Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Censorship United States Your Rights Online

RIAA Parses 'P2P' As 'Peer 2 Porn' 722

watchful.babbler writes "Having largely failed to galvanize public and political action against P2P systems, the RIAA has mounted a campaign to link P2P systems with child pornography (NYT, reg. required). The result is H. R. 2885 (available via Thomas), which has the remarkably clear and honest intent 'To prohibit the distribution of peer-to-peer file trading software in interstate commerce.' Amongst other things, the proposed law will require the creation of 'do-not-install beacon products' (do-not-ask, you really don't want to know), force P2P apps to include warning labels that users may be exposed to pornography, and require P2P developers and distributors to obtain and store users' personal information -- ostensibly for age verification, but one can think of other reasons that the RIAA might be interested in that info. Worse yet, even given the 'operation exemption' (Sec. (4)(b)(1)(C) in the bill), applications such as AIM and iChat appear to fall under these provisions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Parses 'P2P' As 'Peer 2 Porn'

Comments Filter:
  • Please, everyone knows that pedophiles exclusively use Freenet, due to its anoninimity.
  • Google link, no reg (Score:4, Informative)

    by adamjaskie ( 310474 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:20PM (#6888638) Homepage
    Here is the google news link, no NYT registration required. Aiming at Pornography to Hit Music Piracy [nytimes.com]
    • by jrockway ( 229604 ) * <jon-nospam@jrock.us> on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:26PM (#6888685) Homepage Journal
      Or you can log on to nytimes.com with the username noreg and password noreg. It's nice :)
    • by tugrul ( 750 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:11PM (#6888969)
      H.R.2885 [loc.gov]

      Check the cosponsor list, your congressperson might be one! [loc.gov]

      For more info: Bill Summary & Status [loc.gov]

    • You can find the PDF version of the GAO report at the following link: "File Sharing Programs: Child Pornography is Readily Accesible Over Peer-to-Peer Networks." [gao.gov]

    • by fm6 ( 162816 )
      Every time we get a nytimes.com link, somebody posts a way to bypass their registration system. Or several ways. Sometimes its half the discussion!

      Since nytimes.com really insists on having a registration system (stupid, I agree, but they seem stuck on the idea), they eventually find ways to close the bypass. I sure hope they don't tell Google to stop spidering their site!

      Registration is free, and you can tell them not to spam you. Go and register, and spare us all the noise.

    • by jadis_194a ( 692628 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @06:19PM (#6889946)
      http://www.house.gov/writerep/

      My letter:

      Dear Congressman Inslee:

      I am a registered voter in your district, and serving my country in the Navy; currently stationed in Pensacola, Florida. I am writing to voice my strong opposition to HR 2885, "Protecting Children from Peer-to-Peer Pornography Act of 2003".

      The findings in Section 2 of the bill could easily apply to regular web browsing (HTTP) or USNET Newsgroup readers. As reported on the 7th of September 2003, by Saul Hansell, in the New York Times, "Aiming at Pornography to Hit Music Piracy", the RIAA strongly backs this bill, obstinately for the "protection of children". The truth is that this is another attempt by the RIAA to infringe upon the rights of consumers, to limit the use of new technology to distribute music, and to prevent independent musicians from legally distributing their music outside of the RIAA's monopoly.

      The irony of the RIAA's stance is that they are guilty of sexualizing children through the behavior of performers like Brittany Spears, Christina Aguilera, and other young women who project a hyper-sexual image. Teen and pre-teen girls view these performers as roll models, and try to dress and act in their image. Young girls dressing in skimpy outfits encourages the deviant adults who prey on children. The RIAA and MTV put children at greater risk due to the behavior of the artists they promote.

      Child pornography is evil, and those peddling in such material should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, excessive government regulation of an entire class of software in the effort to "protect children" is the wrong direction we should take. Sufficient laws are on the books to effectively prosecute Child Pornographers, and more importantly to protect children. HR 2885 is an oblique attempt by the RIAA to further protect its monopoly on the creation and distribution of music.
      If this bill comes to a vote, please vote "NO".

      Very Respectfully,
      Craig Newcomb
  • by TWX ( 665546 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:20PM (#6888639)
    ... does that mean that they're continually exposing themselves to child pornography at will? Wouldn't that make them party to the crime of spreading child porn?
    • by ScottGant ( 642590 ) <scott_gant@nOSPAm.sbcglobal.netNOT> on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:58PM (#6888903) Homepage
      Perhaps the police should look on some of the RIAA's computers...so they can try to use the infamous Pete Townsend defense "we were just doing research".
    • Worse (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JediTrainer ( 314273 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:32PM (#6889111)
      does that mean that they're continually exposing themselves to child pornography at will?

      They are doing worse. They continually market underage (or barely of age) girls in a way that sexualizes them (and their blind followers, the pre-teen crowd). Just look at what the latest so-called pop artists are wearing nowadays. Now look at the 12-year-olds at your local school.

      I charge that the RIAA is responsible for creating the image of children (the ones on TV and our own) in sexually suggestive clothing, poses and attitudes.

      No, I'm not a parent. But someday I'd like to be (getting married next year).
      • Re:Worse (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Fishstick ( 150821 )
        Agree completely. reminds me of song lyrics:

        We got rockstars in the Whitehouse
        All our popstars look like porn
        All my heroes hit the highway
        They don't hang out here no more


        I mean, yeah... there's nothing wrong with hot-looking popstars, but the current trend of promoting jail-bait-looking hotties is pretty unsettling. ..and yes, I _am_ a parent.

  • by Machina70 ( 700076 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:21PM (#6888645)
    Please remember the DMCA

    So many people ignored it, simply because it was unconstitutional didn't stop it from becoming a law.

    • Which is why... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ProfessionalCookie ( 673314 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:25PM (#6889063) Journal
      Which is why all RIAA CD's should include a warning label that says:
      WARNING: Purchasing this CD may cause you to lose many rights and freedoms that you otherwise might enjoy. In the United States of America you may lose all rights and forfit your soul to our organization.

