, to whom the money belonged in the first place.

        What you are suggesting, on the other hand, is that it is morally justifiable to steal from someone simply because you think their asking price is too high. This position is indefensible.

        • I disagree with you. While your point about Robin Hood is taken, the rest is not.

          The RIAA is using FORCE to continue their UNFAIR practice of price fixing and lobbying to those that don't truly understand the ramifications of the laws they are putting into place.

          *I* do not support purchased music (on a small scale for bands that promote the freedom of their music). I support ONLY bands that allow the free trade of their songs/shows (furthurnet.org and etree.org as I have so many times before pointed out).

          They aren't playing fair, neither should we.
      • It seems to me that we are playing Robin Hood here. The RIAA/MPAA is charing WAY too much for the media they distribute. It's one market that does not have to abide by supply and demand.

        I'm curious as to how you come to this conclusion. The RIAA cannot create demand for their product. There are thousand of cds that make no or very little money because there is no demand for them, how exactly does the RIAA get around this? They can have all the supply of Yanni cds they want, but if there is no demand, they won't make any. And if they decide to charge too much for their supply, the demand will go down and they won't make as much money (of course this only applies if there is not an easy way to get the music without paying for it).

        The only way to avoid supply and demand is to get a product where the demand is unlimited, say oxygen. The RIAA has to deal with supply and demand just as any other group does, they just found a way to make it work for them.
    • Ah, is this the new justification for stealing? I'm starting to see this phrase more and more. \

      "You see, your honor, I didn't actually build an exact duplicate of this stereo because I had the equipment to do so. It was that Circuit City has an outdated business model!"

      is a little better analogy

    • I agree with you completely - I think the people who want complete lack of copyright protection give the rest of us who don't like the Berman bill a bad name. I simply don't like the "vigilante justice" nature of the bill. Why shouldn't we legislate similar laws elsewhere?

      His logic is that the cops don't have time to track down a bunch of filesharers so we have to let the **AA take the law into their own hands. Nice precedent. I think I should have the right to break into any house I want, then, if I suspect someone of stealing from me. I won't break anything, I swear. It's the same thing, really.

      I love how congress through the DMCA made hacking illegal. Except now, it's legal, as long as you have a copyright.
    • It is not called stealing and has nothing to do with stealing. Copyright is a right granted to creators of works of art to encourage and enable them to create more.
      Now here come all those big companies, which don't really create anything and demand that they get even more rights, just based on the fact that they have been granted some privileges before. It's not like they are going bankrupt, even in a time of economic recession.
      These bills are not about justice, they are about power.
    • Someone on /. once posted this little snippet under a post he titled "1st Official Slashdot to English Translator-matic"

      "We should file an antitrust lawsuit against Sony"

      Translation:

      "I've spent far too much time absorbing bullshit ideals from anarchists. The truth of the matter is, I just don't want to pay for anything whatsoever. Britney CDs should be free because I think that somehow the constitution protects my illegal copying and distribution under some freedom of speech law or fair use act. Even though I don't have to go out and buy luxury items, I'm gonna whinge and bitch anyway"

      While I feel that this issue is something worth fighting, I for one do not think I, nor any of you are the ideal solider for the task. I'm honestly not trying to start shit, but I for one feel that for the majority of the /. crew, this is about protecting your rights to download music you don't own(software for that matter). Granted this all goes back to supposed "old business models" and "copyright laws", etc., etc., ad nauseum but for this crowd, the majority of you, including me, this is about the fact that we're scared we might lose our ability to circumvent spending our own actual money while trying to keep our 0-day hacker/cyber activist motif's up because we've had our minds polluted by other so called "cyber activists" who actually succeeded in turning basic theft and copyright violations into a political standpoint. I for one, download music I don't own. I have not, however, ever tried to justify it to myself through a smokey, poorly constructed soapbox political message. I know it's wrong, but call a spade a spade. No one ever robbed a bank because they were fed up with corporate banking practices.

      • No proven case (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Blue Stone ( 582566 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @10:35PM (#4378476) Homepage Journal
        The fact of the matter is that the **AA, the copyright cartels, have not proved that their incomes, or the artists which they rip o.. er, represent, have been damaged by Kazaa et al.

        Their shrieks and cries of doom, and destruction, on the contrary, echo their histrionic historical wailings, about every new media development under the sun, decimating their livelihoods.

        None of that has come to pass.

        Let a few truly independent investigations be run, on the claim that the copyright cartels have suffered loss that warrants such draconian laws, and then maybe, we can talk to them, and treat them as deserving of our "concern" (for want of a better term.)

        At the moment, all we have is a bunch melodramatic control freaks, in a behaviour-loop, with no proven basis for their "concerns."
        As such, people who know their track record (no pun intended) choose to treat them with the contempt they deserve, and will continue to deserve, until they stop lying, distorting, dissembling and duping, and come up with some independently verified, hard facts that merit that anything is done.

        In my humble opinion.
        • Their shrieks and cries of doom, and destruction, on the contrary, echo their histrionic historical wailings, about every new media development under the sun, decimating their livelihoods.

          Histrionic - le mot juste! I had to look it up [dictionary.com]:

          histrionic Pronunciation Key(hstr-nk) also histrionical (--kl)
          adj.
          1. Of or relating to actors or acting.
          2. Excessively dramatic or emotional; affected.

      • Re:"Old business models" QWZX (Score:4, Informative)

        by seanadams.com ( 463190 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @11:10PM (#4378596) Homepage
        The truth of the matter is, I just don't want to pay for anything whatsoever.

        Alright, I'll feed the troll.

        • Do you relish the fact that you can't hit fast forward to skip the advertisements and copyright warnings on DVDs which you've rightfully purchased?
        • Do you think that the RIAA has the right to impose the cumbersome, fragile CD format on everyone, by attempting to restrict more advanced, convenient means of media storage and playback [slimdevices.com]?
        • Do you enjoy being forced to watch commercials on your $50/mo cable TV service?
        • Would you prefer that your computer be artificially restricted in what it can and can't do, as opposed to being a general-purpose device whose capability is limited only by the imagination of software engineers?
        • Would you like the federal govermnment to pass laws which restrict you from loaning your favorite book to a friend?

        If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, then you are a troll and a fucking hypocrite.

        • Re:"Old business models" QWZX (Score:4, Interesting)

          by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @01:26AM (#4378987) Journal
          I'll feed the troll

          He's not a troll. His words may be painful, but they sound pretty honest to me.

          Do you relish the fact that you can't hit fast forward to skip the advertisements and copyright warnings on DVDs which you've rightfully purchased

          I make a product, I can design it to work however I want. If I build the thing to play advertisements, and you still want to buy the thing, that's my decision.

          Do you think that the RIAA has the right to impose the cumbersome, fragile CD format on everyone, by attempting to restrict more advanced, convenient means of media storage and playback

          Yeah, they've just got a gun to your head and are forcing you to give up said music storage devices. Uh, huh. You can record your own music, or purchase music that isn't owned by them, and put it on your devices however you want. If they want to make a semi-broken "protected" CD, that's their choice, their product, and I don't see where you have any grounds for complaining. No one is forcing you to buy their products.

          Do you enjoy being forced to watch commercials on your $50/mo cable TV service

          (a) No one is forcing to watch commercials, or for that matter, even purchase TV service from said media companies. I have no interest in TV myself, and would happily not pay for TV service. (b) Would you rather watch TV that costs $50/mo to make? Trust me, it would suck. The commercials may not be entertaining, but unless you're willing to pay with greenbacks instead of being advertised to, the dollars to make the shows have to come from somewhere. It *could* be product placement throughout shows...

          Would you prefer that your computer be artifically restricted in what it can and can't do, as opposed to being a general-purpose device whose capability is limited only by the imagination of software engineers?

          TCPA/Palladium does *not* do this, dammit. You can use Linux and do whatever you want to with it. No one is forcing you to use Windows, and no one will ever force you to use Windows.

          Would you like the federal government to pass laws which restrict you from loaning your favorite book to a friend?

          I fail to see how this is relevant. You can load CDs to friends all you want. You just can't make copies of them. You said "loan" the book, not "mass-fucking Xerox" it.
          • He's not a troll. His words may be painful, but they sound pretty honest to me.

