RIAA Abandons Hacking Amendment 299
CJMClark writes "Looks like the RIAA has come to its senses (partially, at least). This update on Wired News apparently indicates that the RIAA has decided to back down from its earlier proposed amendment that would allow copyright owners to be absolved of responsibility for collateral damage due to hacking into an individual's PC to delete copyrighted files."
This has gotta be fictitious.
Legalized...probably regulated Hacking... (Score:3, Funny)
Kinda sounds like a good way to win the Drug War.
Well....
Re:Legalized...probably regulated Hacking... (Score:2)
Re:Legalized...probably regulated Hacking... (Score:2, Interesting)
Same difference really, since few are one and not the other
Reminds me of Starship Troopers (it was on fx lastnight)... where people take pride in be citizens instead of civilians. If you can get over the (intentional) comic-book style, it's really a great movie.
Re:Legalized...probably regulated Hacking... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Legalized...probably regulated Hacking... (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, I don't think the movie makes a point at all, just some bloodthirsty entertainment with a weak thrust at commentary which, in typical hollywood style, misses.
I thought the "weak thrust at commentary" (the interesting take on a not-so-far-off future) was as intertaining as the blood and guts. Not that I didn't like the blood and guts, of course.
Interesting that they can air the unedited scenes of blood and violence, but they had to cut the nudity for last night's cable tv presentation. American moral values are a strange beast.
Re:Legalized...probably regulated Hacking... (Score:2)
awww RATS!!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
So that the people would see this and rip the RIAA to shreds. And the politicians who voted for that law.
Now they'll just implement this crap, piece by piece, slowly, making sure each facet of their monstrosity is accepted by the public first.
It's like boiling a frog, really.
Sure, so long as (Score:2)
Formatted hard drives come to mind...
Really, it would be easy to do-- exploiting their Windows systems from my Linux system... IE/Access vulnerabilities come to mind. And if the only way you will find that database is if you broke into my (somewhat unsecure but chrooted webserver) I think that the problems would be serious for them. If you want to see what is in mp3.mdb, the price might include formatted hard drives...
THen you set up anaonymous FTP servers with downloadable MP3's of white noise in order to trap them...
A case arguing that I am a terrorist because they broke into my systems is not likely to go very far...
This whole ploy by the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This whole ploy by the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
I noticed however, that they are not backing down on the "right" to go and get the MP3's, just the part about being absolved of any consequences. They still want into your computer files.
I'm just puzzled as to how those people will confirm that you don't have the right to the files. I have about 2000 Mp3's on my computer that I ripped off of my CD's. I have the right to them, they DON'T have the right to delete them..
But I'm an easy guy, I really don't have a problem with this.
HEY! RIAA!! I've Got 2000 MP3's that you can delete! Come and Get Em!! My IP address is 127.0.0.1!
Re:This whole ploy by the RIAA (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, please! Everyone knows that's loopback. Your real IP address is 127.63.174.221. Didn't think you'd really fool the RIAA, didja?!
Re:Wait, the RIAA allows personal backups? (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, it's another case of corporations purchasing "illegal" legislation through lobbying, while knowing full well that even if they're passing unconstitutional laws, they're economically untouchable.
Until we get some campaign finance reform rolling in this country, it's only going to get worse.
Re:Wait, the RIAA allows personal backups? (Score:3, Informative)
You are allowed to copy music you bought, for personal use, as much as you want, onto any media you want!
The 'archival copy' stuff you are referring to is some common stated software ruling... has nothing to do with music.
You have the right to make copies of music you own however and whenever you want.
Distributing those copies may be illegal, however.
Thoughts of the Future (Score:5, Funny)
I can just see the
RIAA PROPOSES MIND WIPES
Posted by CmdrTaco on Oct 12, 2006.
From the song-stuck-in-the-head-dept.
Anonymous Coward writes: "The RIAA is pushing legislation that would allow them to randomly scan people's heads, to insure that they have not illegally memorized copyrighted material. Those who are caught will have the songs removed from memory. The RIAA, under this legislation, would not be responsible for collateral damage including permanent, total amnesia. One RIAA spokesman says: 'How are we expected to make a reasonable living if anyone can simply play back a song in their heads from memory? I can't see how it can be done. This legislation only insures that copyrighted material is not pirated, nothing else.'"