      That sounds appropriate.
      Insert multi-subject RIAA rant here

      Cheers, Ed.
  • warning labels? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kegetys ( 659066 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:21PM (#6888647) Homepage
    "...force P2P apps to include warning labels that users may be exposed to pornography"

    They should put those labels on all web browsers too then.
    • by aeinome ( 672135 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:24PM (#6888669) Journal
      Yeah, and while they're at stating the obvious for stupid people with good lawyers, why not put them outside strip clubs? If only the world had less idiots...
    • by Angram ( 517383 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:24PM (#6888672)
      I suppose we should put them on the insides of people's eyelids, as well. You can be 'exposed to pornography' walking down the street.
    • "...force P2P apps to include warning labels that users may be exposed to pornography"

      And they think that's going to discourage people?

  • This is logical. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pegasus Team ( 681951 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:21PM (#6888650)
    This is a logical step for them. After all, they want to villify the program - since capturing the hearts and minds is the only strategy that'll effectively work for them, because less people = less sharing = less effective. Same strategy as the lawsuits they're mounting against Kazaa users. They know they can't sue everyone, so they're trying to make the service unusable. Your local P2P network's only as good as the users who use it. Write your local congressperson and denounce this strongly.
  • They also use email, ftp, http, nntp... shall we outlaw those applications? (I know some of them are protocols, smeg off.) Doesn't make any sense. I must once again call for viruses which install freenet and make people freenet nodes, sharing all media files on someone's computer.
    • by gilesjuk ( 604902 ) <giles.jones@zen . c o .uk> on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:40PM (#6888804)
      On p2p the porn isn't waved in your face, but some spams are very explicit and you can't really avoid it unless you're clued up on spam filtering.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:44PM (#6888829)
      What you fail to understand is that their answer would be a resounding YES. Media conglomerate see the net in a very different way from you or me. Its primary function is to transfer copyrighted content from producers and distributors (them) to uncreative consumers (everyone else). It can't do that without strict controls on the transfer of ALL data. Ergo, all data transfer should be strictly controlled - by them. You're trying to paint a picture of logical absurdity, but they see it instead as logical extension.

      Wrap your head around this worldview for a minute and you'll be much better placed to oppose them. If they succeed in getting laws passed against P2P (and they will simply keep trying until they do - it makes no difference how many times they fail, because they only need one success to set precedents they can build on) then they will certainly move on to other methods of data transfer, and eventually the Internet and personal computing as a whole.
  • Final straw (Score:2, Insightful)

    by s0rbix ( 629316 )
    This is it. This is the straw that broke the camels back in my mind. We need to find a way to get everyone to fight the RIAA with us. I'm registeringwith the EFF... I need to know what to do next. What are the most effective methods of protest (short of a suicide bombing).
    • Re:Final straw (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You could always go see (not write to, not phone, but get out of your mom's basement and visit) your congress representative and talk to them about this. Of course, you may want to plan out what you're going to say, with clear, logical arguments instead of "LIEK OMG D00D THIS IS SOOO BAD ITS NTO EVAN FUNNAY THIS IS TEH SUX0R!@#"
    • Re:Final straw (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:31PM (#6888731)
      What are the most effective methods of protest (short of a suicide bombing).

      Stop giving them your money.

      No, really.

      Stop giving them your money.

      I know it's hard. (Although it's a hell of a lot easier than blowing yourself up, I suppose.)

      But that's the only way we can get through to them.

      Stop giving them your money.
  • Nope, only music (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jrockway ( 229604 ) * <jon-nospam@jrock.us> on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:23PM (#6888667) Homepage Journal
    I think that this is hillarious. Porn seems to be the one thing in our society that everyone hates (in public anyway). They say it's bad, immoral, etc. So the RIAA is trying to associate file sharing with child porn. Now, if you use filesharing clients, you're a pornographer. Great.

    Unfortunately for them, a search for a common song rarely turns up porn. Not a lot of porn around with MP3 headers. So rather than implementing a list of all subscribers, file sharing services could filter out all non-music files. Just like the RIAA made Napster do with certain songs.

    So with only music on the P2P network, the RIAA could only object to "their" "copyright" being infringed upon. And nobody would care.

    fp?
    • Re:Nope, only music (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kien ( 571074 ) <kien@memberDEBIAN.fsf.org minus distro> on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:37PM (#6888782) Journal
      And this from the article:

      And on Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to look into the connection between file-swapping services and pornography, called by its chairman, Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican of Utah.

      This Orrin Hatch? [slashdot.org]

      Something sure smells rotten in Washington DC.

      --K.
    • Re:Nope, only music (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tarnin ( 639523 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:39PM (#6888795)
      "Unfortunately for them, a search for a common song rarely turns up porn. Not a lot of porn around with MP3 headers."

      This is an intresting statement. While true, for how long? We know that the RIAA (or an oursourced company) is interjecting junk mp3's into the system now, whats to stop them from retagging porn with mp3 headers to make their point?

      Ya ya it would probably be illegal but looking at their track record they are toeing the line now as it is by sending out mass supinias (sp?) with little to no evidence. Isn't stoping them one bit though is it?

      This whole idea scares the crap out of me to put it bluntly. A massive collection of lawyers who are more underhanded then most. We know that they pull every underhanded and questionably legal stunt they can to get what they want. Now I'm wondering if the cops are going to be knocking on my door because I use DC or bittorent and claim im part of some child porn ring.

      Another thing, this is beyond coat tailing a law, this is pretty much blatenly lying or stateing the overly obvious to get their way. One has to think that the public or atleast congress will see that not only is this NOT any of their business (since when did the RIAA care about porn or even kids?) but is nothing more than a thinly vailed attack against totally legal programs.

      Of course, the DMCA passed and is still a law.

      Wow, not only is the RIAA kicking and screaming all the way down, but now they are calling in imaginary pink elephants to help!
      • "This is an intresting statement. While true, for how long? We know that the RIAA (or an oursourced company) is interjecting junk mp3's into the system now, whats to stop them from retagging porn with mp3 headers to make their point?"

        So when I go to open the pr0n-labeled-as-mp3 in Winamp...its broken, I delete it, and try to download from another source. I seriously doubt how anybody would think....HEY, this must be a movie renamed as an mp3!

      • If pron is marked as an MP3 file, Windows (which is what most people use) will try to open it as such. IT won't work. Epople will delete teh file, that they presume to be screwed up.
    • Re:Nope, only music (Score:3, Interesting)

      by __past__ ( 542467 )
      On the other hand, it would be news to me that the RIAA represents the porn industry. So, if most P2Pers are looking not for music, but for that nasty pictures, how do they justify sniffing around their private files, and batch-suing them?
  • Protest! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:24PM (#6888671)


    And you can all protest this by downloading lots of pr0n this weekend.

