RIAA Wants Right To Hack

An Anonymous Coward writes: "According to Wired, the recording industry wants the right to hack into your computer and delete your stolen MP3s." From the article: "It's no joke. Lobbyists for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) tried to glue this hacking-authorization amendment onto a mammoth anti-terrorism bill that Congress approved last week. A copy of an RIAA-drafted amendment obtained by Wired News would immunize all copyright holders -- including the movie and e-book industry -- for any data losses caused by their hacking efforts or other computer intrusions 'that are reasonably intended to impede or prevent' electronic piracy." Does this give you the right to crack RIAA systems to make sure no one there is selling copies of your term paper?

Comments

THIS IS GREAT!!!

[TheMMaster]

If this won't help bringing linux to the desktop, what will?? you can give them every right you want... For them to enforce it, you'll HAVE to be running windows! ;-)

Re:THIS IS GREAT!!!

[Jaysyn]

They would have a hell of a time deleting my MP3's of of the 20 or so CD-Roms I keep them on....

Jaysyn

Re:THIS IS GREAT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment is copyright © 2001 by Anonymous Coward, all right reserved. You may not store this comment on your system, period.

Ahem. I sense that some of you may have violated my copyright by caching this article on your hard drive. I'll be exercising my rights to hack into your systems shortly.

Re:THIS IS GREAT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like time for a honeypot system with lots of "popular" MP3s on it and a few original recordings on MP3 format. Since they'd hack the system and delete all the MP3, you'd be justified in hacking their system to look for any copies of your stuff they might have taken before wiping the honeypot out.

Farenheit 451 is here early.

[dave-fu]

If this story is true (and I doubt it is, as seen with The Register's recent retraction) then it's the scariest freaking thing I've heard of in a long time. Don't want people surreptitiously going behind my back and torching my legitimate (some of us rip our own CDs, thankyouverymuch) music collection on my hard drive.
Running with the possibility that this is true, hopefully the folks who would hack into peoples' computers will be tried as terrorists under the US's spankin' fresh new bills.

Re:Farenheit 451 is here early.

[Drizzten]

From the Wired article:

The RIAA's interest in the USA Act, an anti-terrorism bill that the Senate and the House approved last week, grew out of an obscure part of it called section 815. Called the "Deterrence and Prevention of Cyberterrorism" section, it says that anyone who breaks into computers and causes damage "aggregating at least $5,000 in value" in a one-year period would be committing a crime.

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.

I'd call this "circumventing" wouldn't you? Those intrusive bastards want carte blanche to do whatever they want, while ordinary people get screwed.

Re:Farenheit 451 is here early.

[Misch]

Actually, according to the article, this is already legitimate. The article cites US Code, Title 18, Section 1030

The real news in this is that the USA Anti-Terrorism bill includes language to prevent this, whereas RIAA is trying to open this loophole back up.

Re:Farenheit 451 is here early.

[WalterSobchak]

Excuse me, I must be halluzinating...

A dark cellar, somewhere in the world. One man - 1 - is examining goods in the cellar. A second man - 2 - enters...
2: FREEZE, thief! What mischief are you up to?
1: No mischief, Sir. My biclycle was stolen yesterday, and I am just looking to see if it is in your cellar.
2: You smashed a window to do this!
1: I had reasonable cause. I saw bicycles in your cellar, and you, Sir, look pretty thieverish yourself ...

Coming to think of it, I want this law to be passed. The nights would be exiting again!

Alex

Re:Farenheit 451 is here early.

[SnapShot]

Yes, your honor, it was self defense.

I know I was in his basement, but under the RIAA's bill, I caused less than $5000 damage while entering his basement.

I only fired after the homeowner refused to allow me to search his basement for my bicycle and threatened me with a handgun.

I'm sorry that his wife and kids are starving, but maybe the homeowner should have read up on the laws of our country. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Re:Farenheit 451 is here early.

[ackthpt]

The first thought that came to my mind was "Unreasonable search and seizure." After reading the article I see what the RIAA is on about; covering their own assets if they devise their own worm or such to go out and wipe MP3's (just another good reason to burn them onto CD's, eh?) Proving $5,000 aggregate damage to a site, which just happens to be hosting such files (how do they prove that it was actually a pirate site, hmm? Consider the Japanese trick for harvesting whales in the name of "scientific research" and use your imagination)

The more of this crap I see the more inclined I am to seek work arounds for anything they come up with. They'll never win and in the end it will have cost them more than their lost revenues.

Re:Farenheit 451 is here early.

[AndroidCat]

I'm not sure what would have been worse: What the RIAA would have done with it, or what the Cthurch of $cientology would have done with it.

$cientology has already (ab)used the DMCA to hassle critics and their ISPs. (Including claiming copyright on things written by other people.) They know that it's easier to comply than mount a defence against an army of lawyers with unlimited funds. (Sounds like the RIAA, don't it?)

I shudder to think what Cof$ would have done with this piece of legal shite.

Re:Farenheit 451 is here early.

[psychalgia]

in my case i wonder if smith and wesson would be found guilty. yeah, thats right, dirty hairy style, RIAA punks.

Re:Farenheit 451 is here early.

[NumberSyx]

The more of this crap I see the more inclined I am to seek work arounds for anything they come up with. They'll never win and in the end it will have cost them more than their lost revenues.

If this legislation passes, I plan to put up a honey pot system for the sole purpose of setting them up for a billion dollar law suit. Once the drive has been corrupted or wiped, how does the RIAA prove the MP3's were illegal copies of songs, instead of recordings of my children singing silly little ditties and also on the drive were irreplacable pictures and videos of my GrandFather, the day before he died. No $$$ value, but tons of sentimental value. Any decent litigation Lawyer could convince a Judge this was worth way more than $5000.

Re:Farenheit 451 is here early.

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Well all they have to do is get the case tried in Judge Kaplan's court. He isn't averse to making up new law right on the spot.

Re:Farenheit 451 is here early.

[IronChef]

Around here there is a vocal minority that is always saying "if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?"

I haven't seen any of those posts in this thread. Interesting. Where are all the security camera lovin' posters today? I bet they are busy burning their MP3s to CD, or reading up on firewalls.

Re:Farenheit 451 is here early.

[Catbeller]

The whole point of the RIAA amendment was to exempt RIAA from the terrorism definition.

BTW, the "hacking==terrorism" meme is not being discussed enough. Class assignment for tonight: let's read the U.S.A. act.

Re:Farenheit 451 is here early.

[AndroidCat]

I'm thinking that the Co$ isn't exactly known for its adherence to legality in its pursuit of those it sees as enemies anyway. One suspects that they would hack into your computer with or without this law, and then do anything possible to avoid being caught and punished.

That's okay, I reserve the right to shoot eBurglers.

And 146.57.160.113 (University of Minnesota) is currently tempting me with his 30 minute check to see if I'm running kazaa.

As for Co$, been there, done that. Flakey Nutbar SP5.

Question for the RIAA + Justice dept.

[Rob.Mathers]

Under the proposed anti-terrorism laws, wouldn't this make the RIAA a terrorist organisation?

Encrypt access to your system

[ZenJabba1]

and when they try to break into it, sue them via DCMA and tell them to take a fly f*ck and leave my personal property alone!

I don't have pirated stuff on there, and I don't want them snooping around my system

Re:Encrypt access to your system

[drnomad]

Doesn't this "right" to hack, imply "the right to violate the DMCA"??

Re:Encrypt access to your system

[k-rad]

What I want to know is if they plan on deleting any/all MP3's they can find on my system. If I'm an artist, and I have my own music in MP3 format, and they just deleted it I'd certainly hope I could sue the hell out of them for violating my copyright. Not every MP3 I have is material copyrighted by some record company.

Making your own MP3s for hacking

[Midnight Thunder]

If this got through then in theory a hacker could create their own 'tune', copyright it and let it wander the net. Then after a couple of months claim that the reason they were breaking into the FBI computer was to check that they didn't have any illegal copies of your MP3.

Re:Making your own MP3s for hacking

[BinxBolling]

If this got through then in theory a hacker could create their own 'tune', copyright it and let it wander the net. Then after a couple of months claim that the reason they were breaking into the FBI computer was to check that they didn't have any illegal copies of your MP3.

Ah, but see, that's where the clever $5000 limit comes in. The FBI or any other large organization can almost certainly come up with some evidence (real or otherwise) that you cost them $millions with your action. Then you're screwed.

OTOH, Joe Schmoe will have a much harder time proving damages when the private "copyright enforcement" company hired by the RIAA wipes his hard drive.

They can have my MP3's

[hAkron]

As long as they don't delete any of my porno they can have my MP3's

Re:They can have my MP3's

[Tim Doran]

Well, the RIAA may not care about your pr0n, but the owners of those copyright images and movies may. Imagine waking up every few weeks to find that another sex site operator has broken into your computer, conducted a search and deleted some images it (summarily) decided infringed on its rights.

Imagine every few months waking up to find one of these sites screwed up and wiped your harddisk... and there's nothing you can do about it...

Re:They can have my MP3's

[tcc]

> As long as they don't delete any of my porno they can have my MP3's

Yeah let the MPAA take care of the porn... but they won't use that law, they will need to rewrite the proposition so they can have the right to download "to be sure it's porn" before deleting it off :)

Are we really surprised?

[spacefem]

We all saw this coming, but that's beside the point, you know what my main thought is today?

Who are these people?

They have that much time on their hands that they're willing to hack into individual people's computers to look for their files?

At dinner parties, do they go off about mp3's and how every college kid is going to kill the record industry?

Movements like this say "passion" to me, they're passionate about their copywrites, it's what they eat, sleep, and breath. Do they have nothing better to do? Are there this many idiots in the world?

Maybe I just haven't seen enough corporate America yet, but I can't believe people make their lives out of something this petty.

Re:Are we really surprised?

[Green Aardvark House]

I discussed these types of issues ad infitum on The Napster Forum.

I wish my post was still there, but I came across some evidence that the economy was mostly to blame. I found statistics on income and record sales and found that incomes fell, so did record sales. This makes sense, since music is a "luxury item" and is one of the first things to go off personal budgets in an economic slowdown.

They have a convenient scapegoat in "piracy", even though the economy is in the crapper, and the quality of the product is such that it should just follow the economy.

Re:Are we really surprised?