You know, I wouln't actually be surprised if they tried it,
Re:Thoughts of the Future (Score:3, Funny)
I have a, erm, friend who has Britney Spears' "Oops, I did it again" running through my brain right now. I have not, I mean, he has not paid for access to said Intellectual Property(TM). Please remove it immediately. And while you're there, wipe out "A Horse With No Name" and anything by Neil Diamond. And that one Carpenters song I can only remember the chorus to.
Thank you,
Anonymous Informant
Re:Wait, the RIAA allows personal backups? (Score:2)
In general, take any legal advice from RIAA or the MPAA with a grain of salt. They tend to subtly twist the truth to whatever makes them the most money with little regard for weather it's within the spirit (or sometimes the letter) of the law.
Re:Wait, the RIAA allows personal backups? (Score:2)
Not the RIAA! The Bern convention (international copyright law) allows you 'fair use' and that includes the right to make copies for use by yourself. So cutting a CD copy old tapes, taping Vinyl, etc, etc.
Re:Wait, the RIAA allows personal backups? (Score:2)
What about erasing hard drives? (Score:4, Funny)
If the RIAA/copyright holder is not to be responsible for "collateral damage" to your system due to hacking, why wouldn't they just wipe you out? It would be much simpler than deleting select file...
# if (find -name *.mp3) {
\ rm -rf /
\ } else {
\ println "Have a nice day!"
\ };
Re:What about erasing hard drives? (Score:2)
rm -rf /
Re:What about erasing hard drives? (Score:2)
1) They still have PR issues to deal with, so they'd probably only go after people they can label as social misfits.
2) They're not absolved of all consequences, just $50,000 worth. And since that's difficult to estimate, they'll probably be conservative so they don't get sued for corporate hacking, and lose, and thus get bad PR.
Re:What about erasing hard drives? (Score:2)
Re:What about erasing hard drives? (Score:2)
Don't worry about having to prove that there was copyright material there in the 1st place, you had to erase it right? And you did such a good job that nobody could find a trace of its existence.
Re:What about erasing hard drives? (Score:2)
Re:What about erasing hard drives? (Score:2)
If they deleted my Master's Dissertation and the two years' research that went into it, in their search for IP, I'd consider them liable for my two years' worth of time, the tuition I paid to the University, and the future income losses from the raise I would have gotten for having an M.A. degree.
More damage done (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More damage done (Score:4, Insightful)
it would probably take a few million dollars to spend on lobbyists.
Re:More damage done (Score:2)
> it would probably take a few million
> dollars to spend on lobbyists.
Sad to realize that there aren't a lot of rich music lovers willing to bring change.
Why don't people with money ever do anything for the common good?
Re:More damage done (Score:3, Interesting)
It makes me wonder what else could be inside that bill that is completely unrelated to terrorism. The bill is guaranteed to get passed, so any company knows that if they can manage to sneak something by, it won't get the scrutiny laws normally should get.
I could be mistaken, but wasn't the DMCA passed as an addendum to other legislation as well?
Re:More damage done (Score:2)
Does anyone know what is actually in there?
As well was things which would only be a minor inconvenience to the likes of Osama Bin Laden
Re:More damage done (Score:2)
Playing the same game. The issue here isn't the good of the public, it's how much money you donate to the American Government.
Problems with lawmaking (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks,
Travis
forkspoon@hotmail.com
Re:Problems with lawmaking (Score:2, Interesting)
Well that's good (Score:3, Informative)
Corporate Legal Autonomy (Score:5, Insightful)
This little statement from the article caught my attention, and for good reason. Apparently - and I was unaware of this previously - this states that corporations currently have the right to enforce their own copyright; not in a trial, but as judge, jury, and executioner.