            Please see the definition of "troll" at everything2.com [everything2.com]

            If I build the thing to play advertisements, and you still want to buy the thing, that's my decision.

            That's fine, IF YOU'RE DOING SO on a fair playing field. However, what the MPAA is doing is only allowing selected manufacturers to sell equipment which plays DVDs. With the DMCA, they have purchased a law which PROHIBITS anyone from making their own products which play DVDs without restrictions (region coding, fast fwd controls, etc). That is FUCKED UP, UNAMERICAN, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and that's why we should fight for the repeal of the DMCA.

            Yeah, they've just got a gun to your head and are forcing you to give up said music storage devices.

            Again, no, they do not have a gun to my head to purchase their product. However, they ARE lobbying for even more laws to limit my choices in how I can use the content which I have purchased.

            (a) No one is forcing to watch commercials, or for that matter, even purchase TV service from said media companies.

            Not right now, but they are looking for ways to shut down products like Tivo. Your post is totally asinine - you fail to realize that I am not complaining not only about things which are illegal now - I'm even more concerned about what WILL be illegal if tthe RIAA/MPAA has their way.

            TCPA/Palladium does *not* do this, dammit.

            Did I say anything about those specific technologies? No. Regardless, I will address your point: Microsoft has the power to impose these restricitons on the ignorant masses, in the guise of improved security or what have you. That is wrong, and I hope that informed consumers will boycott them.

            You can loan CDs to friends all you want.

            You can... for now.
          • I make a product, I can design it to work however I want. If I build the thing to play advertisements, and you still want to buy the thing, that's my decision.

            Your copyright only gives you the rights to: production, distribution, public display and public performance.

            Regardless of how you build it, once I legally obtain a copy of said information, I'm supposed to be allowed to use it however I please, including viewing partial portions thereof provided I do not infringe upon your rights to copy.

            TCPA/Palladium does *not* do this, dammit. You can use Linux and do whatever you want to with it. No one is forcing you to use Windows, and no one will ever force you to use Windows.

            Can I use Linux to watch a Disney DVD I've legally purchased on open source DVD playing software? Is there anything which artificially restricts Linux' ability to do so? (Here in the US there certainly is)
          • I make a product, I can design it to work however I want. If I build the thing to play advertisements, and you still want to buy the thing, that's my decision.

            Ahh, the old "I built it so I can do whatever I want" argument.

            Strangely enough, that's simply not true. You cannot simply build a product and arbitrarily decide its features. You have to obey certain consumer safety laws and truth in advertising regulations and the such.

            The problem/debate with the DVD's is that many of the mechanisms put in place for them were "piracy prevention" techniques that are being abused by the people who make the media that run on the players. The whole concept of Region Encoding is an artificial trade restraint. (If the idea is to keep first run movies from being shown where they haven't been out in theaters then why is the Grease DVD that was just released region locked? Better yet, why can't a Region 1 player play movies from every other region? Or a Region 2 player play movies from every region except 1?)

            b) Would you rather watch TV that costs $50/mo to make? Trust me, it would suck.
            You mean like the BBC? The BBC gets its revenues (or at least used to) from license fees and government support. This gave them an incredible amount of freedom to explore areas of television that would not have garnered the financial support of the corporate sponsors that American TV has to pander too. Another good example would be the various documentaries produced by Ken Burns for Public Television. In hind sight a number of companies would have been proud to sponsor them, but that was only after they had been created and aired to such wide critical and public acclaim. Right now we've got a ton of ER and CSI cloans because that's what attracts eyeballs. There's no really unique new shows coming out because of the need to get those corporate dollars.

            TCPA/Palladium does *not* do this, dammit. You can use Linux and do whatever you want to with it. No one is forcing you to use Windows, and no one will ever force you to use Windows.
            Actually, if Palladium uses/requires hardware support then you will not be able to create a dual-boot system. You'll have to decide at the start point whether you want to be able to run Windows at all. The other interesting thing would be if Windows suddenly becomes a secure OS with access control mechanisms then projects like WINE and SAMBA could suddenly run into DMCA violations if they attempt to interoperate with the new version.

            I fail to see how this is relevant. You can load CDs to friends all you want. You just can't make copies of them. You said "loan" the book, not "mass-fucking Xerox" it.
            Actually it was maintained that you in fact can give copies to friends (as long as no money changes hands). Additionally, look at the various cases against copy centers for "course books" and you can see that mass xeroxing of copyrighted materials is permissable under certain circumstances.
        • Do you relish the fact that you can't hit fast forward to skip the advertisements and copyright warnings on DVDs which you've rightfully purchased?

          The producers of the DVD have reached an agreement with advertisers that really doesn't bother me. I'm not strapped to a chair with my eyes propped open forced to watch them. I can walk away while the movie loads, or better yet, watch these "advertisements" which generally are trailers placed their because I will probably like them based on what movie it is I'm watching, i.e. cool new action trailers on my new action movie I purchased.

          Do you think that the RIAA has the right to impose the cumbersome, fragile CD format on everyone, by attempting to restrict more advanced, convenient means of media storage and playback [slimdevices.com]?

          I really can't say I've ever been dissatisfied with the cd format that apparently you find so archaic.

          Do you enjoy being forced to watch commercials on your $50/mo cable TV service?

          Do you understand AT ALL how TV shows are paid for? Hell, for one thing, the shows I really want to watch, 6 Feet Under and the Sopranos, are commercial free BECAUSE I pay that 50 bucks, dumbass.

          Would you prefer that your computer be artificially restricted in what it can and can't do, as opposed to being a general-purpose device whose capability is limited only by the imagination of software engineers?

          Lets focus on the here and now, not the what-if's of crackpot politicians that more than likely will never come to pass. These rights you're so scared of losing deal more with your desire to pirate software and steal/violate the copy right laws of media providers and less with your fear of losing basic digital consumer rights. Please don't equate the former with an honest cause, because it isn't, no matter what face you choose to paint on it.

          Would you like the federal govermnment to pass laws which restrict you from loaning your favorite book to a friend?

          No, obviously I wouldn't. However, it's readily apparent you feel "loaning a book to a friend" and "scanning the entire book, converting it to .pdf, and throwing it on your Kazaa share" are the same thing, and each deserve the same free right.

          If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, then you are a troll and a fucking hypocrite.

          In a civilized(read: non-slashdot forum) you would be laughed at and dismissed. Basic, unalienable digital consumer rights have NOTHING to do with massive, unchecked dispersement of any media format you can think of. Downloading any music piece, software package, or electronic book you might desire is NOT, nor should be a right any digital consumer has. There are rules set up to make sure that musicians, software developers, authors, and their respective representatives are reasonably compensated for their talent, dedication and hard work. If I'm interested in a music cd, for example, I'll download the album, give it a listen, and usually end up buying it. Software as well. I spent all of last Sunday downloading the UT. I played it for about 2 hours, got my checkbook, and went to Bestbuy. Wrapping up with my total point, which you should've picked up by now, is that their is a world of difference between unchecked mass accumilation of any media format you may desire on a whim, and basic digital consumer rights. Please don't equate the right of backing up legitamitely purchased software/music with the acts of illegal downloads and dispersement of your ill-gotten gains.
          • However, it's readily apparent you feel "loaning a book to a friend" and "scanning the entire book, converting it to .pdf, and throwing it on your Kazaa share" are the same thing, and each deserve the same free right.


            Please explain how that is "readily apparent" from my post. I outlined several fair-use scenarios in which I either have been, or reasonably fear I will be, encumbered by the RIAA/MPAA's actions.

            I don't steal music or movies. I actually have a large collection of media which I have purchased. I just want to enjoy it without artificial restrictions, and I won't buy any more until I can make the purchase on reasonable terms.
      • I know it's wrong, but call a spade a spade.

        You are correct, it is wrong. I do it. He does it. She does it. Everybody does it. That doesn't make it right. It's always happened, it's just easier now. Way too easy, in fact. And they can't stop it through conventional means so they're trying to stop it with DRM and other bullshit.

        Do I blame them? No. However, we created these fuckwits by contstantly fueling their market and now they're going to take the money we spent on them and use it to rape us by violating our rights.