[cavemanf16]

Wrong. They're not passionate about their copyrights. They could care less if a million people copied the tunes, as long as they all paid their $2.00/mp3 for doing so. This whole copyright business with the DMCA is specifically about making the heads of recording studios richer, not about making the actual creators of the music rich, or even given credit for their works.

And yes, once you've been in corporate America, you'll see that this shitty money grabbing politics happens all the time. Enjoy college while you can.

And besides, the only computers they'll end up cracking into to delete files from will be the Britney Spears and NSYNC teenie bopper fans of the world, which just means that they'll be pissing off little teenage girls and boys, who will in turn cry to their parents, who will then go ballistic on the RIAA. Just another wonderful way to alienate their user base even more than they already have.

Re:Are we really surprised?

[unformed]

Are there this many idiots in the world?

Yes, as Homer put it, "Everyone is stupid except me."

Re:Are we really surprised?

[Glytch]

Now there's a business idea. Hire yourself out to the RIAA as a mercenary-style "Copyright Enforcer". In the process of making lots of money, you get the extreme pleasure of wiping out N'sync and Britney Spears and Limp Bizkit mp3s.

As for more talented artists, hey, anyone can make mistakes and accidentally miss a few songs, right? Nudge nudge wink wink.

Re:Are we really surprised?

[Ogerman]

And yes, once you've been in corporate America, you'll see that this shitty money grabbing politics happens all the time. Enjoy college while you can.


Then don't work for 'corporate America,' silly. There's no law saying you have to. What's more important? -- living in a giant-box two story house in the suburbanite jungle with two cars and an SUV or fighting for freedom and goodness and doing your best to help make the world a better place by helping others. That's not to say all corporate jobs are bad or that all big business is corrupt, but in the areas geeks gravitate towards (in which 'intellectual property' is the focus), you really have to weigh the ethical pros and cons with who you work for. Money and success matter not. PEOPLE matter. Don't waste your life. Enjoy college while you can, then go make a difference.

Re:Are we really surprised?

[No-op]

For some people, we don't have the choice of throwing away money just to help people. not everyone comes from pristine beginnings and has the luxury of an all expense paid visit to collegeland.

I busted my ass working 2 jobs to get through school and I sold my soul the minute I could. that paid for things like a working car, a clean house, good food, and other things I never had until then.

I'm all for helping people and working to better the community but please realize that the lower on the food chain you are, the less idealistic your goals tend to be. homeless people don't worry about your MP3s or your digitally-encrypted whatever. they care about food, warm places to sleep and other basics.

sometimes there's a certain degree of perspective to be gained.

Re:Are we really surprised?

[Ogerman]

For some people, we don't have the choice of throwing away money just to help people.

This isn't about 'throwing money away' or solely altruistic goals. It's a matter of choosing an ethical employer, even if that means giving up a larger salary. I'm not advocating poverty, just reasonable lifestyle.

ROFL! oh wait...its not april fool's day.

[fjordboy]

Ok, something like this begs several questions: First of all, how would they determined that the mp3s and whatnot on my computer aren't legal? I happen to own cds for almost every single mp3 on my computer.

Second of all, how would they go about hacking into our computers? If these guys are stupid enough to come up with such an idiotic proposal, how can we expect them to be able to hack a 386 running windows 3.1 on a network running win NT with no patches applied?

To get to the point, this is the stupidest idea I think i've ever heard in my life.

Re:ROFL! oh wait...its not april fool's day.

[ichimunki]

Just so we're not basing our opinions on complete hype, the SSSCA does not prohibit running "non-secure" software. It aims to prohibit manufacturing new "non-secure" devices/software and then selling those. Your legacy systems will still be legal to use, buy, and sell as long as they existed prior to the enactment of the "security" standard.

Please note that while I am being exact about the nature of the law, I think it's the stupidest f*cking thing I've seen in recent history. The use of the word "security" is a complete misnomer, and more importantly a smokescreen. The law does not implement any security measures whatsoever, except for financial security on the part of those holding copyright restrictions. If the law were serious about security it would include massive liability sections, outlining just how much consumers are allowed to sue Microsoft for every time the Outlook mailer sends a document off their hard-drive to a total stranger.

Re:ROFL! oh wait...its not april fool's day.

[einhverfr]

Actually, one needs to find ways to make trojans like telnet servers that exploit bugs in telnet clients, or actuveX controls, etc. Or Access Databases with the on_open macros set to format the hard drive... Can the RIAA sue you if, in the course of hacking your system, you wipe our THEIR data? Of course, it would have to be carefully controlled, but it WOULD be possible to do so without collateral damage...

Ah, now I understand!

[RedOregon]

I get it now... according to the RIAA, I'm guilty until proven innocent. They want to be able to crack my system in order to prove me innocent. Oh, and if they fry my system, sorry, but I can't do anything about it.

Re:Ah, now I understand!

[FnordX]

You know... I happen to remember something a lot like this happening back in the dark ages... Something about floating or sinking in water being a proof of guilt or innocence, in that if you floated, you were a witch, and burned. If you drowned, you were innocent, and with god.

So, should we now be calling them Grand High Witch Hunter RIAA?

So let me see

[haplo21112]

Hacking is terrorism, but Hacking to defend copyrights is legal if you have enough Cash to by a Congressman, and get him to make legislation that says so? Have I got that right?

Re:So let me see

[imadork]

Hacking is terrorism, but Hacking to defend copyrights is legal if you have enough Cash to by a Congressman, and get him to make legislation that says so? Have I got that right?

Remember, one man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.

Re:So let me see

[jgerman]

Remember, one man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.


Bullshit it is. Terrorism involves the murder of innocents, terrorism is for cowards who have no respect for human life. A Freedom Fighter, regardless of whether you believe his cause is right, is an entirely different thing.

Re:So let me see

[Twylite]

Terrorism involves the murder of innocents, terrorism is for cowards who have no respect for human life.

Innocence is subjective. As is terrorism.

America is bombing a nation that has supported terrorism against America. It does this after imposing sanctions against a country allied to that nation, sanctions that are causing slow death as millions starve. This act forms part of the motive for the terrorism against America. In bombing Afganistan, America is inflicting further civilian casualties.

Where is the respect for human life? America is as much to blame for murdering innocents as Bin Laden or the Taliban. Yet few people see it this way: economic sanctions, although often more crippling than all-out war, are socially acceptable. Bin Laden struck at the heart of America's economic power; an 'appropriate' response to abuse of that power.

Terrorism comes in many forms.

Re:So let me see

[WNight]

And US soldiers dropping bombs to kill Osama, who accept a few civilian casualties along the way... that's freedom fighting right? Because they kill civilians who aren't you.

Re:So let me see

[legLess]

Frank Herbert said (and I agree), "It's not true that power corrupts. The truth is that power attracts the corruptible, and absolute power the absolutely corruptible."

Re:So let me see

[SubtleNuance]

After having bombed 15 seperate countries, in less than the last 30 years, killing 3,000,000 civilians (yes civilians), Id say that *America* is a rogue nation run by terrorists and tyrants.

Your being an American might feel that every one of those acts was justified, honourable and morally defensible. (why you think this way is a much bigger issue...)

Now, one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist starts to seem a little more clear.

Religion is a simple matter of geography - as is politics - when people assume absolute positions tainted by ethnocentrism and ignorance you see conflict like what is happening now, afterall, who many americans think that the 'founding fathers' that gave birth to the American REVOLUTION were not "TERRORISTS" to the Brits? USofA has a short memory and is a perfect example of why 'one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.'

Re:So let me see

[mpe]

Hacking is terrorism, but Hacking to defend copyrights is legal if you have enough Cash to by a Congressman, and get him to make legislation that says so? Have I got that
right?

Anyone got a copy of 1984 to check the details. Or is this a slightly different type of "doublethink" from that Orwell had in mind...

Re:So let me see

[elmegil]

So what about those innocent UN workers we blew away with a cruise missle then?

Simple definitions are always wrong.

Re:So let me see

[jgerman]

There is a huge different in intent to kill civilians and accidental deaths as a result of military action. Our intent is not to kill civilians over there and it's a shame that some civilians have to die, but weapons aren't perfect. We wouldn't even be there if they had not attacked us first, or protected those who had. The civilians of Afghanistan have no one to blame but their own government.

And in any case I don't consider what we're doing freedom fighting, I consider it protection. I'm all for saving human life where possible, but when it comes down to me or them, I choose them.

Re:So let me see

[The_Rook]

between the fbi and government trying to stomp on civil liberties and the RIAA and MPAA trying to stomp on free speech and civil liberites, and all the multitude of laws they're trying to pass, it's not surprising that they're starting to stumble into each other.

Re:So let me see

[kel-tor]

American REVOLUTION were not "TERRORISTS" to the Brits?

Yep, English newspapers of the time even used the word terrorists.

Re:So let me see

[ksheff]

40 million? That was in one month alone. It was more like 125 million and it's been bumped up over 300 now.

On the Iraq side of things, if they are starving then why are the leading causes of death in that country heart disease and diabetes? IIRC, those are fat people diseases. IMHO, the people whining about the Iraqi sanctions should either shut up or do something to try to get Hussien out of power. Or are they in favor of letting a bastard like that stay in place

Re:So let me see

[Pedersen]

After having bombed 15 seperate countries, in less than the last 30 years, killing 3,000,000 civilians (yes civilians), Id say that *America* is a rogue nation run by terrorists and tyrants.

Would you mind giving me a list of those 15 countries? In the last 30 years, I can recall Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. I know we invaded Grenada, but I don't know why, nor do I know if we bombed anything. I know we invaded Panama (something I, personally, do not agree with), but again, don't know if any bombs were done. So, would you please name these 15 countries?

Re:So let me see

[WNight]

"When it comes down to me vs them, I choose them"

Ditto. It's very commendable. Anything else is suicidal and indicates a mental disease.

But, it doesn't always come down to us vs them, and even if it does, who is them?

In the US, 55.3% of the population voted (in '96, last year I could find numbers for). If we pretend that it was only Bush and Gore, and assume the same turnout, Bush got the support of 27% of the voters. Now, if the US does something, can I blame you? Or are you going to say "I didn't vote for him!"

Then consider afghanistan where nobody voted for the Taliban, and except for a few people who gain power from them, they seem universally despised by the people they claim to represent. Now, to blame them for the actions of Osama, who isn't even part of that government...