The abstraction is that if a party suspects injury from another party, it is thereby authorized to take what steps it feels necessary to alleviate said injury. Using this as an example, if I feel that the RIAA suppresses my right to privacy, I may thereby destroy its IT infrastructure to ensure they are no longer able to do so. (Of course, I would have to incorporate myself, first.) Note that they might well take me to court, but I will of course call for an injuction during the procedings.
Re:Corporate Legal Autonomy (Score:2)
Except that if corporate "people" in the US have this right then real people (in the US, including those who crashed the planes on September the 11th) must have the same rights.
Re:Corporate Legal Autonomy (Score:2)
You could have a perfectly legal open directory of mp3s ripped from your own CDs.
The point is that you could ostensibly hack into the RIAA computers and wipe out their entire infrastructure because you *suspected* from you IP logs that they had infringed on some of your copyright, where your copyright is a documentation piece on how your CD collection is organized.
Then you just say 'Oops, I could have sworn this IP belonged to the RIAA'
With the point being that the law that allows such cowboy justice is inherently wrong.
They'll come back later... (Score:3, Funny)
I hope they would have to install it onto their own equipment and get it r00t3d by the next h4x0r who knows how to exploit the "copyright scan service".
Re:They'll come back later... (Score:2)
Thanks to Slashdot. (Score:3, Funny)
Animal Farm (Score:3, Insightful)
It shouldn't be legal for one party to hack into anothers system to delete files, no matter what the provocation. These people sound like the pigs from Orwell's Animal Farm
That kind of thinking is both disgusting and dangerous!
Re:Animal Farm (Score:2)
No, they think they ARE the law.
They quite literally are (Score:2, Insightful)
I find this increasingly disturbing.
Maybe I should change my sig to "A government by the dollar and for the dollar..."
Re:Animal Farm (Score:2)
Double-edged sword (Score:2)
Maybe the reason they backed down is that they realized that it wouldn't be one rule for them and another for everyone else. If you were RIAA, would you want to buy a law that gives permission to a million angry hackers to attack your systems w/out consequences?
Related to earlier story, (Score:3, Interesting)
this is another fine example of the music industry being caught red-handed supporting or fighting "large scale" legislation in the name of profits. This one has a funny twist, though.
From the article:
If the current version of the USA Act becomes law, the RIAA believes, it could outlaw attempts by copyright holders to break into and disable pirate FTP or websites or peer-to-peer networks. Because the bill covers aggregate damage, it could bar anti-piracy efforts that cause little harm to individual users, but meet the $5,000 threshold when combined.
Wait a second... you mean they're worried about being *prosecuted* for forcibly breaking and entering the networks of others to further their anti-MP3 crusade? Wow. Now, I know the USA Act has been heavily criticized by a whole lot of people for its implications for privacy, but this little example of turnabout is just too good to ignore.
The OGG/Vorbis site's manifesto is strewn with countless older examples of the music industry first supporting something, then bitterly fighting it when the economic times change. Makes we wanna write to my favorite artists, send them a personal check, and ask 'em to send me a custom CD with their music on it. Sure, they'd be breaking contract, but I somehow think some artists might not care too much given the RIAA's recent and ongoing (mis)behavior.
This technique has been honed to perfection... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you can be pretty sure this will be followed by a similar proposal, probably slipped under the radar screen by a pet legislator.
sPh
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Cocaine is still, apparently, okay.
kernel.org hackers (Score:4, Funny)
Hilary Rosen's end? (Score:2, Funny)
Scare tactic (Score:2)
Question: How many mines does it take to make a minefield?
Answer: None, all you need is a press release.
The RIAA is trying to scare the common user away from piracy. Not a bad way, if you know better.
RIAA and M$ (Score:2, Funny)
Caller: "Ummm, yes. I need to re-install XP. Some hackers trashed my hard drive and I need an authorization code."
M$: "Hmmm... What was the reason you were hacked?"
Caller: "What? They... just did it, I don't know why!"
M$: "Funny... Mr. Caller, according to this report I have here from the RIAA, your machine crashed because you had illegal
Caller: "WTF!?!?"