        Did we strike at them first? Yes, some people did steal music. Most people, even. However, the closer they come to realizing their DRM plans the more harm they do to everyone, including themselves.

        The profitability of their precious Intellectual Property pales in importance to the civil liberties they are attempting to trample with things like the DMCA. I'm not saying the profits of artists is unimportant. I believe artists have the right to get paid. I just don't believe the way they are handling the situation is right, nor should it even be possible.

        A few big companies with a whole lot of money should not be able to direct what laws are created for their own benefit while screwing nearly everyone else. fnord
      • Forgot to log in! (damn)

        Other post with same subject can either be ignored, or read, your choice. It is reproduced below.

        I do not fit this mold.

        I actually *want* to pay to download music. The labels made a big mistake when they rejected the Napster proposal.

        Downloading software I don't own used to be a big deal, but only because I wanted to learn about it before wasting my money. I have never made a dime off of software I did not own. Today, getting demo copies of things is a lot easier. This also makes OSS tools attractive to me because I don'e have to worry so much about the license.

        I want unencumbered computers because:

        I believe I have the right to do what I wish with the hardware I own. Same for media. This has been true my whole life and people made lots of money, why can't this continue?

        I want Peer to Peer because it is a great technology that we have not yet fully explored. It has a lot of potential for those who want to explore distribution methods that are *not* beholden to the corporations. I pay for hardware, in some cases software, and bandwidth, why is it wrong to use the two to benefit me?

        As for old business models, yep, they are old. I was taught that in this society, you either adapt or die. If you are not improving your business process, then be sure your competetors are. The media industries are not adapting, they are litigating...

        So, I agree that something needs to be done because, in the case of music right now, things are clearly wrong, but I am not greedy, just wary of losing my rights.

        Rights are funny things in that they are very hard to obtain, but very easy to give away.

        Remember, not everyone here believes everything said.

    • Do I smell a self-righteous programmer who is more concerned about his paycheck than the free exchange of information?

      Let's get something straight. I don't download pirated music. I also do not operate pirated software. I fully support the efforts of the EFF and people like Janis Ian to reform, and if impossible, break the music industry because I believe it is corrupt and that it actively works against the distribution of quality content. Ian mentioned this in her recent writings [slashdot.org], and I've seen it in the experiences of a buddy of mine who worked with an outfit trying to set up Internet radio stations back in the '90s. Given that Berman wants his constituents to be able to do the exact same thing that got most of Mitnick's teeth knocked out, how exactly am I the criminal in this situation?

  • Let's bash the music industry (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @07:50PM (#4377692)
    In case we didn't already think the music industry was evil:

    First Blood is Spilled at Record Industry Hearings [musicdish.com]

    In a shocking statement made by Back Street Boy, Kevin Richardson, he testified that they have NEVER received a royalty check...
    Also, the wife of Lester Chambers, of The Chambers Brothers, claimed to have never received a royalty check, nor an advance, in upwards of 30 years. Ms. Chambers claimed that Columbia told her there were no overseas sales to report because The Chambers Brothers records were never licensed to an overseas distributor. She believed them until she started seeing her product on E-Bay and found 22 different foreign pressings of Chambers Brothers recordings, all by foreign affiliates of her label, Columbia Records, a subsidiary of Sony.
    • Goddamn, someone oughtta be hanging for this.

      Go read the article. Stunning.

      Time for artists to organize and demand better.
    • While I agree the labels should be sued if they do not abide by the contract with the artists, it is the artists own fault if they sign a crappy contract. If the Backstreet Boys signed a contract that did not pay them any royalties, how can they complain that they aren't getting royalties? If someone signs a contract stating that they cannot share their royalty reports with anyone, how can they later complain about the very thing they agreed to?

      Do I think the contract are unfair? Hell yeah. But then again, if the artists are going to agree to them, why shouldn't the record comanies get everything they can? If someone comes up to you and offers to buy your crappy old t-shirt, and you tell them you'll take a thousand dollars, and they agree, are you going to then tell then less? Part of the problem is that the record companies are making unfair contracts, but the other part is that artists are signing them.
      • While I agree the labels should be sued if they do not abide by the contract with the artists, it is the artists own fault if they sign a crappy contract. If the Backstreet Boys signed a contract that did not pay them any royalties, how can they complain that they aren't getting royalties? If someone signs a contract stating that they cannot share their royalty reports with anyone, how can they later complain about the very thing they agreed to?
        What a fucking shithead constipated asshole you are. They cannot sign any other kind of contract because there isn't any other kind of contract.

        Period.

    • In a shocking statement made by Back Street Boy, Kevin Richardson, he testified that they have NEVER received a royalty check...

      I wouldn't have paid him either. :-)

  • Congressman's assessment of bill flawed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dconder ( 79190 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @07:54PM (#4377713) Homepage
    I think Rep. Berman's characterization of the bill is a little skewed. He states that copyright owners cannot damage equipment or files without liability. That's not strictly true. Copyright owners operating under this bill's "license to hack" could effectively destroy the hard drives and file structures on P2P users' computers without any liability at all. The bill states that any damage under a threshold amount - I believe the amount is $250.00 - is not compensable in an action for damages under the bill. Now, your average HDD only runs about $100-$200, often much less. This means that, at its base, the bill allows the destruction of a P2P user's hardware without any responsibility at all. Even if the files on the HDD could be worth significantly more, the P2P user is going to have a hard time showing what they're worth when the files have been corrupted or destroyed outright by the "reasonable steps toward self-help" taken by copyright owners under this bill's rubric.

    This is definitely analagous to the situation that almost every state in the union seeks to avoid when dealing with secured debts and landlord-tenant relations. Certain steps should not be allowed PERIOD when dealing with infringed property rights. Owners of real property operating under landlord-tenant laws and consumer creditors operating under secured transaction laws would love this level of unpenalized "self-help" action, but no legislator who had a smidgen of capacity for forethought would give it to them. The problems of P2P "pirates" for copyright owners do not merit such a sweeping grant of power as this bill would perform.

    Under the bill as written, only damages over a certain amount (somewhere in the neighborhood of $250.00) are compensable. So if your computer HDD isn't worth more than that, you can't even get into court. The copyright owner is also seemingly protected from immediate criminal liability for such action. There is not even a preliminary determination of probable cause under the bill as written. The only party who gets to make that determination is the copyright owner. With no oversight whatsoever until after the damage has already been done. You might as well allow a secured creditor to break into a debtor's garage and snatch a car used as security, and not worry about any damages or breach of the peace such action would engender. That's the kind of power the bill grants to copyright owners, and that's a very, very bad idea.

    • Re:Congressman's assessment of bill flawed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ender81b ( 520454 ) <wdinger@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @08:25PM (#4377881) Homepage Journal
      Don't forget that it is unlikely that you could prove they 'destroyed' the hard drive. Indeed a simple reformat would likely make the hard drive perfectly usuable again. Nope, instead you have to prove that you lost 250.00 dollars in data an even harder task to accomplish. Software? Nope, if you still have the cd you won't even get that. As a matter of fact i cannot believe that anybody would actually be able to prosecute these people without some high powered lawyers and alot of time.

      Basically this bill sets no limit to how much damage they can do to your computer since you have no way of proving that the damage occured. If you made backups, one way to prove, then you in effect shut yourself out since you still have the data because of the backups. Lost time? Maybe, Maybe.

      I cannot think of a single legal precedent for this type of bill, it is insane. It takes the power of law enforcement out of the hands of the proper authorities and gives it to some corporate entity. In the rest of the free world this would have to be turned over to the law ... but not after this bill. Nope, now the purden of proof falls on YOU and you are Guilt Until Proven Innocent. Frankly, it is scary.
      • I cannot think of a single legal precedent for this type of bill, it is insane. It takes the power of law enforcement out of the hands of the proper authorities and gives it to some corporate entity. In the rest of the free world this would have to be turned over to the law ... but not after this bill. Nope, now the purden of proof falls on YOU and you are Guilt Until Proven Innocent. Frankly, it is scary.
        This from the country that justifies legalising guns on the flimsy argument that 'You shouldn't take away people's right to protect themselves'?
        At least be consistent, please. The gun argument has some merit, and so does this one. Piracy is still against the law.
        • It's legal to own a gun, but it's not legal to go around shooting people you're scared will attack you.
          • Talk about missing the point.
            It's legal to cause a small amount of damage to pirates who are distributing or reproducing your copyrighted material, but it's not legal (it's _more_ illegal) to cause damage to non-pirates who 'you're scared will attack you'.
            RTFA.
        • Quothe the poster
          This from the country that justifies legalising guns on the flimsy argument that 'You shouldn't take away people's right to protect themselves'?