If the US people weren't calling for blood and Dubya wasn't a jingoist prick, they'd have gone in, assasinated a few key people, snatched a few others, and it'd be done.

The "us vs them" isn't the only choice and it's unfair to represent it as such.

Re:So let me see

[WNight]

Gotcha. Osama (and how the US is k-rad to opposing him) is on-topic anywhere, but to suggest that to the civilians getting bombed that the distinctions between terrorist and freedom fighter might be of little comfort. Oh no, that's off topic.

If you actually cared about avoiding uselss posts you'd have skipped on by. The fact that you feel it necessary to post about this means that you in fact are interested in censoring a non-PC view.

Grow up.

Re:So let me see

[WNight]

So?

Osama declared war against the west, so by your logic we should just accept civilian casualties as "part of war" and deal with him as an honorable enemy?

Or not? Was it really bad when he killed our civilians, but okay when we kill ones who just happen to be in the same country as him?

Why is a glorious war justified when we want it, but never when the enemy wants it?

Your blanket justification of everything done in "War" is very convenient. I'm gonna stop by your place tonight, shoot you, rape your sister, and steal your stuff. But don't worry, it's a war, it's acceptable.

Re:So let me see

[roystgnr]

afterall, who many americans think that the 'founding fathers' that gave birth to the American REVOLUTION were not "TERRORISTS" to the Brits?

Would you care to enlighten this ignorant American with some specific examples of American Revolution terrorism? I thought that "London Bridge is falling down..." was just a song.

Re:So let me see

[DunbarTheInept]

You said:

If the US people weren't calling for blood and Dubya wasn't a jingoist prick, they'd have gone in, assasinated a few key people, snatched a few others, and it'd be done.

I think you misspelled "If we lived in an alternate universe where it was actually possible,"

You try to figure out how to go in and assasinate "a few key people" with the Taliban in control and not have your operatives get caught. You make it sound so easy.

Re:So let me see

[WNight]

That's what we have operatives for.

There're certainly more than two ways "send in operatives, they all die" and "bomb the country for a few weeks".

Plenty of foreigners managed to live in Afghanistan until we started attacking them, if we has tried I'm sure we could either have gotten a sniper and some backup, or a spotter for laser-guided bombs into the country and in position to take out almost anyone we wanted.

Re:So let me see

[DunbarTheInept]

The revolutionaries were fighting guys all wearing red coats. Know what that means? They were British soldiers.

That's the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists - whether the intended target is military or civilian. The attack against the USS Cole, for example, was NOT terrorism. The attack on the Pentagon (assuming that was the intended target, which is still in question), was NOT terrorism. The Pentagon and the USS Cole can be considered military targets. The WTC and the embassy bombings are not. THAT is the defining difference.

Re:So let me see

[e_n_d_o]

It's called war. People die in war.

Two things that you might want to understand:

1.) Its quite possible (probable, even) that a lot of Americans are going to die from retaliation to these attacks. This really sucks, and while we all hope it doesn't happen, it probably will.

2.) In this war, which was declared on September 11, we have lost far more civilian casualties than they. Unless they attack us with chemical/germ/nuclear methods, it will likely stay that way.

Re:So let me see

[the gnat]

I'm getting pretty sick of these arguments. Millions are starving in Iraq because Sadaam would rather build up his army and palaces than feed his people. The sanctions have been a humanitarian disaster, yes, but that's ultimately his fault, not ours.

Get the facts straight, dickhead. bin Laden used civilian aircraft as bombs to take out civilian buildings, with the explicit purpose of causing civilian casualties. The embassy bombings of '98 weren't even directed at US power, and killed mostly innocent African civilians. The US has merely created obstacles to Iraqi trade, but unfortunately Iraq's people suffer while its bioweapons and nuclear projects continue. All you wannabe activists need to direct your "Food not bombs" whining at Hussein, not the US gov't.

Re:So let me see

[WNight]

There's a big difference between being to blame, and understanding that your actions influenced those of the attacker.

Rape victims are not to blame, yet we counsel women against wearing mini-skirts and walking through dark alleys. When they get raped we don't blame them, but we explain that until the world is perfect, their exercising certain freedoms will make them victims more often.

In such a way, America did encourage the attacks.

Were they justified? Did the 6000 people who were killed deserve it? etc.

Probably not. But, do the Afghani people who get in the way of the falling bombs deserve it?

And, who deserves to suffer more, an American who might have *voted* for Bush, or an Afghani who likely is completely against their government?

Really, I don't think either deserves to suffer, but you must realize that Osama is simply fighting for what he believes in, the same as we are.

Now, this isn't to say that we should roll over and give in. But we need to understand that the other side sees us exactly as we see them. This should give us insight into handling the situation. If we respond with what they see as terrorism, we encourage them to respond similarly. We probably do "need" to kill a few people here, but despite what's adequate proof in our eyes as to Osama's guilt, we'd get a lot farther if we could capture him and the UN could try him for war crimes than if we blow him and a bunch of civilians up.

If we go the UN Trial way, we show we've got world support. People also make bad martyrs when their crimes are detailed and they're shown kicking limply at the end of a rope. However, if they die from a terrorist bomb, they become the perfect martyr.

Re:So let me see

[WNight]

Well, American criminals destroyed property belonging to the East India company... Tea I think. Much the same as Palistinians destroying a KFC during a riot.

And then there's all the armed terrorists killing to legally appointed authorities. Those red-coated British soldiers were sent there by the same country that sent many of the settlers in the first place.

The winners write history, the US won, so they became freedom fighters. If they'd lost, they'd have been cowardly terrorists destroying valuable property and killing innocents from hiding.

Re:So let me see

[the gnat]

So many morons, so little time. . .

1. Can you provide a citation for the 3,000,000?

2. The revolutionaries fought to liberate their homeland from what they perceived as foreign occupation. They did not blow up babies.

3. bin Laden *was* a freedom fighter; we trained him for that, remember? Now he's a terrorist. The attacks on US military abroad can be regarded as "freedom fighting", I suppose; we do have sizable forces in Saudi Arabia. The WTC can not.

4. Keep in mind that most of bin Laden's victims previous to Sept. 11th were the unfortunate African civilians in our embassies- very few Americans died. It was an attack on us (the USA), but we suffered the least overall.

I find it disturbing that so many leftists have been looking for justification for the WTC attacks and decrying the US retaliation while ignoring the embassies. We (rather, Clinton) fucked up afterwards by bombing Sudan, but bin Laden still deserves to die for what he did in Tanzania alone. The idea that the deaths of US civilians somehow equate to the deaths of civilians at the hands of the US military is simply disgusting, but the idea that all those African civilians don't matter in this debate is disgusting and racist.

Re:So let me see

[loraksus]

Yeah, off topic. I know.
I'm not going to give my thoughts on american foreign policy, just facts.

The List.

1 Vietnam
2 Cambodia (we sent tanks in too)
3 Libya
4 Iraq, and again, and again, and again.
5 Grenada
6 Panama
7 Yugoslavia (A B-52 caught two Yugoslavian battalions out in the open and dropped cluster bombs on them)
8 China (The Chinese embasy in Kosovo was "legally" on Chinese soil.)
9 Somalia (Restore Hope)
10 Hati (Uphold Democracy)
11 Lebanon ("Peacekeeping")
12 Dominican Republic, ok, fine, we didn't bomb them, but dropped in 14,000 fully armed marines.
13 Kosovo
14 Afghanistan (once before, now again)
15 Wherever America trains, we dropped bombs, etc in germany doing cold war preparations.

web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/table12.htm
Is the table for US military dead. Quite a few dead in training, interesting to see some of the statistics.

Re:So let me see

[ikekrull]

It's only 'terrorism' if you lose the 'war'.

The US can say anything they like - call these guys terrorists, baby-killers, cannibalistic monkeys, whatever.

In fact, it's in their interest to whip up national fervour and spread anti-Muslim/Afghani/Arab propaganda, and these have been proven to be effective weapons of war for a very long time. The biggest enemy the US has is it's own people, and the longer everyone stays glued to CNN and forgets about anything else but what theyre told by that smily reporter, the better.

If US special forces hijacked a plane and flew it into the side of a building to prevent a rogue state's global plot to usurp the power of the legitimate governments of the world, not only woul d people love it at the cinema, but it would be hailed as an act of patriotic bravery beyond compare.

Basically, the US Government is full of corrupt, arrogant hypocrites who have no qualms about lying, stealing and killing on a massive scale if it suits their (primarily financial and economic) interests. Just like all the other governments of all the other countries around the world.

The difference here is that the US is currently the biggest, and most arrogant government on the planet, which they feel gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want in the name on of a 'War on (Insert vague and unspecific target here)'

This is not necessarily good or bad, and really depends on where you sit, politically and geographically.

However, mistaking the 'War on Terrorism' as anything but an attempt to ensure US control of the oil pipeline that will run between the Chechen oil fields and the Persian Gulf would probably be a mistake.

Re:So let me see

[DunbarTheInept]

or a spotter for laser-guided bombs

What do you think the special forces that were sent in ahead of time were doing? Going on a camping trip?

Re:So let me see

[DunbarTheInept]

.. pharmeceutical factories, and, on occaision, baby food factories

With that line you have demonstrated yourself to be someone who lives in an alternate universe totally unconnected to the real one. I'm done with you now. (Do you know the difference between "going after" a type of target and "going after" a different type of target and failing?) If you want to accuse the US of being sloppy with it's aim, and it's intelligence, so that through criminal negligence innocent targets get hit, I'd actually agree. But since you chose to phrase it as if those results are deliberate malicious acts, I know your messages aren't worth the electrons they're printed on.

Re:So let me see

[SubtleNuance]

No-one is trying to "justify" anything. I am not *CONDONING* any act of violence - the WTC destruction nor Vietname nor Grenada nor any-fucking-thing else.

The fact is, America is *NOT* blameless - yet you pretend this is the case... Americans themselves live in intellectual void where they are INCAPABLE of accepting responsibility for anything.

American Foriegn Policy is a backwards mess of self-serving assassinations, economic devestation, poverty and war. America has been playing terrible politics with the lives of foreign nationals for a good 50 years - now, when alittle hurt comes home, you cry out without any acknowledgement of the BIG PICTURE.

The big picture puts blood on the hands of America. It puts blood on the hands of your Plutocratic Government, and it puts blood on the hands of the unfortunate, miss-led ignorant masses of patriots - incapable of seeing through the sickening nationalist propaganda and understanding the cause and effect nature of the acts of your own government.