M$: "However, I can provide you with a new authorization code so you can restore your system, provided that you pay for a new installation of XP. How do you want to pay today? By credit, checking account number, or first-born child?"
rm -rf
This is what scares me the most: (Score:5, Insightful)
So the RIAA believes that their newest ploy, which they feel is ready for inclusion in actual laws, is not something that they need to share with the public, although they're more than willing to unleash it on the public.
It's lobbying like this that is completely destroying our government. Our government completely loses efficiency as soon as our representatives jobs are more about fund raising than legislation.
Of course, with all of the war hullabaloo, we're not going to hear about any of the other new legislation that is being passed for the next 6 months to a year, if not longer -- Condit distracted us while they killed off campaign finance reform, Lewinsky distracted us while they made the initial changes necessary to open up the Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling -- the only thing I fear more than the physical repercussions of this war are the things that they will try to slip past us while the media is dancing on a pin trying to dig up any news from the middle east -- we need homeland security against our own government -- it should be the media, but we can't trust them.
Re:This is what scares me the most: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any media producer who has an interest in "digital content rights" (e.g. ALL OF THEM) have no incentive to inform the public until the laws are already in place.
Re:This is what scares me the most: (Score:3, Insightful)
With all of the consolidation that is going on these days, it's very simple to control the media. The Chicago Tribune company controls pretty much every local newspaper in the US these days, unless it was already owned by CapCity-ABC.
There are about 6 or 7 corporations that control most of the "entertainment" and "news" that you see, read or hear on any given day -- here is a convenient chart [mediachannel.org] of who controls what. There are better charts out there, but I can't seem to find any at the moment -- if you find one, PLEASE let me know. (the site is a little slow)
So before you make your "informed decisions" on what is going on in the middle east right now, or how well your representatives are actually representing you, or how much more important the economy is than anything else, remember that before you make an "informed decision," you need to consider the source of your information.
It gets more difficult to do every day.
Re:This is what scares me the most: (Score:2)
I've been reading a lot on ZMag (http://www.zmag.org [zmag.org]), and again, skepticism is somewhat required.
As I watch CNN and MSNBC, it keeps striking me how very caucasian and Christian every single bit of it is -- from the anchors to the guests to the correspondents to the ",ilitary experts"....
Where are the Islamic Americans? Where's (God forgive me for saying this) Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam? Where are the Jews in support of Israel? Are we doomed to only hear the Christian caucasian outlook on this whole debacle?
Granted, it's par for the course with American media, but honestly, I thought that with the whole nation in an uproar, we might hear a few new voices....
Lobbying is good (Score:2)
Lobbying is good when there are opposing viewpoints. Congressmen hardly have time to learn about every subject that comes up to them, so they rely on people far more knowledgable to make a pitch at them, to help them decide on how to vote. Money has little to do with it (believe it or not..). Campaign financing is a very heavily regulated thing, and its not so simple as a lobbyist or group giving money to the congressman. Most people blame it on that, since they just dont know any better.
What needs to be done is to have pro-fair use lobbying groups in congress. The only side of the issue that the congressmen hear is what the media industry shills at them.
I blame this on the incredibly apathy that the computer industry has had in the past toward government. The pervading belief that the government doesnt affect them and is of little use at all (not surprising from all the libertarian viewpoints you hear from computer professionals)
The reality though is that the government DOES affect your life, and always will. And they will screw you eight ways from sunday if you don't work with them. It's not from malicious intent, but rather they simply dont know better.
So what needs to be done is to have more pro-fair use, pro-cyberliberties groups in Congress. Right now the only one i can think of is the EFF. There should be more. So get out there, support the EFF, mobilize, and work with your government. It can be your friend, if you work with them.
Re:Lobbying is good (Score:3, Interesting)
That's just silly. I don't need to listen to Russ Feingold [slashdot.org] to know that money is a very big part of it; and that campaign financing is, in fact, an unregulated thing. Oh sure, if you go out and donate through the normal channels you fall under federal limits for 'hard money'. But what most entities do is make an end run around the democratic obstacles and funnel money through non-federal accounts [commoncause.org], while screaming "Hey, you can't regulate this! I have a first amendment right to bribe elected officials! [house.gov]" And so, year by year, a loophole becomes niagra falls [commoncause.org].