          At least be consistent, please. The gun argument has some merit, and so does this one. Piracy is still against the law.


          You're comparing apples to oranges.

          The gun laws are rooted in the constitution with the express purpose of giving the citizens the power and privilege to fight a rogue government. The American Revolution occurred because of the high level of corruption in the British Government which resulted in heavy, unfair taxation. Should the "new" government ever get as bad as the British were, the people would have guns to stage another revolution. That's the idea, and it's hardly a flimsy one. (Our reality may differ slightly)

          This bill would give vigilante powers to a handful of corporations to combat a poorly defined problem that is having an unknown effect on their welfare. Despite the fact that corporations are considered citizens in the US (don't even get me started on that subject), there is no reason why we should allow this to happen.
    • The bill states that any damage under a threshold amount - I believe the amount is $250.00 - is not compensable in an action for damages under the bill.

      According to SS 514(b)(1)(C) (I have no idea the correct way to site it), the threshhold limit is $50 to anything that is not data shared via a P2P mechanism. So if they damage your harddrive to the point that it is no longer usable, or accidentally delete the thesis you've spent 6 months on, all the protections of the bill are removed. Thus you can not only sue for damages above that, but below that and reasonable attorney fees.

      What is also interesting is that the copyright owner may not impair (not eliminate, just impair) the use of the net by anyone other than the file trader, so DDoS attacks are out.
      • Blockquoth the poster:

        Thus you can not only sue for damages above that, but below that and reasonable attorney fees.

        Because it's crystal clear that you, as Joe Six Pack, is going to triumph over the million-strong Army of Undead Lawyers with which the RIAA will fight your suit. And I'm absolutely positive that, in carving out a new area of law, a judge is likely to side with you, and not the drones claiming "Piracy! Piracy!".
      • The limit may be $50, but you can't sue until you reach $500, and then only with the DA's (?) permission.
        • The limit may be $50, but you can't sue until you reach $500, and then only with the DA's (?) permission.

          That may be true, but I'm curious how you reached that number. If you do more than $50 of damage, the entirety of the bill's protections are removed from you. Thus the bill would no longer apply to you so the $500 would have to come from another statute. Which one?
          • Well, IANAL, so I am just going off of what I see in this bill [politechbot.com]. I've assumed this section would apply regardless. The part on compensation is section d. On a side note, it looks like my memory faltered; the limit is $250, not $500.

            Alternative explanation: the $50 is per action, so perhaps the $250 is cumulative.
            • Section d is a really weird one in my opinion, and I wonder if it belongs at all, it states:

              "If, pursuant to the authority provided by subsection (a), a copyright owner knowingly and intentionally impairs the distribution, display, performance or reproduction of a particular computer file or data, and has no reasonable basis to believe that such distribution, display, performance, or reproduction constitutes an infringement of copyright, and an affected file trader suffers economic loss in excess of $250 as a result of the act by copyright owner, the affected file trader may seek compensation for such economic loss in accordance with the following:"

              So section d really only covers inappropriate use of blocking software (where they should have reasonably known better) whose authority was permitted under section a.

              However, according section b:

              (b) Exceptions - Subsection (a) shall not apply to a copyright owner in a case in which --

              (1) in the course of taking an action permitted by subsection (a), the copyright owner --

              (B) causes economic loss to any person other than affected file traders; or

              (C) causes economic loss of more than $50.00 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader, other than economic loss involving computer files or data made available through a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network that contains works in which the owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106;

              So according to that, if I have one file they want to block, and in blocking causes me more than $50 harm, they don't have the protections afforded by 514(a).

              After reading through several times I finally figured out what section d is... It assures that someone wrongfully blocked always has one legal remedy available to them. If a copyright holder does $250 to you and RIAA has bought the politicians in your state such that they are allowed to do this, you can still sue in federal court for actual damages + legal fees.

              After reading this though what *does* piss me off about the bill is that in *every* case in order to go after the copyright owner, I do have to show economic loss, which can be difficult. They can make my internet experience miserable, but if I can't show I would have increased my net worth had they not done so, I can't take any action.
    • This means that, at its base, the bill allows the destruction of a P2P user's hardware without any responsibility at all.

      No, the bill allows the destruction of a pirate of their copyrighted material's hardware. They're still just as (in fact more, i think) liable if they wreck your hardware. You're not a pirate after all.

      You might as well allow a secured creditor to break into a debtor's garage and snatch a car used as security

      No... only if they can show evidence of their files on your computer. Otherwise they'd get absolutely screwed in court and in the press... surely...
      • Brings up a good point. Assume that they detect a violation of their copyright coming from an my IP: 129.93.10.101. Great. Now assume they are going to remove the copyrighted material. Super. Except one slight itsy bitsy problem.. what if there are 10 computers NAT'ed on that IP? How can they pick apart and just assume which computer did what.
    • This is definitely analagous to the situation that almost every state in the union seeks to avoid when dealing with secured debts and landlord-tenant relations... Owners of real property operating under landlord-tenant laws and consumer creditors operating under secured transaction laws would love this level of unpenalized "self-help"...

      Let's take this one step further. They wish to search my property without my consent, without a legal officer present, and without a warrent issued by legal authority all with intent of search, seizure, and possibly, destruction.

      If this were real property, I have some friends who would have no problem settling the situation. If someone were to enter thier property without consent, legal officers, or legal authority, these friends would just shoot to kill.

      Now, I do not condone violence, but if our government is going to allow private firms to attack citizens, perhaps there should be legal opportunites for the purpose of self defense.

    • The $250 damages limit is easy to reach. Consider the following scenarios:

      1. My corporate webserver gets hacked by a copyright vigilante, and destroys the contents of the hard drive. 1 week (40 hours) of non-backed up data times 10 developers times $40/hr developer salary equals $16,000 loss, plus the cost of the restore time, plus potential lost business.
      2. My grandmother's machine gets hacked by a "concerned copyright owner". She takes her machine to Best Buy, who reformat the hard drive, reinstall Windows and all her software, and send her a bill for $400.
      3. My personal machine gets hacked. I have to take off two days of work to restore/reinstall/redownload all of the software on the machine. At $200/day, times 2 days, my actual damages are $400.

      Though I'm not a lawyer, I imagine that if the practice of vigilante copyright enforcement becomes widespread, it won't be long before some computer-savvy author gets sued into the ground for hacking a corporate webserver. Or better, Disney gets sued because they hacked a lawyer's computer and deleted a home video of his daughter's first communion because he happened to call it "Snow White"...
      • Though I'm not a lawyer, I imagine that if the practice of vigilante copyright enforcement becomes widespread, it won't be long before some computer-savvy author gets sued into the ground for hacking a corporate webserver.

        Um, you're talking about situations where the damages are $400 or $16000. There is probably no possibility of punitive damages unless there's a showing of actual malice by the vigilante. So, in the examples you gave, the maximum possible damages awarded to the grandmother or to you would be $400, or for the corporate webserver, $16000. No grandmother will be willing to sue for $400 in damages - you can't hire a lawyer for that much (and attorney's fees, contrary to popular belief, are not compensable in most cases). A company might sue over $16000 if they retained staff counsel, but $16000 is hardly enough to sue AOL Time Warner or Bertelsmann into the ground.

        This bill is trash. I only hope that if it passes, it is ultimately ruled unconstitutional on Fourth Amendment grounds. (i.e. because the law designates private parties to act as de facto government agents)

        I'm not a lawyer, and this is not a legal opinion - just what I've picked up after a year in law school.

        -Isaac

    • You can let the Congressman know your comments directly -
      [findlaw.com]
      here
      I hope anyone who posts to that link refrains from flaming.
      Thoughtful courteous comments go much further than a ranting.