So, back to my leftist justification; What you dont really understand is I am sickened by the reaction America has displayed since the WTC destruction. I am sickened not only by the sheer, astounding ignorance, but by the self-rightious nationalism, calls for revenge, racism and misguided piousness.

But really, I am disgusted that, America being such a massively wealthy country, capable of writing so many of the worlds ills (some they have directly and indirectly created) chooses not to. I am saddened that yet another Emprie will crumble (they always do) instead of breaking the cycle, learning from the past and charting the correct course. America may (or may not) have sufficient mass to set us on a path of Real and Lasting Peace... instead, you jack-asses act like morons, succume to the obvious baiting of a lunatic, and start dropping bombs - yet again.

In 50 years, hasnt any American learned that you cannot bomb yourselves into peace?

Dropping bombs in South Asia will only assure that there will be more violence in the USofA.... guaran-fucking-teed. All violence is pointless, war is always wrong, and America cannot get it through its collective-head that it is an increadibly violent nation... no matter what your "patriot-conditioning-response" says. And when you commit acts of violence against others, eventually they hit back.

Re:So let me see

[Moofie]

It's not MY responsibility to feed the Iraqui people. If the Iraqui government engages in practices that our government doesn't like, our government is free to not trade with them. The Iraquis don't have a right to our trade.

Iraq (and the Taliban) have been given every opportunity to join the civilized world community. They have elected not to do so. What gives them the right to dictate the terms of trade? Nothing.

And if you think driving an airliner into a building is on the same moral footing as electing not to trade with another nation state, you are dangerously misguided.

Re:So let me see

[ksheff]

Do you even know any diabetics?

Why yes I do given that it runs in the family. My dad is hypoglycemic too, and he certainly didn't get it by not having regular meals.

Are you one of those people who also insists that homeless people are just running a scam and that they go home at the end of the day in Porsches? Just curious, because you sure sound like one of them.

Actually, I've seen these scam artists with my own eyes leave their panhandling post walk a block or two and get in a car that is certainly better than the one I drive. True the guy passed out in an alley reeking of alcohol and his own shit isn't a Porsche driving con man, but I'm sure many of the 'will work for food' guys are. I mean, if illiterate non English speaking immigrants can find jobs, why the hell can't these guys? Probably because they can make more tax free and not have to do any reall work that way.

The starving people of Iraq only have Hussein to blame for their condition. It's obvious he has no problem letting them die if it makes him look good in the eyes of other radicals and it makes the whiny bleeding hearts in the West turn against their governments.

Re:So let me see

[Martin S.]

> It's only 'terrorism' if you lose the 'war'.

It's the fact they targeted civilians with the intention of terrorising them that makes these acts terrorism.

Re:So let me see

[Twylite]

in the interest of world security? No. In the interests of Western security? Yes.

The US has refused to engage in disarmorment programs along with the rest of the world, and it will not allow UN weapons inspectors to view its stockpiles. Yet any other country with nasty toys must give them up and be at the mercy of the US.

3) ... perhaps the US should have withdrawn its troops from Saudi Arabia in line with the requests from various Middle East countries, and Bin Laden's demands for the past 5 years. Especially since they have no business being there anyway.

Of course no-one can say for sure whether this would solve the problem, but a willingness to negotiate is essential in resolving conflict in a non-violent manner.

A concept which America has shown itself incapable of grasping.

This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[weave]

Read the license to Win XP carefully. It has a part in it that says that Microsoft may disable your access to copyrighted content at any time without notice upon request by content owners.

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[Anonymous Coward]

A click-through license hasn't been tested in court yet, and I have read that these types of contracts will not hold up in court due to the fact that the consumer has no bargaining power in the "agreement" of contract and that it is considered a type of entrapment.

I forget the exact legal terms, but consumer law protects citizens in the non-digital world in terms of bargaining power, seeking recourse, and being forced into something without really agreeeing to it (opening the celophane wrapper, etc.)

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[garcia]

yeah if you enable the remote access bullshit. If I was running it, I wouldn't.

I have service through roadrunner. Seems to me that they are blocking EVERYTHING. I cannot access anything on my computer (no ping, telnet, ssh, ftp, no nothing). Fine w/me. Come get me bitch. ;)

Just make sure you don't enable the remote access crap, don't call them for technical support (ask your guru next door), or better yet, don't buy it in the first place.

Who the fuck does MS think that they are putting something in the license that says that they can control what I have on my computer just b/c i use their OS? Excuse me but I own my computer, I own my HD, and I own their OS. They don't own me.

They are scary.

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[da5idnetlimit.com]

Strange, I thought this feature was included in all Windows OS...

+

3 questions...

If I infringed copyright for songs not belonging to RIAA Members, do they have the right to do anything ? for example, I have a large Reggae collection, and I'm sure Jamaican Producers from 1970 didn't belong to RIAA)

+
I happen to have only LEGIT MP3 (ripped from my own LP & CDs)... Can somebody tell me how to differentiate a legit MP3 from a fraudulent one if you only have access to my computer ?
For I have the right to make MP3s and backups (fair use...)

+

I'm a foreigner (Brit, french, German, whatever you want...)

If RIAA come to my pc and try to hack into it, this is illegal under my local law...no matter what (or they have to ask local police do do something)

which means I can sue them, even ban them If I want (can) (you know, you call ISP and tell him IP XXX.XXX.X.X just scanned all my ports, and flooded...)

Well, I don't know about you, but this is the sort of things I fear...

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[TeknoHog]

Who the fuck does MS think that they are putting something in the license that says that they can control what I have on my computer just b/c i use their OS? Excuse me but I own my computer, I own my HD, and I own their OS. They don't own me.

"The things you own end up owning you." - Tyler Durden

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[weave]

What makes you think they'd contact your machine? Why not phone home via http? Like, ever notice when you install or update IE, no matter what your home page is, first time IE runs it loads a page from microsoft with /runonce/ in the URL?

As for a friend of mine who said he's OK because he runs ZoneAlarm, er, ZoneAlarm hooks into the IP stack. Microsoft wrote it, they can operate at a layer lower than zone alarm. The only real protection is to have an external gateway or firewall recognize and block whatever this mysterious ability to disable content is, and until they start doing it, we won't know what to look for.

I'm sticking with linux and w2k personally (I go both ways...) and definitely Linux with the ultra-cool iptables running as my firewall on a ratty old box in my basement!

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[GigsVT]

And every time you type an invalid URL in IE it contacts a microsoft controlled site, and feeds it the typoed URL.

This is apparently sold off as a fallback to find a site you can't quite spell, but the implications are large.

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[weave]

And here's another interesting feature. I downloaded a content-protected .wma music file I purchased with my pepsi cap points from pepsistuff.com. For a test, I copied it to another computer and tried to listen to it. It not only denied it, but opened up my web browser and sent me to Pepsistuff.com where a message said I had no rights to listen to that content. Worse, the URL I was directed to had the full pathname of the "stolen" file in it, the drive letter, path, filename, and a bunch of other encoded data I have no idea what it is...

And get this, I tried to play that .wma file with winamp, not windows media player, so the protection is either in the file drivers somewhere or winamp has the wma protection code built in too...

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[da5idnetlimit.com]

Well, Dimitry went to the state... and was a develloper signing his softs.
I'm just a surfer. My IP is 192.168... quite anon 8)
and I can always use an anon proxy to surf & serve ...

Then maybe a webpage recording all IPs used by RIAA HaK33rz could be used with a small firewall so as to deny them access...you know, RIAA=> dev/null, or RIAA=>disney.com, matureandvulgar.com...

you know, user community defending themselves...

maybe even a tool such as NetBo, that automatically started countermeasures if somebody tried to root BO (mine was sending 15.000 tims the picture of the guy with his head stuffed in his arse... God, I woul love to get the same for all people accessing muy MP3z 8)

Also, as they seem to so much love shrink wrapped EULA, I could wrap one into all IP Header (if U RIAA, don't connect !)

BTW, all your MP3 are belong to you, not the RIAA

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[WNight]

This might be true, if they told you this in the store and you actually got to read the license before purchase.

But, they don't, and you didn't, so it's not.

Once you've purchased something outright, the seller can't attach any limitations to it. If they wanted to, the time was before sale.

Q: "but copyright law prevents ... and I didn't agree to it!"

A: Copyright law is a law, not a contract between buyer and seller. You similarly can't legally use the software to break any other laws.

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[weave]

What on earth are you doing letting programs access the Internet willy-nilly? At least use ZoneAlarm or *something* to control who is sending what home.

The code in question sent a URL to the windows shell to launch into a browser, so unless you have zone alarm set to warn you everytime your browser access the internet, it'll do you no good.

Also, when code asks that a URL be opened, if you already have an instance of that browser open, that process just handles it so if you already told Zone Alarm that IE or Mozilla or whatever your default browser you currently have open can access the Internet, you're not going to stop it.

Spyware phoning home via an encoded URL is pretty tough to stop unless you have something between you and the net protecting you and you know what's coming...

I guess you could always disconnect your net connection everytime you run a questionable program like winamp. :(

Yes, I'm being a bit sarcastic. I read the other informative posts that winamp just uses the wmp api to play wma files so the protection is at that level, but then again, soon as this CRM shit is part of the OS proper, every app on the box will be questionable as far as trust goes...

Speaking of "trust", I saw one of those "Secure media cf cards" in a store and it talked about how you should use a PDA that uses "secure" media. I'm guessing the security is to protect "them" against you, not the other way around... :(

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[WNight]

Pay attention to context. That bit you quotes was from a Q&A and is only half of the question.

It was Q: "But *COPYRIGHT LAW* prevents ... and I didn't agree to it."

I don't know about you, but nobody gave me a license agreement before implementing copyright law.

Now, as to your completely lack of comprehension of the OTHER issue...

You aren't bound by the EULA because you don't see it until you've bought the product. As that point you can (honestly) write the EULA out, sign your name, IN BLOOD, in front of a Notary and mail it to MS and it won't be binding. When you "agree" to an EULA you don't get anything in return so it's not a valid contract. As such, saying "I Agree" is meaningless legally.

And now, you don't "get the right to use the software." Your got that right when you paid the clerk at the store. After that, Microsoft (and the store) lost all ability to control what you do with it.