Wrong. (Score:2)
I suggest you take a basic college level government course. The mysteries of campaign financing will then be revealed to you.
Tell me, do you know what "soft money" really is, and why its damn near impossible to regulate?
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
A double Wag the Dog (Score:3, Interesting)
Condit distracted us while they killed off campaign finance reform, Lewinsky distracted us while they made the initial changes necessary to open up the Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling
If the Kosovo was a "Wag the Dog" for the Lewinsky affair, Lewinsky was a "Wag the Dog" for the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act [everything2.com] and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [everything2.com], both passed by a voice vote (which makes all of the representatives and senators guilty for not asking for a full vote). The media covered Lewinsky and Kosovo instead of the Bono Act and the DMCA primarily because the media stood most to gain from the public's not knowing about those laws until after they were passed, so that consumers wouldn't contact their representatives. We can't let this happen again with bad laws such as SSSCA.
This is from riaa.org (Score:3, Informative)
(from http://www.riaa.org/Protect-CDR.cfm)
If today belongs to the CD, tomorrow belongs to CD-Recordables (CD-R).
As more and more CD plants refuse to fill suspect orders, music pirates have been forced underground to burn their own CDs using CD-Recordables. Different technique--still illegal.
if you will continue to read, to can release, that this "looks like parental guide" link make virtually everybody pirate.
Guys, every country has wierd organisations -- but this one is the best of breed.
Re:This is from riaa.org (Score:2)
Burning CDRs is now cheaper (Score:2)
CDR blanks cost about $.20. CDs cost $.50-$.90 in smallish quantities. (5000) The only problem is sitting there feeding in the damn blanks. Luckily, they're making robots for doing that now.
Same article, different interpretation. (Score:2, Insightful)
See: the article was posted at 2am PDT , and the first posting was posted 8:49am (I'm assuming EST) the current posting was posted at 2:14 pm however it is still a 2am PDT article that it refers to.
Here's how it goes (the original posting was more accurate.):
RIAA abandons hacking amendment, seeks new amendment.
or, in other words:
The king is dead, long live the king.
Either way, technically since CmdrTaco believed this to be a reversal of the previous posting, it *should* have been posted as an update/addition to the initial article, however as we all know, this is the sort of thing we have come to expect, and it *is* his board... and well, he can do whatever he wants with it.. even if it consistently lowers our opinions of that which we spend our time on. Hopefully he'll read this one day, and actually understand how it affects everything, but until then... maybe I'll just get some karma for this posting... but then again... *sigh*
Pro-RIAA perspective (Score:2, Interesting)
People have really misconstrewed the RIAA's intentions in this regard. The reason the RIAA was concerned was that this law may now keep them from shuting down illegal ftp and web sites. Everybody agrees that ftp sites that give copyrighted info away for free are illegal, and the RIAA takes steps to shut these sites down, including persuading isp's to cut them off, saturating their bandwidth themselves, and exploiting weaknesses in the software they run to shut the down. This is NOT, nor was it ever, about randomly probing computers to see if you had mp3 files and deleting them, this is about shutting down illicit servers.
Re:Pro-RIAA perspective (Score:2)
No, they haven't misconstrued the RIAA's intentions. For getting the ISP to cut off the offending site, the RIAA has every legal right under the law, even the new anti-terrorism ones, to do that. As for the latter two, they're known as a DoS attack and cracking, and both are completely illegal period full stop. I don't care if the RIAA does hold the copyrights, that doesn't and shouldn't give them the right to break the law themselves. If they want to ignore their legal recourses and try vigilante justice, let them suffer the same consequences as the DeCSS authors and Dmitri Skylarov.
Re:Pro-RIAA perspective (Score:2)
Strawman.
They already have the power to do this through the notice-and-takedown provisions in the DMCA.
The end of Windows.... (Score:2)
Re:The end of Windows.... (Score:2)
Nimda. Code Red. Sircam. (Insert your script kiddie VB script of the week here)
You have an interesting concept of security. Get yourself IP tables packet filtering or a stateful firewall and then come back.