  • As a guy... (Score:5, Funny)

    by CGP314 ( 672613 ) <CGP@ColinGregor y P a l mer.net> on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:24PM (#6888673) Homepage
    "As a guy in the record industry and as a parent, I am shocked that these services are being used to lure children to stuff that is really ugly," said Andrew Lack, the chief executive of Sony Music Entertainment.


    Has this guy even seen Kazaa? Doesn't he know you have to type in what you are looking for?
    • Has this guy even seen Kazaa? Doesn't he know you have to type in what you are looking for?

      its unsurprising that he comes across lots of kiddie porn on the internet really if thats what he searches for...

      o wait.... what am i saying :(

    • Re:As a guy... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cornelius Chesterfie ( 604463 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:36PM (#6888771)
      ""As a guy in the record industry and as a parent, I am shocked that these services are being used to lure children to stuff that is really ugly," said Andrew Lack, the chief executive of Sony Music Entertainment."

      He didn't seem to be shocked when his barbies (there's no way I'm calling them artists) were tongue-kissing then strip-teasing in front of millions of kids.
      • Re:As a guy... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @05:30PM (#6889726) Homepage Journal
        well.. you see, he is shocked that someone else is already doing work on the area they are expanding their business to (because 'music' just doesn't cut enough anymore for them.) more permanently. they want to be the sole distributor of hormone kicking content, pron is much easier to sell than making music that will sell on it's own especially if you can disquise that pron to be 'publicly correct' so that it gets into daytime mainstream media, so that you can get the most profitable market for pron(12-18years, that is, kids-soon-to-be-adults-wanting-to-have-sex-now-but -not-quite-confident-enough-to-actually-do-it-so-m asturbation-is-king) to buy the stuff legally and in a fashion that is accepted and even encouraged.

        heck, even elvis was pr0n(admittedly he made some good music as well but mostly he was pron for teenage girls, and they got exploited to sillyness with all the elvis movies and shitload of songs).

        yeah i don't make much difference between ass marketing and straight pr0n, except straight XXX pron is honestly what it is, most of the time it lacks the fake glamour that 'music' videos have too that makes the girls wanna act like whores-for-free.

        and yea i used three different words for pr0n=porno=pron, and actually i am not against porno at all(except if actors are forced to it), and i'm not for making distributing it shameful and the age-limit should be around 16 because at least then everyone figures out how to access it ONE WAY OR ANOTHER anyways(be it your dads video/mag collection, your uncles video/mag collection, shoplift, loan from a friend, buy on a trip to country *, vcr late night tv, hotel tv, watching baywatch, mtv late night videos, or gosh: dial in bbs's and internet!). i'm just against hypocrats that use it as a weapon to achieve their own goals.

        all that being said.. man do the teens nowadays have it easy.. i had to nick mags from my brother at least before we got 14.4k modem and even then the best jpg bbs's around here had ratios!

    • by vitaflo ( 20507 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:45PM (#6888835) Homepage
      "As a guy in the record industry and as a parent, I am shocked that these services are being used to lure children to stuff that is really ugly," said Andrew Lack, the chief executive of Sony Music Entertainment.

      Now the real question is, is he talking about child pornography or the music Sony produces?
    • Re:As a guy... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Thing 1 ( 178996 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @04:53PM (#6889547) Journal
      Has this guy even seen Kazaa? Doesn't he know you have to type in what you are looking for?

      Well, I tried to get Matrix Reloaded when it first came out in theaters, and some people had renamed other movies to it (why, I'm not sure; perhaps to boost their "share rating" but they should have just gotten Kazaa Lite).

      I downloaded 7 different movies before finding it at a BitTorrent site (most of the torrents are correct). I got I Spy, Almost Famous, Joy Ride, Saving Private Ryan among others -- and one of them was Swedish porn with money shots and everything: Lustgarden.

      I don't have kids, but I wouldn't want my kids searching for Matrix Reloaded and getting porn instead. Yeah, it's not the kiddie porn that this idiot is blathering about, but the point is you've got to parent your children! You can't sit them in front of a box, any box, and ignore them. You need to work through issues with them, watch what they're doing, offer advice and corrections, and lock down the computer so they can't install software (if you want to shelter them).

      They'll get to an age where they don't need sheltering, but until then it's the parents' responsibility to shelter them the way the parents see fit -- and it is most definitely not the government's responsibility.

  • Their best move yet? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by I'm a racist. ( 631537 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:25PM (#6888675) Homepage Journal
    Could this be the most effective attempt on their part, so far? It's hard to argue against them, without being labelled as a supporter of kiddie-porn. It doesn't matter how legitimate your claims against this bill, you'll still have to put up with the obnoxious cries of, "think of the children!"

    This is really slick, on their part, because they can try to humiliate their opponents, reglardless of the validity of their arguments. How can people easily claim that this is just profiteering and securing a closed market in which to play?

    Obviously, I don't want to see this go through, and it likely won't (not on the first try, anyway). But, it is an interesting tactic.
    • by smiff ( 578693 )
      Could this be the most effective attempt on their part, so far? It's hard to argue against them, without being labelled as a supporter of kiddie-porn.

      If you can't argue against them, argue along side them. The purpose of copyright is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". If congress opposes pornography, why do they promote it with copyrights? The RIAA is not going to be happy if congress cancels copyrights on all sexually-explicit material.

  • Worse yet? Wrong! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    That's great that they include AIM and iChat. We need companies like AOL, Microsoft, Apple, etc with heavy interests in P2P to help put a stop to this bill. They "rent" legislators, too!
  • What's a "beacon"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AEton ( 654737 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:26PM (#6888686)

    The story doesn't explain what the bill sets out a 'beacon' to be, but basically the intent is to (within a year of the bill's passage) develop a US standard for a magical 'beacon' one can set on a computer that will prevent people from installing P2P software on it. While it's a great idea IF YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS (hey, parents can keep kids from using evil Kazaa! and workplaces can prevent employees, too!) it's a stupid act. Stupid act. Anyone who votes for this act should it ever come up in Congress should be publically ridiculed in every venue available.

    I see it's time to start the letter-to-Congress process...