  • Out of the Mouths of Babes... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @07:55PM (#4377720)
    ...or Congresscritters, you can find a grain of truth, at least insofar as what he's not saying:

    > Most of the 150 million or more P2P software downloaders believe they will never be hauled into court, and they are right.

    "...and I'm eternally grateful that so few of them bother to vote."

  • Still wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by r_j_prahad ( 309298 ) <r_j_prahad@@@hotmail...com> on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @07:55PM (#4377721)
    I do not care how many safeguards are built into this law, it is still nothing more than legalized vigilantism. The right to determine guilt and mete out punishment belongs in the hands of our justice system, and not in the pockets of billionaire movie producers.

    This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Sugar coating poison might improve taste, but it will still kill you.

    • Re:Still wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ender81b ( 520454 ) <wdinger@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @08:48PM (#4377998) Homepage Journal
      Safegaurds.. you mean like this right:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Oh that stinkin' Fourth ammendment.. it was useless anyways. Sigh.

    • Re:Still wrong (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kragg ( 300602 )
      You can shoot people who break into your house. Fix that first, then this.
      • You can shoot people who break into your house. Fix that first, then this.

        That is not 'broken'.
        Don't want to risk being shot? Stay the hell out of *my* house.

    • Re:Still wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @08:54PM (#4378030)
      "I do not care how many safeguards are built into this law, it is still nothing more than legalized vigilantism."

      If I get into a copyright-related dispute, I want a 3rd party to mediate. I do *not* want the guy that's mad at me to have the power to 'punish' me. I mean think about it: how are they supposed to be fair? I mean, if a Cop came to my door, then I'd know:

      a.) He's not personally mad at me, therefore won't billyclub me (In theory...)

      b.) He's well trained and licensed to enforce the law

      c.) He's going to have a more objective outlook on who's right and wrong.

      The 'victim' cannot meet any of those requirements! So how can they possibly be allowed to perform any sort of law-enforcement?

      Oh, and here's a note to you copyright holders out there: If you think I'm violating your copyright and you'd like me to stop whatever I'm doing, approach me kindly. If I got a note that said "Hi, uhh you're hosting a pic on your website that I really don't want made public, could you take it down please?", I'd probably be happy to oblidge peacefully and quickly. If you attempt to attack my webserver, then we're going to have a little problem.

      Funny thing is, I can see this vigilante law backfiring. If I were unfairly attacked, I'd probably overreact and do something worse. Like, in the example above, put that image up on a bunch of forums around the web.

  • still not good enough. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @07:56PM (#4377724)
    The bill specifically states that the safe harbor does not allow a copyright owner to delete or alter any file or data on the computer of a file trader. Thus, a copyright owner can't send a virus to a P2P pirate. Nor can it remove any files on the pirate's computer. Nor can it even remove files that include the pirated works. All it can do is impair the illegal distribution or reproduction of those works through a public P2P network.

    While it may help to stop people from destroying your local computer's files it will NOT stop them from DoS attacking you?

    They need to be held accountable for ANY and ALL financial damage that they do to the computer that was being attacked AND the computers around the original that were also being hindered by their attack.

    While I agree that P2P have little use outside of illegal activities (outside of FurthurNET [furthurnet.org] and the like) I don't think that these laws are the way to put a stop to it.

    Nor do I believe that infesting the P2P networks w/poor files does it either.

    I know that ATTBI was disabling users that were leaving movies in their shared folders (yes, ATTBI users be careful). I believe that going through the ISP may be the only method. If the ISP doesn't cooperate, uhh, sorry.
    • While I agree that P2P have little use outside of illegal activities

      I know for a fact that this simply not true. I am currently a memeber of an industrial band. The only place people have heard my music is from downloading it off of P2P networks. I do have a siteon mp3.com (Mendeleev's Machine [mp3.com]). However, very few people have visited it. I have gotten more exposure on P2P networks by sending messages to people (on KaZaA) or by chatting to people (DirectConnect). I am able to tell them about my band and they download it and give it a try.

      P2P has given me a free method of distributing my music. And I currently don't care much if others download my music. I would not be receiving any money anyways. I am making music because I like it and I want to let others listen to my creations. P2P gives me an easy method to do so.

      neurostar
    • Right now the Illegal activities are the killer app, there is no doubt about that.

      Does this mean that P2P has little use? No! We are all caught up with the illegal use, that good uses are getting the short end of things right now.

      P2P can and will prove to be a good distribution model for those smart enough to use it. Given the right business model, the word of mouth nature of P2P can be a good thing.

      Some companies are starting to get the picture about P2P and what it can mean to business. Consider PTC. Long time big software company selling high-end tools. They see P2P as the next killer app for engineers using their products. What do they do instead of litigation? They provide P2P to their users as a nice value add. Built the technology right in where users can make good effective use of it. This helps them keep the price of their product within a range that supports their business while enabling their users to get more use out of the software they use.

      Soon everyone of their users will be able to host their own conference server and invite anyone they choose to share their data in an interactive and secure way. This whole thing is likely to save a lot of time and travel costs. This clearly is a good use of P2P.

      Right now this model demonstrates how P2P can add considerable value to a pay software model. Lets add a little more thinking the P2P way. Lets say that a loyal user of the software wants to collaborate with another user. What's to say that they can't just get the software from them on a trial basis? Have any idea how hard it is to get people to look at your MCAD software? Damn tough these days. Why not let your users work for you a little? Let the software run while connected to the paying user and not others. Maybe prevent the paying users from sharing with others while someone is license sharing.

      Soon the paying user will grow tired of sharing, and the other user having had a good experience just might be interested in a quote. This would save a *lot* in paid sales people who tend to travel a lot, ask for margins and eat a lot of lunches.... Just a P2P thought.

      It is funny to me to see smart, creative business people using P2P ideas, instant messaging and other cool internet technologies to get their work done faster. These same smart people use the internet to lower the cost of distributing their product saving their users time and effort in the process. Not exactly in the way I described above though.

      Meanwhile, on the other side of things, I laugh as I also watch the media companies work harder and harder at sticking their heads farther up their ass hoping they can just litigate the whole thing away.

      I say that P2P will always be here. Some say that it needs to be stopped. They also say that the only realistic way to do that is to hobble all of our machines so that we can't actually do it.

      Given that P2P could very easily be out-marketed, shifting the burden to the entire IT industry and its users is nothing more than a crime. --Just as plain and simple as Jack would put it himself.

      Please explain to me how stealing our right to create with machines we are supposed to own is any less of a theft than P2P downloading is today. Consider in your answer the fact that P2P is shown to help sales. Also consider the cost the theft of our rights will have on future generations who find themselves beholden to a select few who make all their technology decisions for them. Who exactly will those decisions benefit

      One more thing about the marketing. Nobody is better at it than the media companies right now. Why they don't just bend that marketing engine toward sales via the net is beyond me. With the right investment and a little thought, using Kazaa could be old hat in as little as a year. Why fight what you can easily marginalize?

      My own kids have made pretty good use of Kazaa yet they still buy CD media. Why do they do this? Its because of that powerful marketing engine. They are tuned to it and want to be a part of it. Burning a CD of content that you got from your friend does not do that today. Maybe burning a CD with custom content that comes with your paid download would, shouldn't they at least try before trashing all of our rights?

      The bottom line here really is about the business model and there really is no hiding that fact. The media companies want to continue to be in control of all distribution when it is becoming increasingly clear that they don't have to be. They don't want to compete and never will and they are fools for it.

      The amount of money spent on the lobbying efforts, lawyers and other foolish ventures that will generate little return unless they are a complete succcess could be spent on efforts that will generate real returns in as little as a year.

      How? Hire me.

      I am not kidding, if it is money that they think they need, then we should help them get it, but preserve our rights for the longer term in the process...

  • Bottom line is... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gTsiros ( 205624 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @07:56PM (#4377729)
    No matter what you do, no matter what measures you take, you can't constraint what you do or not do with computers.

    It all started in a garage, as a hobby. If necessary, it will start again in a garage.

    Those who love computers and the community created because (and with the help) of them can not stop to do their thing, irrelevant if it's moral or immoral, legal or illegal.

    Computers are tools. No more, no less than your common screwdriver. "Clever" tools, yes, but what you do with them is *use* them.

    I'm sick and tired of all these p2p-related /. stories. Please make the voices stop.

    now where is that asbestos suit ...