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[hyrdra]

Winamp, I think, uses DirectShow filters to play WMA files. Thus, they are using the Microsoft WMA decoder driver. This means it's the driver, or "filter" which opens up a browser window, NOT Winamp or even the OS.

If you read the WMA spec it's quite easily to make a file copyrighted and when played without a license, direct it to a specific url. You can even disable sound recording (by opening the recording pin on all line devices), or run a section of the WMA file as a program. I'm kind of shocked there already isn't a virus out there that infects users by playing a WMA music file.

Pretty nifty, Microsoft!

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[einhverfr]

Which is why I will never use XP. If the SSSCA passes, I will continue using RH7.1 indefinitely. Not that it is that likely to pass given that the computer security industry is opposed to the law.

ANY backdoor can be abused or, worse, exploited. However, Microsoft may be referring to DRM'd material only, but without access to the XP source, I cannot say for sure...

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[Telek]

Right and what this means is that Microsoft can have Media Player "download" a blacklist of mp3s/wmas and thus refuse to play any files that are on that blacklist. Anything that you have created yourself (from stuff that you own) won't be on this blacklist, and thus you will have no problems playing it.

I'm not saying that it's right, but I am saying that it's not at all surprising, and this was pushed by the RIAA as well. And since (what everybody has been saying that) you legally own all of the mp3s on your hard drive then you have nothing to worry about.

Or just use Winamp, or just use Linux.

Re:This feature is built into the WIN XP license

[frankie]

Excuse me but I own my computer, I own my HD, and I own their OS.

BZZT. No, you don't own their OS. Find a law student near you and ask them to explain the concept of EULA. You have a very limited right to use Windows, subject to whatever restrictions Microsoft thinks they can get away with.

Not really

[GigsVT]

The RIAA just wants to be exempt from the new cyberterrorism regulations in the anti-terrorism bills.

They are afraid what they do all the time will be classified as cyberterrorism.

So really, even the RIAA is afraid of these new cyberterrorism regulations, and is trying to get their own loopholes put in.

Of course

[CaptainZapp]

Of course they want the right to hack into your computer. Same as our friends from the BSA.

What is most disturbing however, is that those folks are not responsible for consequential damage, according to the article.

Uuups, sorry we trashed your hard disk. Here's a 3$ off voucher for the new Britney Spears CD.

If a web site defacer could wind up in jail for life, then the same measures should apply to corporate entities.

Re:Of course

[AshPattern]

The entire reason to have a corporation is to limit your liability. Corporations were invented so that companies wouldn't be liable to the families of employees for their employees dying during their hazardous jobs.

If this single principle of limited liability were taken out, we wouldn't have many corporations left. What corporation can hold to actual, real ethical integrity?

how do they detemine?

[4444444]

how do they determin the eleagal mp3's from the ones you ripped from your cd's

Re:how do they detemine?

[the Man in Black]

Actually, that's the message number. 444444 actually is his UID, as he stated here.

Couldn't this lead to even WORSE things?

[jued0001]

Couldn't this potentially lead to something even more nasty (if it ever comes to fruition), like M$ coming in and wiping out pirated copies of their OS? XP is already a step in the nasty direction, but that would just be completely insane...

Dear Gaia . . .

[cjpez]

Okay, yeah, obviously they were eventually going to try something this moronic. They might even be lucky enough to get it passed for awhile until the supreme court manages to knock it down.

But are they REALLY so insensitive as to tack it on to the end of an anti-terrorism bill? This has nothing to do with keeping terrorists at bay (some could argue that half of the stuff that is still in the bill doesn't do that either, but at least those bits have rationalized themselves). This is just some greedy organization that tried to use a "get this through quick" bill to slip in some really nasty stuff.

The other day, I was trying to force myself to reconsider my opinions on the evilness organizations like the RIAA. Or at least take a closer look at the actual humans involved in the decisions they make. But this is just insane . . .

Re:Dear Gaia . . .

[Mtgman]

Sigh, you didn't read the article did you?

In an interview Friday, RIAA lobbyist Mitch Glazier said that his association has abandoned plans to insert that amendment into anti-terrorism bills -- and instead is supporting a revised amendment that takes a more modest approach.
...
"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. But the RIAA is worried about the USA Act banning that practice -- and neither the Senate nor the House versions of that bill include the RIAA's suggested changes.

Glazier said that the RIAA was no longer lobbying for the language provided to Wired News -- "that's completely out" -- but instead wanted to ensure that current law remains the same. But Glazier said he could not provide a copy of the revised amendment he hopes to include.

Really it speaks for itself. The RIAA believes it is ALREADY legal to hack systems they believe to be distributing "pirated" material. The new Anti-Terrorism acts would make it illegal, so they're trying to build in a loophole. This isn't something they're just tacking onto a anti-terrorist bill, this is something they're trying to modify about an anti-terrorist bill so it doesn't apply to them. Essentially they're terrorists, but want to buy exemption with their fat wallets.

Steven

Retaliation

[Jason Straight]

Any attempt by those bastards on my machine will constitute me to enter a "self defense mode", in which I will return the attacks to them 10 fold. This is just bullshit. I'll file charges in michigan (my home state) against them where any hacking is considered a felony.

Re:Retaliation

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

But once they get into your computer, they would be accessing your data, including files that aren't copyrighted by others, which by default are copyrighted by you?

Would that perhaps give you a right to hack back to protect your own copyrighted works from infringement?

And they also circumvented a protection measure which guards your copyrighted works. Then comes into play the DMCA.

An exemption to 18 USC 1030 isn't going to cover their whole behind.

will the last geek...

[Jodrell]

Will the last geek to leave America, please turn Slashdot off? Thanks.

Re:will the last geek...

[ClubStew]

I hear ya! With each passing week, I want to move to Germany more and more. Heck, their government funds open source projects and is practically begging for computer engineers and scientists.

Re:will the last geek...

[eMago]

You won't.
Everyone has to take an ID-Card around or your fine will be 500$.
Shops have to close at 8 PM (20:00).
Bureaucracy is nowhere as bloated as in Germany.
And secretary of interior Mr. Schily is pushing
anti-"cybercrime" laws as hard as US senators.
The pros: the politicians are not bought like in the US (there are strict laws against "donations" and lobbying), they have just no idea...
Of course the Greens are the salvation
as they are in government and really protecting your rights.

Re:will the last geek...

[Jodrell]

According to the Human Freedom Index, the freest place to live in the world is Sweden. Also very well wired up.

Re:will the last geek...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should mention that. ust last week was the first anniversary of my wife and I leaving Silicon Valley for Munich, Germany.

I have been freelance contracting here (software engineering) and getting a visa and work permit is absolutely no problem. in fact, they really cater to foreign tech workers (almost embarassingly so).

It's an awesome place to live with great people who are super friendly. the best part? I have a 10 minute commute on my bicycle nd we don't even own a car! Compare that to the old 2 hour total commute up and down 101!

What you are talking about can be done. We have done it. I cannot tell you how happy we are to have left. We made the ultimate vote. We voted with our feet.

Onnel

Re:will the last geek...

[ClubStew]

Munich, reall? That's where I was thinking. In all my German classes, that seems to be about the prettiest place in Germany - which is saying a lot, because it all looks pretty! Buildings here are so modern and ugly - even if they try to mimic the baroque and rococo styles of old. My favorite styles are the Romanesque and gothic, anyway. I do like the Neuschwanstein, though, and all the other greats that Willhelm II funded. My fiance and I are planning our honeymoon there, in fact.

It's either that or Frankfurt. There's a lot of jobs opening up there, I see. Berlin - being the most technologically advanced city because they had to start over because we bombed the #$%^ out of them - also looks promising, though I'm sure cost of living is a lot higher as with most major cities and the fact you can't just bike everywhere, which I think I'd like.

Re:will the last geek...

[Catbeller]

Really? Sounds interesting. Tell us, do you both speak German? And if you don't, do they speak English for you at work? How's age descrimination in IT over there? Maybe it's a magic place for the older programmer crowd...

Re:will the last geek...

[Pengo]

Don't forget they also close at 12:00pm on saturday and CANT be open on sunday by law.

Hehehe... Germany is a very nice place, but sorta challenged my day-to-day habbits I took for granted in the states, though after 9-10 months I got used to it and it didn't phase me.

Re:will the last geek...

[Pengo]

as a contractor it's not bad in Europe, same in England as Germany. Compared to the US market right now it's high demand for tech workers as europe hasn't slumped as bad as US market has.

Only problem working as an expat in DE for someone large like Bertelsman or Semens, G&J, etc , you won't get far in the organization if your not German. In the end you will hit a wall where you can't climb higher, though not because of lack of skill or tallent.. you are in the right place as a contractor IMHO.

Re:will the last geek...

[ClubStew]

That's the problem. I have been acting, writing dozens of letters a month. I'd write more but don't have that much time on my hands. As another person wrote on this subject who is from Germany (supposedly), our politicians can be bought off easily. Microsoft and RIAA are the ones putting extra income in those people's pocket. America stopped being "For the People" a long time ago.

Plus, I like the Germany architecture of old and the forests and much more.

RIAA: Come get my MP3's

[NineNine]

I dare you.

The Silver Lineing...

[FatRatBastard]

According to the article the reason that the RIAA was pushing this POS was because the new Anti-Terrorism bill (you know, the one that states that hacking=terrorism) would put the Kybosh on the RIAA trying to block people who trade MP3s and such.

I still think the hacking provisions of the anti-terrorist bill stink (and I hope they're sunsetted eventually) but it gives me a nice warm glow to know that they're also causing the RIAA lots of grief.

I can't wait for the first person to sue the RIAA for "terrorism" when they try to port-block someone. I'd even donate some $$$ for the cause.

Everyone wants to crack my computer!

[ClubStew]

Great! So now the government AND RIAA (is there any difference anymore?) want to hack my computer. What kind of country is this? Apparently freedom is only granted to those with the money. Matthew Lesko should put that in his book.

We really need to start writing our congressmen and explaining the truth to them about technology. Has everyone written their congressmen yet? With so much bad legislation being proposed, one or two are bound to get passed.

There is another solution, though: transphasic torpedoes. They took out the bork with one shot in the last episode of Star Trek Voyager; perhaps they can take out Uncle Bill's cube before he assimilates the entire government and media!

Re:Everyone wants to crack my computer!