    • by jc42 ( 318812 )
      Yeah, but you know why this is going to fail? It'll fail because everywhere in the world, in the first few years of schooling, one of the main lessons that every teacher is trying to get into their kiddies' heads is that you should always share your toys.

      Now, you may think this is encouraging piracy, socialism, and all those evil things. But the fact is that most pre-school teachers don't see it that way. They see it as necessary socialization of those selfish little monsters. Granted, a tiny minority
  • The association also is planning to offer an amnesty program that would exempt from prosecution people who destroy all their illegally downloaded songs.

    Soo... Does this mean that someone could get immunity from the RIAA by simply deleting all their stuff once they get a court order? Or would they have to do that before the court order?

  • by Phoenix ( 2762 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:27PM (#6888700)
    Oh great! Now I'm going to catch hell from all my customers who run in-house P2P LAN's to share the internet or just to share a printer/fax/copier.

    Thanks RIAA, I'm sending you my Excedrin bill for next month
  • "Compromise" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by po8 ( 187055 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:27PM (#6888701)

    I find this sort of bill among the more reprehensible things our legislature does. This bill has no chance of passage, and the authors undoubtedly know this. Further, if it were to pass it would be the target of a million legal challenges.

    The purpose of this bill is almost certainly to force a "compromise" bill that achieves the achievable portion of these effects. By staking out an extreme position, the sponsors paint opponents as staking out the opposite extreme, and suggest that the difference be split.

    Honest congressfolk: don't give in. There is no honorable compromise here. P2P is just folks communicating via computer---to restrict the medium of the net is the beginning of the end of free speech in America and around the world. I would rather see our civil liberties go down fighting than turn to the dark side voluntarily.

  • by agent dero ( 680753 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:28PM (#6888704) Homepage
    I got my M$ Monopoly, SCO, and RIAA news today.

    Now just give me some newly released Apple G5 benchmarks and the day will be perfect :-)
  • by CGP314 ( 672613 ) <CGP@ColinGregor y P a l mer.net> on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:29PM (#6888710) Homepage
    They are trying to make paying for music more attractive through legal downloading services, and in the case of Universal Music Group, the world's largest record company, slashing the price of most its CD's by 30 percent

    Wow. 30 whole percent. What's that leave the profit margin at? $12 on a $15 dollar CD? I'll bet most of that %30 is coming out of the artists paycheck. Whoops! They never made %30 to begin with.
  • by eshefer ( 12336 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:31PM (#6888728) Homepage Journal
    "warning this contains explicite..."

    interesting. since the RIAA's members are promoting so much smut this days which is passed as "art" by them - eminem anyone?

    This strategy seems bizzar to me. the RIAA should know what those "warning - explicite lyrics" stickers did for rap and hip hop..

  • Well then... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tsa ( 15680 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:33PM (#6888751) Homepage
    I think they have the wrong target. They should go for banning (photo)camera's. And let's not forget pens, brushes, paper and paint. They can be used to CREATE child porn. You always have to fight the root of the problem. O by the way, children can make very sounds that make people that are susceptible to such a thing very horny. Ever listened to a children's record? Here in Holland we have Kinderen voor Kinderen (children for children). Every year or so a new record with children's songs sung by childern appears in the shops. Who knows what can happen when people listen to that stuff... I say we ban the whole recording industry altogether. It's gone far enough.
  • Only in America (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nnet ( 20306 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:33PM (#6888752) Journal
    This may work in the US, but the US is merely but ONE country with Internet access. The RIAA has no teeth outside the US, so in effect all they're doing is trying to create an island on the Internet. Good luck.
  • Choice Quote (Score:5, Insightful)

    by antiMStroll ( 664213 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:37PM (#6888775)
    "As a guy in the record industry and as a parent, I am shocked that these services are being used to lure children to stuff that is really ugly," said Andrew Lack, the chief executive of Sony Music Entertainment.

    Portraying the intent of P2P app developers in this manner is beneath contempt. Hiding behind his "shock" and "parenthood" while making them is cowardice. Coming from the upper eschelons of Sony, a company which has released more than its share of violent, sexual content in the form of movies and games, is pure hypocrisy. 'Lack' is truly an apt name for such an individual.

  • PORNO.txt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CGP314 ( 672613 ) <CGP@ColinGregor y P a l mer.net> on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:37PM (#6888780) Homepage
    A study in March by the General Accounting Office found that KaZaA would be effective for someone looking for child pornography. The agency searched for 12 terms associated with child pornography, such as "incest" and "underage." It did not actually download the files it found, but it determined that 42 percent of them had titles or descriptions associated with pornographic images of children.

    Didn't actually download them huh. Well, they must be porn. I'm now off to download everything on project Gutenberg and rename all the files 'porn underage kiddies sluts with barnyard animals.txt'. Won't the RIAA be disapointed when they find copies of Emma and The War of the Worlds.
  • Best quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lonesome phreak ( 142354 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:39PM (#6888796) Journal
    KaZaA is just like Joe Camel," she said referring to the cartoon logo that had been used by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings to promote its Camel cigarette brand. "KaZaA has done an incredible job of attracting young people to their site, and as a result they have been really able to attack children."

    I don't think I've ever heard Kazaa or such being associated with a product image specifically created to get kids to damage their health. She (Laura A. Ahearn, the director of Parents for Megan's Law) makes it sound like Kazaa is luring "kids" and then just giving them child porn.

    I wonder how much she is getting paid to say stupid crap like that.
  • by Zakabog ( 603757 ) <john AT jmaug DOT com> on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:40PM (#6888807)
    "As a guy in the record industry and as a parent, I am shocked that these services are being used to lure children to stuff that is really ugly," said Andrew Lack, the chief executive of Sony Music Entertainment.

    Some of the most vile, disgusting, and just plain horrible stuff is distributed on P2P networks. And after your kids download all the Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys and N*Sync albums, their's pornography too!
  • Yikes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mrs. Grundy ( 680212 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:49PM (#6888853) Homepage
    I couldn't find the text at the Thomas link, but found it here: http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr2885.html [theorator.com]

    Section 2: Findings spells out their beef with p2p software and it seems to be the same beef people have with that pesky first amendment.

    Peer-to-peer file trading software has been very widely distributed. The most popular of these programs has been downloaded over 200 million times, and at any one time, there are over 3 million people using it.