    • Re:Bottom line is... (Score:3, Informative)

      by JetScootr ( 319545 )
      Actually, they can constrain what you do with computers. I'm a programmer. When I got into this biz in 1979 I could write any old damn code I needed to do anything I wanted to do with computers. But now I can face federal jailtime for doing things like trying to figure out a file's format or how to interface two pieces of hardware. Current laws make many things programmers need to do illegal. The DMCA makes criminals of virtually ALL programmers who venture outside of the database into the computer at large. You simply can't do these things anymore without breaking the law.
      "it will start again in a garage" - no it won't - they are busy illegalizing any kind of homebrew, do-it-yourself, build-a-better-mousetrap kind of innovations that created the computer revolution in the first place. Berman's law is the latest and worst in a long line of this.

  • We need Carrots, Not Sticks (Score:3, Interesting)

    by szyzyg ( 7313 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @08:04PM (#4377763)
    How about some legislation to make music subscription services possible? The record companies have driven musicbank, myplay and napster out of business by making it impossible to get reasonable licensing terms. Legal distribution technology was built before napster ever appeared but the music business saw this as too much of a threat to do business with.

    There should be legislation for a compulsory on-demand music license, a flat fee for one off streams and higher fees for downloads. Oh then they should fix up that silly CARP royalty rate so that we can have small stations again....

    • There should be legislation for a compulsory on-demand music license

      There already exists a compulsory mechanical license for an underlying musical work that has already been recorded and published, which means you can have your cover band[1] re-perform the work and then sell phonorecords[2] of that. Though this license does not grant access to the original recording, some covers go on to be more popular than the original recording, especially when performed in an original arrangement (which is permitted to a limited extent in the compulsory license law).

      [1] cover band n. (Popular music) A musician or team of musicians that primarily performs covers[3].

      [2] phonorecord n. (Copyright law) A copy of a sound recording, such as a vinyl record, a tape, a CD, a downloaded compressed audio file, or any other medium on which a sound can be fixed.

      [3] cover n. (Popular music) A sound recording of a musical work that had been made popular through another recording. The artist performing a cover generally pays a songwriter's publisher the statutory royalty rate (about eight cents per copy) for the right under copyright law to record and distribute phonorecords of a musical work.

  • lets hope the RIAA loses their current lawsuit.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by edrugtrader ( 442064 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @08:13PM (#4377813) Homepage
    RIAA Sues Radio Stations For Giving Away Free Music [theonion.com]

    ARE YOU A PHP DEVELOPER? WORK WITH ME ANE MAKE MILLIONS!
    Web Developer II [sst.com]
  • Assuming everything in the article is to be believed (and that I understood what he was trying to say correctly), copyright holders can only take technical measures to stop the distribution of a file if it doesn't interfere with the distribution of the other files and doesn't cause any (much?) harm to the computer and doesn't affect the stability of the network or the ISP. To be quite honest, I'm not even sure this is technologicly feasable. If they aren't allowed to root my box, how are they supposed to stop me from sharing a single file?

    The only explination I can come up with is that either Berman thinks that it is feasable for the RIAA et al to do this, or he doesn't think its feasable but feels obligated to pass useless legislation for people who I assume are compaign donors.

    Of course, if it is possible to stop the sharing of a single file, remotely, without taking drastic measures, then I want to know how...
    • Is Berman walking both sides of the fence? Yes. He is now backpedaling as a result of the pubic's backlash. His article is an attempt to hide an iron fist in a velvet glove. I am not fooled, and I hope the voters in his district aren't either. I would like to see him lose his job on November 5, along with all those in Congress who sell us out to the highest bidder. Don't vote for these crooks, and don't buy CDs. [dontbuycds.org]
    • What he says can't be true. Think about it: He says the attacker (RIAA) can't change or delete any data on the target's computer, and can't affect the transfer of legal data to/from the target's computer.
      If you're not affecting the computer, and you're not affecting its ability to use the network, you're just lurking. This means you're doing nothing - so why the law in the first place?
      This law does definitely allow hacking and damage without legal oversight.

  • I don't believe it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @08:18PM (#4377841) Homepage Journal
    If he's telling the truth, I don't have any serious problem with it. It's not any worse than saying you're allowed to shoot at anyone who shoots at you first.

    The problem is that I just can't believe it, because (perhaps due to stupidity) I cannot imagine any way for the counter-attacks to be so narrowly limited, and yet still be at all effective.

    This leads me to believe that this law, the way Berman is describing it is absolutely useless and no one will ever have any opportunity to use it for any purpose. But then why is it being purchased? Probably because there's some backdoor or technicality, so that someone will be able to use it beyond the scope that Berman is talking about. I'm getting a whiff of that "too good to be true" stench, and think that in a few years Berman will be saying something like "I had no idea it would be abused in that manner."

  • Interesting notification clause (Score:3, Interesting)

    by electroniceric ( 468976 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @08:20PM (#4377853)
    Did anyone note the notification clause Berman mentioned?

    Finally, the safe harbor is lost if the copyright owner fails to notify the Attorney General of the anti-piracy technologies she plans to use, or if she fails to identify herself to an inquiring file-trader. These notification provisions ensure that copyright owners who choose to employ self-help measures will operate in the light of day.


    My first reaction is that this notification clause means that if you ask the person you are trading with whether they are knowlingly giving you a bogus file, then they are obligated by this bill to disclose that. Can that be right? Wouldn't that just mean that you could send a Kazaa IM saying "is this file legit", and if you get back an negative answer go ahead and download. That might be an interesting balance - if you had to do this by hand, it might move file trading back to a level difficulty similar to copying tapes (i.e., not that hard for one, but mass distribution's not worth it for the average consumer), which I think was a good balance.

    Also interesting is the requirement of listing tactics with the AG's office. Is this information available under FOIA? What exactly do the record companies have to disclose?

    Maybe I should peruse the text of the bill before coming up with more theories.
    • Well, I just read the text of bill, and I notice there is very little mention of damage to the network or connectivity providers. If the record companies decide to DDOS the subnet of a couple file traders, that could knock a lot of people offline, but without clear estimates of what such loss of connectivity means, there's not all that much protection for ISPs et al in this bill.

      Another discomfiting idea is that file-trading software is any software "primarily used for exchanging files over a public network". An FTP client technically meets this definiton - not that I'd really expect a judge to buy this, but the vagueness could certainly provide a lot of leeway for the record companies.

      On closer look, the notification clause follows the lines of the right to know your accuser. But it's not very specific either.

      Overall, this bill seems rather vaguely worded to me, and that's a recipe for trouble.

  • Sweet Poison (Score:3, Insightful)

    by phriedom ( 561200 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @08:28PM (#4377899)
    This bill is written in such a very diabolically clever way. It sounds so reasonable and safe, but as they say, the devil is in the details. Berman points to all the safeguards and asks how a reasonable person could possibly be against such a harmless little self-help measure. But there are so many exceptions and limits that those safeguards have no teeth. The most telling thing to me is that the RIAA wouldn't say what they would do if this law was passed that they cannot already do legally. The two examples of actions they would take, (1. seeding P2P with fake files and 2. finding shared files and intiating multiple slow-throughput connections to the host so it accepts no other users) are already legal.

    • To an extent, both of the currently lawful attacks you pose are easy to hold off.

      seeding P2P with fake files

      The nature of P2P file sharing systems that use multi-source downloading is that files with a lot of sources will tend to get downloaded more often, and crappy files won't have a lot of sources because they're either deleted before they're shared, or renamed to "* (Promo).mp3" as happened with the first copies of "Barenaked Ladies - Pinch Me.mp3" that went on the P2P systems.

      finding shared files and intiating multiple slow-throughput connections to the host so it accepts no other users

      My P2P software already detects this. If less than 67% of the nominal outgoing bandwidth (set in the Throttle box) is used over a 60-second window, it starts another queued upload.

  • One must remember that if a copyright owner _were_ accused of damaging someone's computer, it would still be up to the plaintiff to prove that the copyright owner violated one of the safeguards in the Berman bill. Considering that most copyright owners who will use this bill are corporations with millions invested in lawyers, any individual who wishes to sue them under one of the bill's safeguards will find himself fighting an uphill legal battle against some of the country's best lawyers.