[ClubStew]

Oops, so I don't get flaimed: "bork" was a mistype. I meant "borg".

Re:Everyone wants to crack my computer!

[ClubStew]

What I was hinting at was the whole backdoor-in-encryption thing. I use heavy encryption on my system and if the government had a key, they would be able to (not that they would have a reason) get into my computer. That was my point.

Although it seems like a joke...

[Noofus]

...It might not be all too soon. With the anti-terrorism legislation that has screwed with our rights more than necessary, it seems that congress is willing to do all sorts of scary things in the name of public safety. This seems to be the beginning of a big-brother society. Would the RIAA have rights to randomly hack into any machine they suspect of having illegal MP3s? What would happen in a situation like mine where the only MP3s on my computer are the ones I have ripped from my own CDs to transfer to my rio? Would the RIAA claim they have the right to crack my security measures because they know there are MP3s on the computer, legal or not?

This is insane....

Already Legal?

[slashkitty]

from wired:

The RIAA believes that this kind of technological "self-help" against online pirates, if done carefully, is legal under current federal law. But the RIAA is worried about the USA Act banning that practice -- and neither the Senate nor the House versions of that bill include the RIAA's suggested changes.

It would seem that they are only trying to prevent this bill from outlawing their hacking. Is there no law preventing their cracks right now? Are they already working on a system to break into everyone's computer? Have they already started it up?

He HOPES???

[BadDoggie]

Peter Swire, a former top privacy official under President Clinton and now a professor at Ohio State University, says he hopes there would be public debate on any such proposal.

He hopes for public debate? We already know there won't be.

woof.

How to get free lawsuit money..

[glowingspleen]

Step 1: Download a few pirated mp3's

Step 2: Leave your PC connected to file sharing programs until the RIAA finds your IP address

Step 3: Allow RIAA MP3-Killer-Bot to delete your mp3's

Step 4: Sue the RIAA, pointing out the fact that you actually had a Step 1.5, in which you renamed some of your personal documents as mp3's, named after your favorite bands. It's their fault for not checking the data inside the files first.

Ta da.

BSA? The Boy Scouts of America?

[Root Down]

I knew there was something insidious about an organization that trains brownshirts in survival skills.

Re:BSA? The Boy Scouts of America?

[Tackhead]

> Men taking young boys out into the middle of the woods doesn't sound right to me.

Are you sure you're talking about the Boy Scouts of America and not the Business Software Association?

I mean, have you ever seen them in the same place at once?

I thought not.

(Where do you think the BSA goons learn such aggression?)

Let's get this passed!

[egburr]

For once, the RIAA may be doing something (unintentionally) good for us. Since the article didn't provide the actual proposal, I am assuming its description was farily accurate. To sum it up: anyone can hack into any system anywhere for any reason with complete immunitiy if they say they were doing so to check for suspected piracy of works for which they own the copyright. This sounds like a blank check for hackers.

Re:Let's get this passed!

[daoine]

The actual text is linked off of the Wired article, I've posted one of the two suggested texts for the amendment.:

No action may be brought under this subsection arising out of any impairment of the availability of data, a program, a system or information, resulting from measures taken by an owner of copyright in a work of authorship, or any person authorized by such owner to act on its behalf, that are intended to impede or prevent the infringement of copyright in such work by wire or electronic communication; provided that the use of the work that the owner is intending to impede or prevent is an infringing use.

Which means, if you own the copyright to something, and you believe that someone is poaching said thing, you have a blank check under this law. They can't prosecute you for whatever you do, provided you can prove the intent was to prevent/impede distribution.

But on the other hand, isn't intentionally breaking into someone's machine already illegal? How the hell would this amendment stand up as opposed to laws already in place?

Re:Let's get this passed!

[egburr]

Oops. I missed that link when reading the first time. I see it now. Thanks.

I guess the big question is, what are the current laws that supposedly already allow them to hack/crack into peoples computers to do this? This amendment is only intended to prevent the anti-terrorism legislation from making their current activity illegal. What are they doing now? How is it legal? Can we do the same back to them under the pretenses that we are making sure they haven't copied any of our copyrighted materials?

OPEN BSD firewall......

[bozo42]

.....let'm try me...

Red Herring

[nyjx]

The wired article says that ammendment ddin't get through. Interestingly (from the wired article): "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."

It seems unlikely that hacking the individual machines would be the best solution for this (even if the law were to allow it). The cost would be very high. Much cheaper to do what they are now doing:

• Leaning on ISPs to cut off "abusing" users (without comeback - see previous slashdot stories)
• Suing the larger sites (napster obviously)
• Trying to stifle decryption technology.

In the long run these are likely to be 95% effective if the succeed. If their wording were to ever pass into law they would just be setting a dangerous precedent for anybody to go and explore somebody else's machine. I'm just off to RIAA's web site to "check" if they have a copy of my (copyrighted) memoires on the server...

A good development

[pubjames]

I think this is a great idea. People who copy music and distribute it on the internet are robbing artists of their rightful earnings. After all, the RIAA is really just a kind of charity that collects money for poor musicians.

I think they should go further. They should allow the RIAA to break into people's houses to check that they don't have any music copies on cassette. If they do, the RIAA should be allowed to smash up their music system. And crap on their carpet.

RIAA isnt losing money

[night_flyer]

Student cant afford to pay the money for a CD BUT wants the music (and has NO intention of spending any money even if he did... beer is more important), they have one of three choices...

1) copy a friend's CD (unless friend doesnt have CD)
2) download songs off of internet
3) goes to the local store and steals it

cases one and two the RIAA doenst lose money because the student wasnt going to buy it anyway
case three, the store, the artist, the distributor, the Record Label and the RIAA lose money...

Re:RIAA isnt losing money

[unitron]

Case 3, the store has already paid the wholesale price for the CD so while the store loses money the artist, distributor, record label, and RIAA make just as much as they would have if the impoverished student had rolled a drunk and used the money to purchase the CD.

Stolen vs Legal MP3s?

[Root Down]

It is legal to create MP3s of music you own. How is it possible to determine which are legal and which are illegal, given only a list of files on your computer? Do they have a catalogue of the CDs I own?

Re:Stolen vs Legal MP3s?

[rknop]

It is legal to create MP3s of music you own. How is it possible to determine which are legal and which are illegal, given only a list of files on your computer? Do they have a catalogue of the CDs I own?

The RIAA does not want you to be able to create MP3s of music you own. They'd rather you get them from an officially approved source after you have your CD, or (even better) pay more to get the songs in formats other than the CD. With things like anti-circumvention laws, pretty soon the only MP3s of CDs possible will be ones that, even if they can exist legally, will have required an illegal activity to create.

It's plain that the RIAA doesn't want you making digial copies, even for your own use, of CDs you own: that's why un-rippable CDs are starting to come out.

Fair use practises allow you to make MP3s or Vorbises of CDs you own, as long as they are for your own use. But it's a whole lot easier for the RIAA to outlaw this indirectly than to directly assault fair use. Hence, they come up with laws that, while not outlawing fair use, outlaw the things which allow you to execrcise fair use. E.g. the DMCA. A useless law, unless your goal is to restrict legal activity. Copyright violation was already illegal, and the DMCA just makes the act of doing it illegal in another way. It also makes the act of exercising fair use rights under certain circumstances illegal. It gives the RIAA two things. First, another way to go after copyright violaters; you might argue that there is some purpose to this. (It's analogous to going after Al Capone for tax violation.) Two, it lets them bang on people exercising fair use, so that hopefully those people will start paying for additional copies of things they own.

-Rob

April fool or juridical bug bite ?

[mirko]

• I write all of my MP3 on CDRs so that I can listen too it on my Expanium while biking, guess it'll take them a long time to just realise my laptop is not the right place to search
• broomstick, is temporarily under Linux (I am developping somethin else)...Hope they can just "see" it if they want to hack it
• the MP3 I collect are the digital versions of songs I buy as second-hand LP's so they might find it even harder to prove that I infringed their shit
• Last but not least: when I don't listen too these good'ole times songs, I listen to GNUArt GPL'ed music which makes it definitely a bad day for their "hackers".

How this could work.

[squaretorus]

This could work in a couple of easy ways, if assume the world runs Win.

Simply release a great free sound player that incorporates some drice and network sweeping functions "to make it easier to find the music you want to play".

If an M3 is found the software can do one of two things;
1 Delete it, but keeping a copy within some HUGE archive file so the user can still play it but not copy or share it
2 Resave the file with your name, address, etc embedded.

Now if you share the file your info is going along with it. If the software finds a file with someone elses details, it gets deleted from your PC.

Keep the files playable so people dont go back to the old copy of REAL on a cover CD somewhere to get their old files back (as if 90% of users would know how).

That'd do it, quietly, like the way copy protection on CDs just slipped onto the market. They dont have to hack you - they just give you free software a la MS-IE

So... what IS terrorism?

[eldurbarn]

RIAA wants to be able to enforce the law. They want to be able to take the law into their own hands. They want to be able to strike against targets of their own choosing.

Terrorists have their own agenda, too, and want to strike against targets of their own choosing, taking the law into their own hands.

RIAA wants to be able to act like a terrorist, yet be protected from the anti-terrorist laws.

Egad!

did anyone actually read the proposed amendment?

[jerrytcow]

it says nothing about hacking into comuters and deleting files. Wired no doubtedly knows this, but they also know this headline will get them several thousand hits today
Here's the full text (emphasis mine):

'No action may be brought under this subsection arising out of any impairment of the availability of data, a program, a system or information, resulting from measures taken by an owner of copyright in a work of authorship, or any person authorized by such owner to act on its behalf, that are reasonably intended to impede or prevent the unauthorized transmission of such work by wire or electronic communication of such transmission would infringe the rights of the copyright owner.''

It looks like they are trying to come up with a way to detect if mp3s are being transmitted, and block it.

Dangerous to respond/

[joshtimmons]

I worry about this scenario:

1. RIAA starts portscanning my box, testing buffer overflow exploits, etc. in an attempt to get into my system.
2. I notice the suspicious activity, but don't know who it is.
3. I decide to figure out what's going on by scanning the originator and applying other various security tools. This could be anything, but if someone is trying to get in and I don't know who it is, I'm going to be tempted to respond in some way to stop the attack.
4. I get convicted of a felony (in many states) or terrorism (hasn't passed yet) for trying to hack into the RIAA's system.
5. They don't even get a slap on the wrist because it's legal for them.