    Strange that they want to outlaw something that a substantial percentage of the public find useful enough to download. The people behind the bill obviously carry some heavy political currency.

    (2) Peer-to-peer systems are emerging as a conduit for the distribution of pornographic images and videos, including child pornography. Child pornography is easily found and downloaded using peer-to-peer systems.

    Emerging as a CONDUIT?!? Sense when do we go after the conduit. Speech is a conduit for unsavory ideas as are the radio, magazines, books, our minds. Shall we outlaw those too?

    If the RIAA is behind this it is really the hight of hypocrisy. This is an organization that is happy to dress up a teenage Brittany Spears in next to nothing and pay here to wiggle around in front of a bunch of horny boys, but threaten their profits and suddenly they are the keepers of the moral flame. What a crazy world.

  • by astrashe ( 7452 ) * on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:50PM (#6888858) Journal
    No group has done more to sexualize children for profit than the music industry. Go to amazon and pull up a photo of britney spears' first album -- she's wearing a school girl uniform. They have a lot of nerve talking about this now.

    MTV actually did a promotional show for the snoop dogg girls gone wild video, the way they'd promote a hollywood movie. Not only is MTV's audience primiarly made up of kids, but the producers of those videos are probably going to go to jail for using minors in their tapes. Not one or two who slipped through -- several dozen young girls.

    Don't get me wrong -- I believe in free speech, and I will defend their rights to promote music that sexualizes children, glorifies cop killing, rape, and drug use, and all of the rest of the stuff they promote. I don't like it, but I'll defend their right to do it.

    But the sheer disingenuous of these sorts of statements is hard to take. I don't know where they find guys with the chutzpah to make them.
    • by robkill ( 259732 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @05:23PM (#6889688)
      No group has done more to sexualize children for profit than the music industry. Go to amazon and pull up a photo of britney spears' first album -- she's wearing a school girl uniform. They have a lot of nerve talking about this now.


      Not to mention the early videos were shot by porn director Greg Dark. He has also shot videos for Mandy Moore and was profiled in Esquire. The hypocracy runs deeper than you think.

  • Newsflash (Score:3, Funny)

    by __past__ ( 542467 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:06PM (#6888935)
    After months of illegally invading the privacy of random filesharers, the RIAA has found, to its great relief, that people generally do not trade copyrighted music files with so-called "peer-to-peer" applications, but mainly pornographic pictures inserted to the network by the copyright owners themselves. "Most of our members are not in the porn business," a RIAA spokesperson explained, "so this is none of our business. This obviously was a false alarm, we will leave that pervs alone."

    He also explained that their clients will now look for other explanations for their lost profits and ways to stop them, starting with beating up school children that play loud music in parks and other public places, and breaking into houses of people believed to sing under the shower.

  • Child Rape (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chedrick ( 196352 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:08PM (#6888946)
    The RIAA has been raping children for years (charging them $18 for a CD with 12 songs). Even with the price drop, it's still rape.
    Children are NOT the people who seek out CHILD pornography. I know this as a fact because I have 2 boys in my home. They want to see MATURE (looking) women with great big 'bazookas', not flat chest-ed 9 year old little girls. For a 15 yr old boy, this is normal, natural and even healthy (not to mention reassuring that I may one day be a grandfather).
    The people that seek out child porn are adults, sick adults, but adults none the less. The RIAA seems to think that it's children seeking this stuff out. They are truely lost souls...

    This is the equivalent to outlawing cars because pedophiles use them to abduct kids.

    Back to the rape, maybe the RIAA is getting jealous after watching the kiddy porn on the P2P networks.

    RIAA's intent with this bill: "Nobody can rape those kids but the RIAA"
  • by spektr ( 466069 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:08PM (#6888948)
    The bill defines P2P as ...software that enables the transmission of computer files or data over the Internet or any other public network of computers and that has as its primary function the capability to do all of the following--

    (A) enable a computer on which such software is used to transmit files or data to another such computer;

    (B) enable the user of one such computer to request the transmission of files or data from another such computer; and

    (C) enable the user of one such computer to designate files or data available for transmission to another such computer, but which definition excludes, to the extent otherwise included, software products legitimately marketed and distributed primarily for the operation of business and home networks, the networks of Internet access providers, or the Internet itself


    So...

    1. It is illegal to transfer files between two FTP-servers or HTTP-servers.

    2. But if you use it for business, you are allowed to operate software like gnutella or kazaa.

  • by Bazouel ( 105242 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:08PM (#6888955)
    It's about the only country in the world where showing a little sex is worse than showing a lot of violence. Why would you rather have your children see a murdered woman than a naked woman ?

    Such biased puritanism is contemptuous and says a lot about mentality of a nation.
  • by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:09PM (#6888958)
    I always thought that the US music industry has a weird thing with sex and young girls. There was an interview with a 15-year old Britney Spears in the Washington Post magazine a while back. She was all cute and wholesome and nice. Then, after the music industry got done prostituting her, we have her sucking face with Madonna on MTV...
  • Thanks, RIAA. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MImeKillEr ( 445828 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:09PM (#6888962) Homepage Journal
    We'll all just resort to going back to IRC channels or setting up telnet-enabled BBS' and go 'old sk00l' on you. Or, barring that - just resort to installing some 56K modems and running WWIV [wwiv.com] or some other BBS [google.com] without hooks into the 'net.

    More likely than not, people will simply resort to participating in file- and song-trading parties like we used to in the 80s. Unless you're prepared to raid all the Incredible Flying Pizza Society locations (any Austinintes here?) or other places we're known to gather, how about you just sit back and have a nice cup of Shut the Fuck Up?

    The sad thing is, Joe Q. Public will actually buy into the idea that P2P programs are stomping grounds for pedophiles. While there may be an isolated number of child porn traded over P2P (I've never run across any, but I'm not looking for it) I imagine this isn't the norm.
  • by miketang16 ( 585602 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:11PM (#6888970) Journal
    I cannot express how much outrage this article has caused me. I would like to say something more interesting, but I'm busy losing hope in America and everything it "supposedly" stood for.
  • by overbyj ( 696078 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:15PM (#6888991)
    is that there will be a bill forcing us to use Microsoft products because of their restrictive DRM built-in. As preposterous as this sounds, think about it for a minute. Microsoft is pushing DRM all over the place, including in Office. RIAA is desperate to stop file trading so if they were get to an inroads to making people have DRM-enabled software, they would be jumping for joy. If a bill like the one proposed is pushed through, this is the next logical step. P2P software will have to have DRM and guess is more than willing to do this for you?