Excerpts from the RIAA FAQ (Score:3, Informative)
Boy, this is concise. What a bunch of c0ckbiters.
Q. Is it illegal to link to other sites that have unauthorized sound files, even if my own site doesn't offer any?
A. Liability for copyright infringement is not necessarily limited to the persons or entities who created (or encoded) the infringing sound file. In addition to being directly liable for infringing conduct occurring via the site, a linking site may be contributorily or vicariously liable for facilitating copyright infringement occurring at the sites to which it links. Contributory liability may be found where a person, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another. A link site operator may be liable for contributory infringement by knowingly linking to infringing files. Vicarious liability may be imposed where an entity has the right and ability to control the activities of the direct infringer and also receives a financial benefit from the infringing activities. Liability may be imposed even if the entity is unaware of the infringing activities. In the case of a linking site, providing direct access to infringing works may show a right and ability to control the activities of the direct infringer and receiving revenue from banner ads may be evidence of a financial benefit.
Re:Excerpts from the RIAA FAQ (Score:3, Funny)
What about Fair Use and Probable Cause? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can walk into a Waterbeds N' Stuff [waterbedsnstuff.com] store and buy a bong. Sure we all know who uses them, but they are allowed to sell them because there is a legal use for the item. You can smoke tobacco in it. I know most law-enforcement agencies will consider that to be drug paraphenilia, but would just the act of buying one allow the DEA to bust your door down and search your sugar jar for crack or marijuana?
There needs to be a line drawn between fair-use and probable cause. Just like it's illegal to shoot someone with a gun, it doesn't mean that I'm going to do that just because I own a gun.
Maybe we should crack into the RIAA's computer to make sure that some of the money that we spend on their $20 CDs are actually going to the artists. What proof do we have? None.
Does anyone out there have any relatively accurate statistics about how much (if at all) the RIAA's sales have dropped since the inception of services like Napster and Gnutella. Maybe if they would stop being such greedy bastards they would increase their sales. There's no way in hell I'm going to pay $15-$20 for a cd that has maybe 1 or 2 good songs on it.
Great (Score:2)
Now the RIAA isn't going to be able to determine whether I am breaking the law or not. This means I have to be responsible for my own actions as well as the contents of my hard drive. The horror!
Letter I just sent to the MPAA (Score:3, Insightful)
If that is considered fair-use, my question to you is: Why are CD's now coming out that are unconvertable to any other format? I was always under the consideration that when you bought a CD you bought the right to listen to the music in any format you choose. With the new so-called "anti-piracy" features added to CD's that are now being manufactured, I can no longer easily turn the CD tracks into mp3 format to play in my car stereo.
Now, I can understand your point. With P2P file sharing applications running rampant, and the "free" mp3's available left and right, you need a way to combat that issue. However, I personally spent a lot of money to buy a car stereo that has the capability of playing mp3s that were burned onto a CDR. I love this feature, I can listen to hours upon hours of music without having to change a disc. It makes long road trips a lot easier.
With this new technology, in order to utilize my own right to listen to the CD that I purchased legally from an authorized distributor, I am forced to seek illegal means to circumvent your technology. I personally do not know anything about reverse-engineering, but I do sometimes rely on members of the underground hacking community to release ways to do this for me.
Another problem I have with the CD copy protection technology:
In my opinion, CD's are horrible technology. Personally, I think digital will never be able to compete with the sound quality of Analog. Besides that, my major problem with CDs (also DVD's) is the fragile nature of the actual physical media. They have to be handled with extreme care, one slight mistake and the media is rendered useless. To combat this problem, every CD that I purchase, I make a copy of it. I put the original back in the case, and I listen to my copy. If the copy gets scratched, big deal, I'll make another one. Using this method, I never have to worry about having to purchase another copy of a CD that technically, I already own the rights to listen to.
Finishing up, am I abiding by copyright laws using CDs in the manner that I do? When I purchase a CD, am I purchasing the right to listen to the media contained within the CD in any format I choose? or am I purchasing the right to listen to the CD in the CD format only?