My point is that it puts knowledgable people in a very risky position because they don't know who is attacking their PC and would naturally try to respond.

They claim they already have the right...

[Masem]

first, READ THE ARTICLE.

RIAA already claims that they have the right to hack your box if there is sufficient evidence (for them) that you are engaging in illegal distribution of their copyrighted material. Any 'incidental' damage to your computer outside of their copyrighted material was just side effects and not their fault, according to how their read the law.

The rub here is that in the recently passed USA bill, any act of hacking that incures more than $5k of damages could be concidered as a terrorist act, and thus, if RIAA were to accidently wipe your hard drive with their hacking attempts, that could be a terrorist act.

So RIAA was trying to get language added to the USA bill that would protect hacking done by copyright owners from being considered a terrorist threat, allowing them to continuing following the law as they believe they can already.

Apparently, if they've done this, no one has sued them, traced them, or otherwise indicated that their mp3's have suddenly disappeared. As it stands, I think it's a rather questionable application of the law and I wonder if further legal investigation of it should be done.

RIAA recieved NO money from me this weekend

[night_flyer]

bought 12 CDs at a pawnshop for 3.00 each, pawnshop made 12.00 on the deal, RIAA recieved NOTHING!

oh and it was some good stuff to...

ACDC, thick upper lip
ACDC, Dirty Deads
Led Zepplin, Presence
Megadeth, Peace sells
Megadeth, Risk
Days Of The New, Yellow Album
and a bunch more...

RIAA, sociopathy, and lobotomies

[Marasmus]

There is no such thing as 'the right thing to do' when it comes to the RIAA.

the "we claim to denounse the 'vigilante' actions of music piraters, but we are trying to become legally-protected vigilantes" hypocricy is, well, baffling. I don't think that any sane body of people could come up with anything as fundamentally and legally wrong. The RIAA just makes itself out to be a body of mentally-imbalanced sociopaths.

How far does the RIAA plan to take this? The mention of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is not only symbolically but literally relevant. Will the RIAA start burning books because we could translate the music into multiple sinusoidal equations and print it on paper? Are they going to get 'expert witnesses' to testify that the human brain never loses any data which it receives, and thus the human brain itself is a physical medium of piracy? Will they then lobotomize me to get their song back?

Of course this is an exaggeration... however, it is more possible today than it was yesterday.

Re:RIAA, sociopathy, and lobotomies

[Tackhead]

> There is no such thing as 'the right thing to do' when it comes to the RIAA.

"Disband them. Preferably by throwing their leaders in jail to send a message to anyone who would take their place."

Anyone got a better idea?

Good luck

[dudle]

$ ls -l ~/mp3
Permission denied

I don't own the directory. Good luck :P

Re:Not Unreasonable

[radja]

> Imagine someone broke into your house and stole your stereo. Later, through your neighbor's window, you see your stereo. You try to reason with your neighbor (just as the RIAA has tried reason with music-thieving public), but to no avail. Would you not then be justified to break into your neighbors house and reclaim your property?

So you break in and take the stereo. The neighbours told you it was their stereo.
And when you get home, it turns out it wasn't your stereo, just the same model. However.. under this law it's legal...

//rdj

Congress didn't bite, but in the meanwhile . . .

[werdna]

. . . we are now in a position to turn the tabled on RIAA, using the USAA's overreaching revision of civil remedies for hacking.

Perhaps it is time to set up some serious MP3-baited honeypots, and just wait for RIAA to bury themselves?

I can think of nothing more useful to turn the tables on RIAA's currently pristine image in Congress (or at least to get Congress to re-think their ludicrous rewiring of criminal computer laws), than to show the unintended consequences of massive remedies for improper hacking.

I am a copyright owner

[jmv]

I hold the copyright for a couple (mostly GPL) programs. Am I allowed to hack into the RIAA machines so I can verify they're not violating the GPL? That would be interesting. For some time there's been rumors of MS using GPL'ed code in Windows, I guess we can verify that now!

Thinking about it, I'm not sure even the RIAA wants that kind of laws...

Zip em up or burn them to CDs

[night_flyer]

OR use .ogg (I havent messed with it yet as I use options 1&2)

kinda hard deleting/finding mp3s when they are names DP_SOTW.zip (Deep Purple, smoke on the water)

Re:Zip em up or burn them to CDs

[scrytch]

kinda hard deleting/finding mp3s when they are names DP_SOTW.zip

Congratulations, for that particular file you just destroyed the usefulness of Morpheus and every system like it, thus doing most of the RIAA's work for them.

Re:Zip em up or burn them to CDs

[night_flyer]

except it isnt on Morpheus, thats what I named it on MY machine

Re:Time to get active

[fjordboy]

"STOP SUPPORTING THE RIAA"

Unfortunately, this is what Joseph Heller would call a Catch 22. One of those damned if you do, damned if you don't scenarios. If people stop buying stuff from RIAA members...then the problems would be even more dire. Then they would have "proof" that piracy is increasing because their sales are going down and people are obviously pirating the music they want. See? Either way is inefective. Sorry. I wish that would work...it would be a somewhat easy solution...get your way through economic pressure.

VERY Unreasonable

[schon]

Imagine someone broke into your house and stole your stereo. Later, through your neighbor's window, you see your stereo. You try to reason with your neighbor, but to no avail. Would you not then be justified to break into your neighbors house and reclaim your property?

No, you wouldn't.

You would (quite rightly) be hauled off to jail for break-and-enter, as well as theft.

The correct thing to do in your scenario would be to tell the police what you know, and allow THEM to get your stereo (after obtaining a search warrant.)

Just because someone stole from you, doesn't give you the right to steal.

Re:VERY Unreasonable

[hearingaid]

Actually, it depends on your jurisdiction. The original poster was describing a self-help remedy.

You wouldn't be prosecuted for theft, BTW. You can't steal things you own. This is true in any common-law jurisdiction.

Normally, you wouldn't be prosecuted for break and enter either. Break and enter is usually a predicate offense: you are prosecuted with committing a B&E if you do it with the intent to commit a felony (or an indictable offense, or whatever the term is). Since you weren't breaking in to commit a felony (taking possession of your property is legal), then you would normally not be prosecuted.

You might be prosecuted for trespass, though. This would vary by jurisdiction, a lot. Also, you might be sued if you negligently damaged the property of the thief, for example by breaking the door down. You'd have a pretty good partial defense to that though in most jurisdictions, and would probably not be liable for the full extent of the damages.

That said, the police are generally more effective than self-help remedies. But they're not always illegal.

Re:Not Unreasonable

[Gizzmonic]

Imagine someone broke into your house and stole your stereo. Later, through your neighbor's window, you see your stereo. You try to reason with your neighbor (just as the RIAA has tried reason with music-thieving public), but to no avail. Would you not then be justified to break into your neighbors house and reclaim your property?

Imagine that you were the only conduit for music for a number of years. Now let's imagine that you ignored customer requests for things like a-la-carte songs, custom mix CDs, and reasonably priced CDs.

Now let's imagine that while you were out swimming in all your money, another distribution system-let's call it "the Internet"-emerges, offering your customers all those features that they begged you to include for years.

Well, you know it won't be long before everyone jumps on this "new distribution" bandwagon, because it offers better communication and profits between artists and music consumers.

So instead of embracing the technology, and competing in the marketplace, you decide to litigate your way back to monopoly.

Is it any wonder that anyone who knows anything about music distribution hates the RIAA?

bork bork brok

[DoorFrame]

har har har

bork bork bork

My turn?

[hhe_hee]

Hey does that mean I can commit a burglary at RIIA, just to get back some of that money that went to them when I bought records. But of course, only for those records I found cheaper in another store.

Is it ok?
It's the same thing? Really?
great, let me just go get my crowbar...

Re:Time to get active

[Flower]

More like buy your music second hand, rip it and share it with the world.

That way the RIAA and the artists associated with them won't see a dime of your money. If Metallica and the rest want my cash they can form an indie label and tell the RIAA to stuff it. You don't get to price a CD at $20US only to put it on sale for $15US when I can get it on the Internet for $11US (are we seeing a trend as to how much a CD is actually worth?) and then treat me like a thief.

Even asking for the right to hack into my PC is too much. I've never been a big napster fan but I will certainly make sure that any way I get my music now will not benefit the RIAA.

already done here

[Rai]

i stopped supported them about a year ago. i quit buying industry cds altogether and gave what i already had away--no joke! (minus a few that had been autographed.) now, the only music i buy is from independent bands, producers, and djs.

and i really wish rosen + crew would read this: i will never buy another cd or any other music product from any company that is affliated with riaa in anyway. you have crossed the line numerous times and there is no way in hell you'll ever get another penny of my money. let me put it this way: if jesus christ appeared before me and gave me the choice of buying a cd from you or going to hell--i'm choosing hell. fuck you!

Re:did anyone actually read the proposed amendment

[mkoenecke]

Wrong. Read it again. "Impairment of the availability of data, a program, a system or information" (translation: Damage done to your programs/OS/data) IS hacking. What the amendment really says is that if such damage is caused to your computer, if the RIAA REASONABLY INTENDED to prevent the "unauthorized transmission" of copyrighted work (translation: if they thought you might be sharing MP3's), they cannot be held liable for the damages. Sure, they're trying to block transmissions. The problem is that the amendment says that they may do so with impunity; any damage they cause while attempting to do so, *whether or not justified* (only has to be "reasonable" intent) is *your* problem.

once again, slashdot misreporting at its best.

[Wakko Warner]

The article states explicitly that the RIAA is no longer trying to get those hacking provisions made into laws. Sorry, guys. Read the article next time before you post this bullshit.

- A.P.

On that note...

[dave-fu]

...as long as you have less than 300 CDs up on your theoretical FTP site, you're doing less than $5000 in damage to the RIAA's bottom line.
Problem solved.

Re:On that note...

[Flower]

How do you figure that?

I put one mp3 file on the ftp server and they can say that every download constitutes a lost sale on the CD which has that song. Pricing a CD at $20 that is 250 downloads.

You really need to learn the New Math companies use to determine on-line damage.

Let'em try.....