    Preposterous you say. Again, think about it some more. MS is pretty good at buying politicians (and business execs, but that is for discussion on another day) so they could easily get something as ludicrous as this pushed through Congress. You think most Congressmen and women really have a serious clue about technology and stuff? If the RIAA successfully gets P2P associated with kiddy porn, the hammer will fall. I am certainly against child porn but this is a quite low-handed advertising. Nevertheless, this could be just the thing needed for Microsoft to really push the DRM. The thought of this just makes me shudder.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:16PM (#6888997)
    This is nothing but a pre-emptive strike at FreeNet (and the anonymously routed, stenographically encrypted networks to follow.)

    The RIAA knows that once that happens, their ability to stop piracy will be absolutely NIL. So their only hope is to criminalize P2P software before it gets to that point. If they can make it illegal to distribute (and eventually own) file sharing software, then FreeNet ceases to become an issue.

    And you know where those "beacons" are headed, don't you? Think mandatory on every new computer, automatically contact your ISP if you so much as ATTEMPT to run P2P software.

    I always wondered how the next generation of P2P was going to mix with the .gov ... (When an irresistable force hits an immovable object, etc.)

    Microsoft's Palladium (and its ilk) is going to be the champion platform for this, because the users can't control what is going on. The government can mandate anything they want, Microsoft complies, and the users don't get a choice.

    Expect Palladium type controls to become mandatory within 3 years as well. They're just going to turn the internet into a passive entertainment medium like they've always wanted it to be. Just with more advertising.
  • by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:52PM (#6889217) Homepage
    Sometimes I get the impression that people on slashdot just talk about P2P theoretically, rather than actually trying it.

    Install a P2P system that lets you see what people are searching for, and guess what...something like 99% of it is indeed commercial music and porn of questionable legality.

    It is pretty amazing to watch.

  • by Hackie_Chan ( 678203 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @04:01PM (#6889277)
    ...link Child pornography to Spam instead?
  • by WildBeast ( 189336 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @04:53PM (#6889545) Journal
    "Other distributors of pornography have also embraced the file-sharing networks as a promotional vehicle. They distribute sample pictures and videos in an attempt to attract paying customers to their Web sites.

    "The adult industry, like others, is against the illegal downloading of their videos," said Gary Kremen, the chief executive of Sex.com, a directory of sexually explicit Web sites, "but they are much smarter than the music industry. They see p2p as money to be made."
    "
  • With this logic, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Peterus7 ( 607982 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @05:10PM (#6889623) Homepage Journal
    the 'logic' of P2P being a vehicle of child porn, Candy is equal to kidnapping, Because of a few potential cases of strangers getting little kids with candy.

    And cars are equal to date rape, because date rape happens a lot in cars.

    And Dungeons and Dragons leads to witchcraft. And Marylin Manson leads to killing. And watching Arnold Shwartzengovernor movies turns you into a carrot. And masturbating leads to killing kittens. And being a catholic leads to pedophilia. And using linux leads to never having sex. Ever. And watching too much anime leads to a sudden fascination with schoolgirls and tenticles.

    Wait, the last one was true...

    Still, what I see this as is a final act of desperation. The lawsuits are just giving them a bad name, and finally they realized instead of letting the internet badmouth them, they should badmouth the P2P services. What next, badmouth Sean Fanning?

    Still, the scary thing is what I see here is a potential legion of child porn pics being uploaded onto the networks by the RIAA, with the titles 'michaeljacksonsfacemelting.jpg, madonna.jpg, coolpic.jpg, or tatugirlskissing.jpg,' then they'd somehow (using secret RIAA black magic) track these files, and turn the hapless bastard who downloads them into the authorities. That way they'd save money on lawsuits...

  • by karlandtanya ( 601084 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @05:21PM (#6889677)
    The entertainment industry's motive is profit, as well it should be--that's what industry is for. But...

    They seek to enlist the aid of a government which has been rampantly trampling (say that 3 times fast!) the civil rights of its Citizens. And doing so with increasing enthusiasm for the past few years.

    Their argument says, essentially: "We cannot see what a given individual is doing. They could be doing anything!. Therefore, we MUST monitor and regulate each individual!"

    The premise of our society (in the US) is exactly the opposite of that view: "...Chief among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." The "liberty" part means that Yeah--you could be doing anything. Go ahead. We presume that what you're doing is none of anyone else's business.

    In that context, the RIAA's argument "Unmonitored, unregulated private citizens are probably criminal, and must be treated as such." sounds absurd. Not to the folks making the laws.

    This or similar regulation has a good chance of being enacted. Remember the "war on drugs" in its heyday. I personally know people who had property siezed and sold at auction because the property (a car) was "involved in a drug-related crime".

    Problem is--the "crime" was an alleged crime--the person involved was never convicted of anything. Yeah, that sorta violates the fourth amendmant of our Constitution. And the law was overturned. But, he still lost his car.

    The upsot of it is that there is (and always will be) a persistant layer of the legal system which undermines the same rights that are guaranteed by that same legaly system.

    At any given moment, we can fight more or less diligently and determine the weight of that layer.

    Make no mistake, however--it is the nature of power to concentrate itself. And if you don't take some of that power by speaking out, embarrassing politicians, joining your local zoning board, challenging that traffic ticket, etc.--then you are giving that power away.

    Don't be embarrased to "take power" by taking action. Your very desire to protect your own freedoms conflicts with someone else's desire to regulate (restrict) those freedoms. You are in the game whether you like it or not. "I'll leave you alone and you leave me alone." is good in principle, but impossible to implement in practice.

  • Laura A. Ahearn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06, 2003 @05:30PM (#6889723)
    I'm in awe at the complete and utter ignorance of a certain Laura A. Ahearn quoted in that article.

    She states that Kazaa has been deliberately used to "attack children".

    The mind boggles.

    If you give your kid a $2000 computer, broadband internet access, no supervision, and they type in "porn" as a search (on Google, newsgroups, P2P or even just as a URL) - is this an attack? No.

    YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN WATCHING YOUR CHILD.