    As we've seen in the past, simply the threat of legal difficulties is enough to make people settle a case they might have every reason to win. If this bill passes, we may see the media companies using their vast legal strength to strongarm people away from valid lawsuits.
    • SO... They don't have to prove that I'm trading illegal files before they can act against me, but I need to prove that they damaged me before I can act against them??

      Does anyone else notice the scales of justice tipping precariously close to one horizon??

  • Berman doesn't talk about money he has taken.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by i_want_you_to_throw_ ( 559379 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @08:34PM (#4377933) Journal
    From the TV/Movies/Music industry.

    Yeah baby, our boy has sucked on the Entertainment tit for ..

    Ready for this?

    $1 9 4 , 6 4 1 [opensecrets.org]

    He is going to lie at every chance possible because like ALL politicians, Republican or Democrat, he walks whatever line pays him money.

    There are no exceptions, Berman is quite literally full of shit and acting only in the best interest of his masters.
    • You are far, far too cynical.

      Berman isn't acting only in the best interest of his masters.

      He's acting in his own best interests. They only happen to coincide with RIAA's, insomuch that his interest is in getting big bucks from RIAA.

      Offer him $194,642 and you'll find that his interests suddenly happen to coincide with yours!

      You gotta love politicians, 'cause it's illegal to shoot 'em...

  • A brilliant burden shift (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FuddChuckles ( 581257 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @08:36PM (#4377939)
    If a copyright owner can find a way to only impair the piracy of her copyrighted work on a P2P network, she will have no liability. A copyright owner who does more will still be liable.

    If you think about it, this shifts the burden entirely on the P2P user.

    The Congressman is correct when he states that there is no way that Record Companies can drag 150 million downloaders into court. What this legislation does is allow the record companies to take matters into their own hands and then see who has the stones to come back and sue the record company if they go too far.

    Think about it: If a company sends a virus to your computer that wipes out all mp3 files, whether legitimate or not, are you going to sue the record companies? I don't know about any other /.ers out there, but I certainly can't afford my own in-house counsel. If I get my files wiped out, I'll curse, I'll scream, I'll rant on this website (for damned sure), but I won't be able to afford a suit.

    I think the record companies are betting on this. Much like the way they do business in general, they'll just sit back and make everything and everyone come to them.

    Brilliant. I think barring a class action suit or a really rich person who gets a vital business document wiped out, the companies are pretty safe from anybody watchdogging excessive vigilantism.

    Although....how ironic would it be if Shawn Fanning came back to sue the very companies that killed Naptser? Almost makes me want to take up a pre-emptive collection.

    -FC
  • Congressman Berman says "For legitimate online business models to take hold, illegal P2P downloading must be made more difficult". From this premise, he proceeds to rationalize the provisions of the bill. I disagree with his premise. I propose the following rewording:
    For legitimate online business models to take hold, illegal P2P downloading must be made the less attractive option.
    Making P2P services more difficult doesn't address the issue of why otherwise decent people choose to infringe copyright with reckless abandon. His proposed legislation provides a technological solution to a sociological problem. As many who read this are aware, such solutions don't work. They only further encourage violators of the law to seek out other avenues, or in some cases with especially creative types, to enter into a technological arms race with the copyrighters.

    Right now, we are in the middle of just such an arms race, an Intellectual Property Cold War if you will. This proposed bill is another Cuban missile crisis waiting to happen. Please, Mr Berman, don't let old mistakes lead to new disasters. Work with the Recording and Movie industries to find a viable business model that will mutually benefit them, their artists, and the public at large, one which will make the value of breaking copyright laws not worth anyone's time. Giving out sticks doesn't lead to more money, it just leads to everyone getting a black eye.

    • >> Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

      Isn't Rand's philosophy all about property and its rightful ownership? What's difference is there between a government that takes your property (and legally, as it happened in her books), and a bunch of thieves appropriating your property and trading it behind your back? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the solution to the problems raised by Rand to simply quit the game (and if you wanted to take it all the way, start your own?). I don't recall one instance where Rand advocated theft as part of her objectivist philosophy. Am I wrong here?

  • I'm really suspicious (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ca1v1n ( 135902 ) <{moc.cinortonaug} {ta} {koons}> on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @08:49PM (#4378003)
    To hear him tell it, the bill doesn't allow anything that is currently illegal. The bill also obviously doesn't say what it DOES allow. To hear his description of this very vague law, it would seem to be completely unnecessary. Therefore, the fact that it's out there implies that it actually does something. Therefore, he must be lying.
  • In order to prevent the massive graft and fraud perpitrated by our elected officials, today the "Sane Legislation Protection Act" was proposed in the House, it allows voters who participated in the last election to take a baseball bat to the body of their elected officials, when and if they vote in a manner inconsistant with the platform on which they ran.

    In order to ensure that this does not lead to massive abuse, citizen voters will need to file notice with their municipality prior to any thrashing. No evidence is required as it is assumed that a full confession will be produced as a matter of course. Additionally, any damage to property not directly on the body of the elected official, under a $250 threshold, is specifically protected as part of the cost of ensuring freedom to the citizens of this great land.

    Without a corporate sponser it is assumed this legislation is dead on arrival.
  • The music distribution industry is killing itself.

    Running a business means one thing that they miss:
    Find a customer need/desire
    -then-
    Fill the customer need/desire in a way that satisfies the customer while making a profit.

    They don't have their eye on the ball any more. The customer doesn't want what they have to sell in the format they want to sell it in. Therefore, the customers are looking elsewhere.

    Because the customer does not want what they have to sell, they will either go out of business (however long that takes) or learn to fill the customers needs/wants. Either way the "modern" music consumer will win in the end.

    If this law passes or not, music consumers will find a way to get their wants/needs filled. The horse is out of the barn. The consumer will work around the RIAA roadblocks in order to fill their need/want of a certain style of music listening.

    -Pete

  • Can I attack back? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pheonix ( 14223 ) <.gro.etaivolbi. .ta. .todhsals.> on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @09:03PM (#4378067) Homepage
    Okay, the RIAA is more than welcome to launch all of the attacks on my system they wish to. I reserve the right to viciously retaliate with whatever is handy. If I have a CCW and some person takes a shot at me with a gun, so I pull mine and fire back... it doesn't matter that the person was an off duty cop, they didn't tell me, and they tried to kill me, self defense.

    I suggest we all just prepare to have very fun "self defense" tools ready.
  • This chucklehead is my congresscritter.

    And my senators are Boxer (0wn3d by MPAA/RIAA) and Feinstein. (0wn3d by MPAA/RIAA)

    The guy who's challenging Berman for the 28th District on the Republican side would rather be Mayor of the San Fernando Valley, and is (not) campaigning accordingly. There's a Libertarian, but as a third-party candidate he has two chances: slim and none.

    Representative government? Ha! What a fsckn joke.

  • Read The Bill. End of Story. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @09:08PM (#4378098) Journal
    By and large, what Rep. Berman says is irrelevant. What matters is what is in the bill.

    He can clarify until he's blue in the face, but until he changes the contents of the bill, he's talking out his hat. Everything anyone has said about the bill, every criticism, is still in full force. This does very little to negate any of it.

    The exception is that some courts can consider the "intent of Congress" if they want, but depending on that to clearly define the purpose of the bill is awfully cavalier, at best.
  • I am not a file trader and I cannot stand people that distribute others hard work. However I don't think anyone should be given this type of vigilante authority. I will guarantee that anyone attacking my machine for any reason will be immediately sought out and destroyed. Oh hell pass the bill we need some incentive to create reverse attack p2p firewalls.

  • My conclusion: Berman's a f***ing liar. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BeBoxer ( 14448 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @09:56PM (#4378297)
    Legal notice: the following statements represent my opinion, and is not to be taken as a statment of fact. Now, with that libel safe harbor in place :-)

    Your a f***ing liar Berman! Plain and simple. That article is almost entirely bullshit. I can't believe an elected representative would stand up and put their name on bald faced lies which are easily discovered. Where to start:

    If a copyright owner can find a way to only impair the piracy of her copyrighted work on a P2P network, she will have no liability. A copyright owner who does more will still be liable. For instance, if her actions have some other effect - such as knocking a corporate network offline, or wiping out files - she will remain liable under whatever previous theory was available.