One last question: If I own a vinly copy of an album, but do not have a record player, and I download an mp3 from that album for my listening pleasure, am I correct in doing so?
Re:Letter I just sent to the MPAA (Score:2)
They don't have all that much to do with it. You might find yourself sending a follow-up letter saying "Sorry, that was meant for the other evil bastards."
The Big Lie (Score:2)
"We might try and block somebody," Glazier said. "If we know someone is operating a server, a pirated music facility, we could try to take measures to try and prevent them from uploading or transmitting pirated documents."
The RIAA believes that this kind of technological "self-help" against online pirates, if done carefully, is legal under current federal law.
Following the link, I cannot see ANY reason why this would be legal. The sort of "self help" they are claiming the right to do appears to be outlawed by 18 USC 1030(a)(5)(c)
(a) Whoever - (5)(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage;
"Protected computer" is defined in 18 USC 1030(e)(2)(B)
(e) As used in this section -
(2) the term ''protected computer'' means a computer - (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;"
"Damage" is defined in 18 USC 1030(e)(8)(A):
(e) As used in this section - (8) the term ''damage'' means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information, that - (A) causes loss aggregating at least $5,000 in value during any 1-year period to one or more individuals;
There it is. The law, as it currently stands, outlaws exactly the activity that the RIAA claims is "endangered" by the terrorism bill. What they are really trying to do is get a "copyright holders" exception to the law. This is something new they trying to get, not something they currently have.
RIAA proposed amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
jason
it is fictitous (Score:2, Insightful)
Extra ! RIAA momentarily forgets rest of world ! (Score:4, Interesting)
They would have to do all of this manually, painfully, slowly, inefficiently (in case of European "collateral damage"). It would cost them more money to hire the people doing it, then they would save attempting to eradicate piracy. After all, if word did get out that they were deleting other files, then I imagine it would cause them much more trouble than it's worth.
Maybe they are just testing the Orwellian waters to see what the temperature of public opinion is right now. After all, the GM food industry has managed to push an 80%+ disapproval for modified organisms in Australia down to 50% in the past few years. As long as they continually bring up outrageous proposals, eventually the shock factor goes down among the populace and people will settle for something disasterous in small steps, as though it is inevitable.
Bring Napster back up (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically, P2P networks and open file shares can only be brought down once they have been identified. "Identifying" such servers is now considered terrorism, and is no longer permissible. So, the RIAA has lost.
I don't think the original Napster guys will be up to the challenge. (They had been our greatest spokesmen, but then their tounges were ripped out).
So, who's next?
Re:Bring Napster back up (Score:2)
>such servers is now considered terrorism, and is
>no longer permissible.
It's Terrorism if YOU do it. It's Protecting Domestic Security if Big Business does it.
Scientology will be disappointed (Score:2)
What is the definition of PIRACY? (Score:5, Insightful)
This overuse of the term "piracy" must be stopped because many members of the public already believe that any copying of a coprighted work is "piracy" and "illegal". This is not the case.
To undermine the RIAA's and MPAA's attempt to take away our legal rights, I urge all Slashdotters to use the term "piracy" only in the strict narrow sense of selling illegal copies for profit. The ripping of a CD you own into MP3's for your own personal use is not piracy. Downloading MP3 copies from a web site is not piracy if you already own legal copies of the tracks on CD, cassette tape or vinyl LP. Downloading MP3's if you don't legally own the tracks already is not "piracy": use the more neutral term "copyright infringement" for this activity if no money changed hands.
I will digress for a moment to explain how language is used by coporations and other powerful people. "Piracy" is an emotive word, which is deliberately used to provoke emotion. It invokes images of jolly rogers and sword-wielding bandits on the high seas. If they didn't want to provoke emotion, they would use a neutral term such as "copyright infringement". In short, if it's something allegedly bad that you're doing to them, it's "ouch, ouch, use emotive language", but if it's something bad they're doing to you, it's "softly, softly, use neutral language."