    It's called good old PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. The same way you shouldn't let your kid roam around town alone or talk to strangers.
  • Web Servers. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iamroot ( 319400 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @06:46PM (#6890097)
    Would their definition not include server's too? Lets take Apache for example:

    (A) enable a computer on which such software is used to transmit files or data to another such computer;

    This is Apache's main purpose.

    (B) enable the user of one such computer to request the transmission of files or data from another such computer; and


    HTTP is a two way thing, not broadcast. The "client" needs to be able to send data to a server to request files. If not GET, the POST directive meets this. I'm using it to send this post.

    (C) enable the user of one such computer to designate files or data available for transmission to another such computer, but which definition excludes, to the extent otherwise included, software products legitimately marketed and distributed primarily for the operation of business and home networks, the networks of Internet access providers, or the Internet itself;

    Okay, this part is kind of vague. Designation of the files is program specific, but but Apache and most P2P software do something along the lines of "you put the files in a shared dir". The excluded part is REALLY vague. P2P software IS legitimately marketed and distributed. It only fails to meet that part is it is already illegal by this bill.

    The actual exclusions seem to be written by someone who has no clue about networking. Lets see... Home(non-business) and business networks are excluded. Government networks are about the only thing that isn't excluded. ISP networks, which are yet another business network, are then specifically excluded.

    Of course, if that isn't enough, the internet itself is excluded. WTF do they think "the Internet itself" is??? Some palpable item? The internet is formed OF the other types of networks(most of which were excluded). They either include the application layer in these exclusions, or they don't. P2P is excluded if the other servers are excluded. For that matter, it's possible to use Apache FOR P2P type things. P2P is just another service on the internet.

    Or is there something I'm missing and I need to RTFA better next time?
  • by sg1q ( 170130 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @08:42PM (#6890615) Homepage
    [I wrote this for my weblog [typepad.com] but it applies here]

    The NYTimes has become more of a shill for the RIAA and conservatives in the government. In the article they actually printed this as credible information:

    A study in March by the General Accounting Office found that KaZaA would be effective for someone looking for child pornography. The agency searched for 12 terms associated with child pornography, such as "incest" and "underage." It did not actually download the files it found, but it determined that 42 percent of them had titles or descriptions associated with pornographic images of children.
    They go on to present the opposing side of the issue, but it doesn't really refute the meme of massive amounts of child porn on the net:

    The GAO study vastly overstates the likelihood that children searching for popular music will in fact find pornography, according to studies by Public Knowledge, an advocacy group on intellectual property issues.

    By even lending any credence to a study that did not actually download the files the NYTimes is showing how easily they can be used.

    A little clue here folks, these descriptions are what's commonly referred to as false advertising. 99% of that "42 percent" will not contain child porn. At most you'll get some badly dubbed European movie from the 80's where some 30 year old woman is wearing pony tails and trying to act coy. Those sorts of mile-long filenames with every sex search term you could think of are leftovers from files that have been passed around for years on services like Hotline where you either pay or upload other files in trade to download pirated porn or software.

    These file names are just like the stupid search engine spamming where porn sites used to put as many porn words in their meta tags and white-on-white body text to get to the top of the results. Someone sharing on Hotline wanted to generate as much traffic as possible to their server. Then in order to download this forbidden fruit, you had to upload more warez or pr0n or pay them, thus increasing the size of the server owners collection and/or wallet.

    Later in the article they (correctly) pick up on another reality of P2P porn: a lot of it is now just advertising for pay sites. Now let's see... do you think that the porn site operators name the files that they share in a way that clearly shows that you're going to download an ad? Well, no they also use the same sorts of filenames with every graphic description that you could imagine - which often doesn't have much to do with the actual contents.

    If the RIAA members had half a brain, they'd stop pouring money into getting songs on the radio and MTV and just load up all the good singles and videos onto KaZaA. Then they'd all take a few clues from Apple and UMG and make it easier and cheaper to get the albums electronically or on CD. Oh, but wait, they've stopped making good albums.

    Maybe this is a bad example, but I really can't comprehend the school of thought in journalism where you just report the statements of opposing sides of an issue with equal weight and little personal analysis. In this particular case it would be very dangerous for a reporter themselves to download potential child porn. If they actually found some they would be committing a serious crime.

    The real problem here is that I read far to many articles by journalists who are generalists. They are taught that there is this universal approach to researching and writing stories and they can apply it to any subject - which is complete bullshit. Sure you can start learning from a general standpoint, but journalism should be about trying to present the facts as they are. That requires an understanding of the subject matter, which requires some expertise and experience.

    Unless this particular article was completely watered down and edited to death, I get the impression that the reporter has never actually downloaded porn through a P2P service.

  • More Corporate BS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by whereiswaldo ( 459052 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @08:55PM (#6890674) Journal

    the peer-to-peer networks for swapping files like KaZaA and Morpheus -- are used not only to trade songs but also pornographic images, including child pornography.the peer-to-peer networks for swapping files like KaZaA and Morpheus -- are used not only to trade songs but also pornographic images, including child pornography.

    Wow, somebody is using the P2P technology for something illegal. That goes for HTTP, FTP, IRC, and so on.

    As a guy in the record industry and as a parent, I am shocked that these services are being used to lure children to stuff that is really ugly

    I never saw any advertising on any P2P services saying "Here kids! Look at this disgusting porn!"

    The entertainment companies have engaged in a deliberate and despicable campaign of lies to smear peer-to-peer technology for political purposes

    Companies only do things through motivation. What are the entertainment companies' motivation for smearing P2P? Obviously, because their music is being traded on P2P.

    They are trying to associate us unfairly with the most vile element in society, child pornography.

    If some people are using the technology for trading child porn, law enforcement agencies have many ways to track those people down and send them to jail. Why is the entertainment biz trying to get involved? Are they really concerned citizens? Hardly. Every one of us is a number to them. They want to "monetize" us all using any means necessary, even to the detriment of society's values. They are the last people who should be trying to uphold what is right.

    A bill has been introduced into the House, with the endorsement of the recording industry, that would require children to get parental consent before using sharing software.

    Sure, okay. If you read between the lines, what they want is everyone to either be of legal age on P2P, or make the parents knowingly allow their children to use the services. That way, it's a sure bet they can either sue who's using the service, or that person's parents. No more fruitless crackdowns on 12 year olds.