    This is a lie. The law provides a clear exemption for copyright owners who disrupt the distribution of other files on a p2p network. From the bills list of things which cause a copyright owner to lose the protection of the bill:

    "(A) impairs the availability within a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network of a computer file or data that does not contain a work, or portion thereof, in which the copyright owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106, except as may be reasonably necessary to impair the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of such a work, or portion thereof, in violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under section 106;" (emphasis added)

    You could drive a truck thru that loophole, which Berman doesn't mention. If fact, his statment A copyright owner who does more will still be liable. is simply a lie.

    Moving on in his article, we find this little gem:

    The bill specifically states that the safe harbor does not allow a copyright owner to delete or alter any file or data on the computer of a file trader. Thus, a copyright owner can't send a virus to a P2P pirate. Nor can it remove any files on the pirate's computer. Nor can it even remove files that include the pirated works.

    This qualification is no where in the bill. The entire list of actions which constitute a copyright holder overstepping their bounds is listed on page three. And There are only three of them. The first is (A) listed above. The second is (B)causes economic loss to any person other than affected file traders

    But the third is the real killer.

    (C) causes economic loss of more than $50.00 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader, other than economic loss involving computer files or data made available through a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network that contain works in which the owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106; or (emphasis added)

    So if they can't delete the infringing files, why are the infriging files exempted for the amount of the "economic loss"? How could those files possibly involve any economic loss if the copyright owner can't "delete or alter" the files? Jesus, I can't believe a lie that blanant.

    Another non-existant protection:

    The safe harbor is also lost if the anti-piracy action causes more than de minimis loss to the property of the P2P pirate. This limitation represents a recognition that even pirates should not be seriously harmed by copyright owners.

    Once again, this is nowhere in the list of actions which cause a copyright owner to lose their "safe harbor". Nowhere. To claim otherwise is quite simply a lie. Once again.

    Finally, the safe harbor is lost if the copyright owner fails to notify the Attorney General of the anti-piracy technologies she plans to use, or if she fails to identify herself to an inquiring file-trader. These notification provisions ensure that copyright owners who choose to employ self-help measures will operate in the light of day.

    Fails to identify themselves to an inquiring file-trader? The requirements in the bill force the affected party to determine the copyright owner who took the action thru their own means and contact them. After the fact. So when I get up in the morning and a bunch of files are missing, how am I supposed to know what happened to them? Or why they're gone? Or who did it? Write a letter to every single RIAA member asking if they did it? Oh yeah, that's really the "light of day". More bullshit if you ask me.

    An aggrieved party - perhaps a P2P user or an ISP - can sue the copyright owner for any remedy available under current law. For instance, the aggrieved party might be able to bring a civil action under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or a state denial of service statute.

    Sure, but there's just one hoop to jump thru. You have to get permission from the Attorney General first! And if the AG doesn't like your claim, too bad. Game over. No process for appealing such a decision is granted. Since when am I required to obtain the AG's permission to file a civil lawsuit? The only reason for such a clause is to provide a way to reduce the number of lawsuits RIAA members would be subjected to under this bill. After all, why let the courts decide civil suits when a political appointee like the AG can do it!

    Gah, I'm so mad I could spit. You're a liar Berman. Liar liar, pants on fire. Anybody who votes for this guy next fall is a moron in my opinion.
  • Though I'm not sure that he accurately represented his bill, as I haven't read his bill. I believe one lowers one's intelligence and writing level by reading legal documents; they're all poorly written, and I don't want to subjugate myself to that. However, after posting this message, for the befit of /. [I'm sure all of you want my words of wisdom (;-)], I'll read the bill. I'll post a commentary on the bill later.

    Firstly, I don't support this type of bill. Let it be known off the bat and out front that I support file-sharing services, no matter what files are being shared. I believe in the freedom of information. However, I would accept some limitations, were copyrighted music to be limited to only 10 years.

    But, assuming we go with this law, I have some serious concerns with it. All of his safegaurds will prove irrelevant if we have to PROVE that the copyright owners stepped outside of the protected bounds. The bill should state that copyright owners have to PROVE that they were within the protected bounds.

    I am also concerned about an escalation of counter-efforts between P2P developers and the Intellectual Property industry. Invariably, P2P developers will win, as we develop under either OSS or FS models, which allow for problems to be rapidly fixed. However, its still a problem. More and more layers of code will be added as P2P developers code to counter the IP-industry's attacks. This will contribute towards hyper-bloatation of software code, and lots of wasted effort in which will amount to a futile cycle.

    I'm also concerned about the minimal amount of damage that IP owners can be held liable for, something like $200 dollars worth. I may not have $200 dollars worth of software on my computer, since I've downloaded it for free from Debian.org, and you couldn't put an $200 dollar market price on the data-files I own (things I've written, pictures, icons, etc). But to ME, its worth a lot. To me, the information I have on my computer is worth more than my car.

    Aside from that, even if this bill implements the protections I suggest to punish all transgressions by IP interests, more users would still be harmed (many) by the attacks of IP interests than are today (nearly none, as no IP interest dares launch such an attack).

  • Disingenious discussion (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @11:53PM (#4378765)
    One of the issues not addressed by Berman in the article or the bill itself is this: the mere presence of an item on a p2p network does not prove infringement. How are the copyright holders supposed to prove that someone is infringing on their copyright?

    Most of the time, determination that a violation of law has taken place is done by the court system. Berman's bill has no provision for determining whether a given copyright is actually being infringed, nor does it specify a process that a copyright holder would go through to determine that a copyright is being infringed.

    This and this alone should be enough to cause problems. By allowing private entities to determine and prosecute violations of law, the bill essentially places police power in the hands of private entities.

    Write your congressman to complain! Most of them are lawyers, so should understand reasonable arguments. One plus is the bill is relatively short, so should be easy to comprehend.

    Only you can prevent Bad Law!

  • if you think this is scary, wait until the TCPA... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mudweasel ( 3199 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @11:54PM (#4378770)
    once we are all required to have a fritz chip and MSFT palladium software (and yes this bill is out there and being pushed thanks to the right good gentleman from NC) this will all be irrelevant. it will happen automatically. all your files will be compared to a central DB to determine if you own them. by Gen 2, your own microprocessor will do this. no new software will run unless it does. if you don't own the rights, it will be deleted by your own system. any software, anywhere can be instantly revoked in this manner if your PC is on a network. give this some thought. now imagine a new breed of virus. picture the whole US getting a format c:. then go vote.
  • That =should= have been "P2P Privacy Prevention Act".

    (Well, that's how I originally misread the headline.. tho I'm not so sure it isn't more accurate.)

  • I'm confused about what measures Berman believes would be acceptable, after reading the many disclaimers here.

    This bill makes more sense when combined with the trend of media consolidation.

    For instance, Time/Warner/AOL is a single company that controls both a large number of copyrights, and also a large portion of the internet infrastructure. Under this bill, TWAOL could develop and deploy router filters that would watch for packets that match the signature of P2P transfers of Time/Warner copyrighted works, and drop the packets.

    In other words, it is a model for a censored internet -- placing big media in the position of a gatekeeper -- determine what data is allowed to cross the wires, and what data may not be transmitted.

  • Let's appl Berman's logic to slander/libel laws (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JetScootr ( 319545 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @02:19AM (#4379124) Journal
    Assume everything Berman says about limits to the law is true, just to avoid bogging down in the details. Let's look at what this law is really about. Let's apply Berman's P2P "piracy protection" theory to laws about slander/libel: I have the right that only the truth should be told about me - anyone spreading lies can be sued for the damages it causes me. Therefore, I should have the right to block content on the internet to anything anyone says that I feel is slanderous. Further, I should be immune from prosecution if I do so. I promise I won't trash their hard drive - but I will shut them up and unilaterally deny them their free speech rights so long as I have good faith in doing so. I don't need the courts to validate that I'm right and the other person is wrong - no need to bother with law enforcement, probable cause, any of that. If I say it's libel, then I can enforce the law myself without the help (or hindrance) of the courts. Anybody else see anything wrong with this theory?

Slashdot Top Deals

Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!

Close