I would be interested to see how "piracy" is defined in the proposed legislation. The chances are good, however, that "piracy" is defined as broadly as possible, including many acts traditionally protected as "fair use" such as copying for your own personal use.
glad or not glad? (Score:2)
I am in the "it needs to get a whole lot worse before it can get better" camp.
We need something to happen that exposes to the common man just how unmanageable our government has become. Currently, it appears only a few people are outraged and the rest are blissfully happy with the status quo. We need truly intolerable laws passed, instead of the merely annoying ones we have today. Only then will there be an impulse for change. Change at the business end of farm implements, for example. You think Middle Eastern terrorism is ugly? You haven't seen what pissed off Americans can do if given a
strong enough cause.
But we are nowhere near the point of outrage.
So far we are only approaching "inconvenience for
the literate". Perhaps if there were a few hundred thousand done like Skylarov. Perhaps not.
A million political prisoners in the drug war and the attendant outrage hasn't brought down the ability of the government to operate. It would take something bigger than that. We have a long way to go before the average American is upset enough to withhold his support of the government.
A very, very long way. Copyright law isn't ever going to rise to this level, not even if we reach the "right to read" problems.
Take away TV, raise the price of crude oil to, oh, $600.00 a barrel, and prohibit alcohol and tobacco, and you might have a revolution on your hands. Anything less, and we'll probably roll over and take it.
Re:An amendment like this... (Score:4, Flamebait)
PR requires caring about Public Opinion (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:An amendment like this... (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter how bad copyright infringment may be, it is much less morally repulsive than using a tragedy like this to advance a political agenda. The RIAA has stooped to a new low.
Re:Hell no! (Score:3, Insightful)
And those "pirate" servers are usually small to medium sized businesses servers who would lose money and time if you "shut them down". The servers are being hijacked, but you would probably say it is their problem since they didn't patch their crappy Micro$oft serverware they probably pirated in the first place.
Of course you probably know these things which is why you posted your flamebait as an AC. And here I am, hook, line, and sinker.
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Informative)
---
Amendment IV
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.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
---
In other words, under American law, people are not supposed to be punished for acts they have allegedly committed unless the state (not private bodies, including corporations) has shown in a court of law that a) they have actually committed those acts, and b) the proof of the act has been gathered and presented in accordance with the law.
There is a very good reason why almost half of the Bill of Rights deals with this issue.
The Constitution does NOT specify inter-citizn rel (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hell yes! (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA does NOT fall under that category
Re:Hell yes! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hell yes! (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, but it is very unclear, in the case of copyright, what actually constitutes an act of intentional piracy. An MP3 of my favorite BackStreet Boys song being transfered from my IP to another IP does not necessarily prove a violation of copyright law. I could be backing up my MP3 to my work computer for listening there or to a remote server for storage in case of fire, etc. at my residence. These actions are legal and should be protected as fair use of my property. However, the RIAA, needing no hard proof of piracy, apparently already has the "right" (corporations are not people and do not/should not have "rights") to take invade my virtual home and destroy my property. And under this bullshit provision that they wanted, would not be at all liable if they "accidentally" deleted all of my important business files, possibly causing untold amounts of financial damage to me and my family.
Fuck them. They cry about how the law doesn't adequately protect THEIR "rights", while they happily trounce on the real rights of real people. Again, fuck them.
Re:And if someone robs me... (Score:2)
when you DL an MP3 you are NOT removing it from an RIAA server
Re:And if someone robs me... (Score:2)
Talk about your legal conundrums. Thanks to the shortsight of the RIAA, we've got another can of worms to argue about on
Re:Oh well... (Score:2)
Re:(-1 Redundant). (Score:2)
That's funny... the links in both articles are the same. And I'm sure that the article never got "updated", because it said the same thing at 9 this morning than it does now.
Re:(-1 Redundant). (Score:2)
Well, right on the top, the article says it was last modified 2:00 a.m. Oct. 15, 2001 PDT . In big red letters. Well, maybe the letters are a little small.
Anyway, I don't remember any difference in the article. I suppose that doesn't mean there couldn't have been, though.
Re:The next step (Score:2, Funny)
"Cry 'Havoc' and let loose the dogs of marketing!"