    But in perhaps the most extreme sign of the industry's desperation, it is trying to focus the attention of lawmakers and others on how the peer-to-peer, or p2p, services can connect users with a range of ills including computer viruses, software that steals personal information and unwanted pornography.

    Wow, lawmakers need to know stuff like how viruses are spread. Better talk to them REALLY LOUD so they can hear you over the Microsoft Windows vulnerability reports.

    "P2p stands for piracy to pornography," quipped Mr. Lack.

    Better brush up on your acronyms, Lackey.

    The file-sharing companies respond that the risk of children seeing pornography inadvertently on their systems is being overstated and that their software is no different from Web browsers and e-mail programs that can be used to find all sorts of material.

    Only those without a basic understanding of how the Internet works would dispute that.

    "We are not trying to stop people from expressing themselves," he said. "We say you should do what we do and give notice and disclosure" as in the labels warning of explicit lyrics on compact disc packages.

    Here's a good one. So, if you're sharing child porn on your P2P node, you should disclose that fact? Uh. It's highly illegal already, what the hell is a label going to do? It's not like the labels on an album cover say "WARNING: This package contains cocaine."

    "Our artists' names are being used to lure kids and defraud them into finding pornography," said Mr. Glazier of the R.I.A.A.

    I

  • by Corporate Drone ( 316880 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @09:06PM (#6890713)
    "Our artists' names are being used to lure kids and defraud them into finding pornography," said Mr. Glazier of the R.I.A.A.

    Well, yeah, but if you can't stop your own member organizations from defrauding kids, why do you think the gub'mint will do any better?

    Oh... you want us to think you're talking about Kazaa... riiiiiiightttttttt.

  • Come on! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by vDave420 ( 649776 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @10:20PM (#6891032)
    "KaZaA has done an incredible job of attracting young people to their site, and as a result they have been really able to attack children."(emphasis mine)

    Give me a break...
    I had to laugh when i read this though.

    It examined 157 files downloaded in response to three search terms of interest to children -- Britney, Pokemon and Olsen twins. It classified 49 percent of those files as pornographic.

    2 things.

    1) Britney... No kiddin. Look to MTV for the reasons there! I believe that many outraged people (who wrote piles of letters to newspapers) would consider the 2-second kiss to be of that nature.

    2) So, the lessons to be learned here are:

    a) Files can have misleading search information associated with them, and
    b) Some people will use "common" search terms to attract attention to specific files that have no association with them.

    A study in March by the General Accounting Office found that KaZaA would be effective for someone looking for child pornography. The agency searched for 12 terms associated with child pornography, such as "incest" and "underage." It did not actually download the files it found, but it determined that 42 percent of them had titles or descriptions associated with pornographic images of children. (emphasis mine)

    Well of course they say they didn't download them, admitting they did if they did would be a crime.

    But wait, didn't we learn from 2a & 2b above that often people use search terms to attract attention to files that don't necessarily have any association, just to generate interest?

    Non sequitur and propaganda, plain and simple.
    So which US slashgeeks are going to run for office and replace these incompetent people [loc.gov]?

    Toss the two named terms in google and find dozens of "legitimate" sites seeking the same type of attention.

    This is sad.

    -dave-


    Looking for YOUR peer-to-porn engine? Get it here! [bearshare.com]

  • by rjnagle ( 122374 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @10:36PM (#6891111) Homepage
    Ok, here's why I hate slashdot. When you have a great argument on a discussion, you post so late that none of the moderators even get around to awarding it karma.

    Ok, here's my thought. RIAA argues that p2p is depriving the content creators of their fair buck. They are saying, if p2p survives, it will drive content creators out of business.

    Well, guess what, porn is a content business also. By their reasoning, p2p would drive content creators out of business, rather than the other way around. Maybe we could say that p2p is the best way to fight commercial porn!

    I don't blame RIAA for trying to throw this argument out. But it reveals the shaky foundations on which they argue that p2p kills content creation.

    On the porn/harm issue, I have two thoughts. First, the typical 13 year old (boy and girl) today probably has already viewed hardcore pictures and maybe videos. It's unavoidable,and perhaps will inure them to these images/video experiences. Second, it would be easy enough for kazaa to filter out certain keywords, although ultimately kids understand the technology better than adults will. Although not very sophisticated now, it's only a matter of time before traded files to be rated by other traders (if only to prevent viruses and other malicious software).

    With regard to videos pretending to be something else, it's more likely that a vid will promote itself as a hardcore and turn out to be a music promo or some ad.

  • by Ogerman ( 136333 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @11:59PM (#6891384)
    This proposed bill is such a laughably stupid pipe dream that it'll never see the light of day. Nobody should lose a wink of sleep over this political fumbling.

    On the other hand, there is a general lack of understanding which is causing silly bills like this to even be considered. This is in dire need of correction. There seems to be a common trend assumption that computers--software especially--are something controllable. Ultimately, this is a failure to realize their very nature as programmable devices. People who start talking of "beacon software" and prohibiting certain types of generic program design prove that they have absolutely no fundamental understanding of computers whatsoever. There is a strong "manufacturing fallacy" as well -- the false assumption that software can be viewed as a manufactured, scarse product. As such, software begins to sound to them like something they can regulate to protect somebody's interests, much as safety belts were eventually required by law in all new automobiles. Some of these guys probably mean well--they're just poorly informed and as a result, knee jerk reactions get made. The big question: how to educate these clueless politicians.

    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
  • I love it! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by danila ( 69889 ) on Sunday September 07, 2003 @05:31AM (#6892117) Homepage
    A study in March by the General Accounting Office found that KaZaA would be effective for someone looking for child pornography. The agency searched for 12 terms associated with child pornography, such as "incest" and "underage." It did not actually download the files it found, but it determined that 42 percent of them had titles or descriptions associated with pornographic images of children.

    In other news, searching for "murder" and "torture" is likely to bring you results with titles or descriptions associated with violence, searching for "cuddle" and "kiss" will bring the results associated with tenderness and sentimentality. Like searching for "robbery" and "burglary" bight turn up some links to materials associated with criminal acts and searching for "shithead" and "moron" will give you some RIAA-related materials.

    Sometimes I feel like Anakin from Attack of the Clones. We need someone to make all people behave right. Someone like Darth Vader. No kidding.

For every problem there is one solution which is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken

Working...