[warpeightbot]

Y'know what? Let'em TRY hacking MY computer. I mean, I figure some of you guys MIGHT POSSIBLY be able to convince a hardware router to do your bidding, but then you've got to figure out which box is really mine (hint: it's not the Windows boxen, those are my housemates'), and then you've got to take into account that I do in fact keep up with all the software updates and stuff... so there's not going to be any of this slack-ass admin hackability.....

If they really care to go to all that trouble. But I doubt it. They're going to go after easy targets.

--
Some of us are fish.... and some of us are sharks.

Re:Let'em try.....

[scrytch]

That's simple, next law they buy, it'll just be illegal to stop them.

If I as a private citizen conducted a tenth of my business the way congress makes laws, I would be rotting in jail.

Re:Not Unreasonable

[Flower]

You forgot step 2. You call the police and have them get your stereo back. This is the civilized way to handle things.

The flaw in your analogy is if you break into your neighbor's house they have a right to defend themselves up to and including the possibility of killing you for trespassing on their property. Not to mention that you would be liable for any damage you did to their home.

The interesting part in the story

[sela]

... is not their proposed (initial) amendment, as they already agreed to withdraw it, and the newer amendment is mainly there to ensure they would still have the legal loophole they have today (or at least they believe they do).

The real news is that the RIAA is actually admitting they have plans to use those tactics for fighting piracy.

My guess? The RIAA does not plan to hack into individual user's computers and delete their MP3 files - this would not be cost-effective. What they have in mind is a plan in case they loose the case against FastTrack/Music-City. I bet they plan to distrupt the KaZaa/Morpheus network in case they loose the legal fight and FastTrack do not accept their terms in negotiation.

There is a lot that can be done to deliberately sabotage the KaZaa network, and make it unusable. I won't mention the possible ways not to give anyone any ideas, but I think this should serve as a warning for us - we should prepare for a new kind of attack from the RIAA.

LMAO! (Laughing my ass off)

[c.r.o.c.o]

Yeah, I just want to see the RIAA hacking into MY computer! I mean, if I would live in the US. But I live in Canada, and the way things are looking right now, we're close to catching up with our neighbours in terms of idiotic tech-related laws.(DMCA and the like)

But supposing the RIAA will want to hack my box, they have to go through my OpenBSD internet gateway, that has nothing open but SSH2, then get into my Linux box, which again has nothing open except SSH2 and NFS, and finally get to my hdd in a meaningfull way so they would be able to delete something.

But unfortunately for them, even if they acomplish such an amazing feat (I'm not trying to boast, but this system is fairly tight for a home setup. No, please don't try portscanning me/ hacking into my box if you get my IP, I can't afford the bandwidth.) So even if they reach my hdd, all I have is about 500Mb-1Gb worth of new mp3s. All the rest is backed up on CDs.

So unless they figure out how to destroy a CD just by reading it in a CDROM, I think I'm safe. Now I know there are far deeper implications with this thing becoming a law, but just the fact itself is making me lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!

they can take my mp3's...

[DigiBoi]

...when they crack my OpenBSD bridge firewall.

Active defenses

[coyote-san]

I have always opposed active defenses (deliberately trying to crash any system trying to crack mine) in the past.

But if any organization thinks (or worse, *gets*) the legal right to tell me that I have no recourse if they destroy my data - which includes not only my personal files but files used by my business and files I'm working on for my clients - then I have no option but to be much more aggressive about defending my system. I have no "illegal" MP3s (the ones I have are ripped from my own disks, for use in featherweight MP3 players during exercise), but that provides no immunity from either their attempts to crack my system or damage if they do get in.

E.g., to use that recent Code Red II virus as an example, instead of merely logging IP addresses I would use that script that responds to every attacking site with its own attack designed to shut down the remote site. Hopefully cleanly, but no guarantees. It's this very lack of guarantees of a clean shutdown with no adverse secondary consequences which is why I, and others, have opposed active measures in the past. But if I think there's even a remote credible risk that my clients who depend on my security will be harmed, I'll be far more proactive.

Of course, backups will prevent loss of most data. But the time required to identify the extent of damage, restore files, make up lost work between backup cycles, etc., is time I'm not working for clients. I'm not getting paid, my clients aren't getting their work done, etc. The damages from a single incident would quickly exceed thousands of dollars - far more than I spend on *all* entertainment (CDs, videos, cable TV, movies) in a year. That's real damages that can be proven in court - reduction in hours billed to clients (lost income), increase in hours billed to internal support (increased costs), possibly lost clients. None of this "oh, pity our record profits in the face of 'piracy' crap."

WAR OPPORTUNISM OF THE WORST SORT

[YIAAL]

The Bush Administration and the press had better be all over the RIAA and its Congressional sponsors. I can't think of a faster way to discredit the war on terrorism than opportunism like this.

So what happens...

[shanek]

...if they get the file METALLICA.MP3.vbs and it wipes their hard drive??? :^)

In Other News...

[cnelzie]

A new bill sponsored by Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and AOL has been put forward that will allow these companies to enter your home and install their own software and bill you for the privilage.

Dubbed the "Anti-OSS-Cancerous-Terrorist-Bill" by its detractors, the SSSCA appears to have bi-partisan support. Quoted one senator, "Who wants this cancerous open sores nonsense? We are protecting Americans from the dangers of terrorism, as well as giving our friends the protections they desperately need to survive in this tough economy. I mean look at how terrible things are for Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and AOL!"

Long time consumer advocate Ralph Nader responded by saying, "Windows acts like Pintos and now there will be legislation making Pintos the only car people can drive? What farcical nonsense is this? This crap never would have happened if more people had voted their conscience rather than simply voting for the guy that thought would win. I am writing a new book about it called 'Unsafe at any Megahertz'."

--
.sig seperator
--

WIRED missing the worst part

[re-geeked]

Okay, suppose the following were all true (not bloody likely, but suppose):

The RIAA only hacked the machines of the guilty.
The RIAA only destroyed material that infringed on their copyrights.
The RIAA breaks no laws doing so.

Then what harm do you have left? The RIAA acting as its own little police force/judicial system!

There is no moderate version of this proposal!

Unbelievable.

RIAA Job Annoucement

[scaryjohn]

from: anti-piracy@riaa.org
to: alt.virii, alt.h4x0r, comp.sec.black-hat
subject: l33t h4x0r5 w4nt3d!!!!!111111

W3 wnat j00! if j00 c4n rwit3 b4d-455 viri1 liek s1rc4M, & c0d3 rde, w3 w4nt j00 to h4x0r f0r u5!!!!11111

phr34k in2 th3 b0X3n 0f l4m3r5 ru0nd th3 wl0rd 4nd t4a5h0r th33r MP3Z... l3g4lly!!!!111111 m4k3 m0n3y f45t!!!!!!11111111```````

w3'll 3v3n g3ts j00 a t3ch-g33nisu v33sa 1f j00 rw0t3 c0d3 rde 4nd l1v35 n1 ch1n0r!!!!!!1111

--
The RIAA... ph33r us!!!!!!11111

Re:RIAA Job Annoucement

[isorox]

should I be woried I can translate that?

Corruption in the U.S. government.

[Futurepower(tm)]

I find this really, really painful: I think the U.S. government is becoming thoroughly corrupt.

Lots of people are using the terrorism to accomplish sneaky goals.


Government corruption: What should be the Response to Violence?

I always thought this would happen in napster...

[rebelcool]

after the litigation started, I fancied a silly (or so I thought at the time...) thought that eventually the RIAA would win, and napster would release for download a new version of their client. However the client would have a "bug" in it that "accidentally" erased all your MP3 files...

Apparently truth really is stranger than fiction.

Re:Just make them all read-only!

[radja]

Why so hard? just mount your partition read-only :)

//rdj

Correct me if I wrong

[James Lanfear]

Reading Sec. 815 os the USA Act and 18 USC 1030, I notice that Sec. 1030(a)(5), which the former is rewriting, is devoted entirely to damage to "protected computers". A protected computer is defined as

(2) the term ''protected computer'' means a computer -

(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the
United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not
exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial
institution or the United States Government and the conduct
constituting the offense affects that use by or for the
financial institution or the Government; or

(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or
communication;

So if the RIAA was actually trying to tie something to this section they would either end up with permission to hack only gov't computers, or they would have had to amend out every reference to protected computers. Am I missing something here?

How does this cross-section look?

[cmstremi]

I wonder how many proponents of hacking someone's system (or writing a worm to do so) to remove Nimda for someone who isn't willing to patch their stuff feels about this. Although nobody would admit it, there's a huge double-standard here.

Of course the RIAA should not be allowed to decide what you can or can't have on your computer. We all agree on that, I think.

Granting them this right would be like deputizing them. But they'd really just be vigilante's.

The RIAA has every right to try and protect their propery, and ALREADY has a legal mechanism to do so. The court system.

I can't see this going very far. I can, however, see the RIAA encouraging politicians to write some new laws that make it more cost effective for them to seek legal remedy in the courts. We all know that the RIAA can't sue each of us for $500. Even they don't have enough money to pull that off.

Bah.

reasonable....

[Restil]

If they have "reasonable" proof that there's an issue of piracy at hand, they should be able to have law enforcement obtain a search warrant and take care of the problem correctly.

Otherwise we have vigilante justice on our hands.

-Restil

Re:Curses. Good call.

[Flower]

No, you misinterpret what I'm saying. Since all people want was the single song you have available (after all most of it is just filler but you've got 2-3 songs for radio airplay.) You are robbing them of $20 bucks for just the one song. After all it is the single which is driving the CD sale.

And as they roll out each hit one by one each hit is worth the $20 in and of itself. After all, once one song gets played to death you need a new song to milk that money out of the people holding out (You bastards!)

If we were playing Paranoid I think I'd have to say you owed the RIAA $60US for that song. &lt evil grin &gt

And what do you mean theoretical?

LA Times Article Says AOL Objected to Amendment

[tmlrv]

There is an article in the Los Angeles Times here which says AOL TIme Warner was objecting to the amendment for unspecified reasons.

The article also mentions that (surprise!) the MPAA also backed the bill.

Another interesting excerpt: The RIAA and MPAA have made no secret of their interest in a technological counterattack against piracy, particularly on the Internet's increasingly popular file-sharing networks.
The measures they've explored include software that can detect a song or movie as it's being copied through the Net, replace the unauthorized copy with a different file and even disable the original on the sender's computer.

Yes-- it's a documented feature

[marnanel]

Hmm. According to MS's FAQ on the subject, Winamp and others are shipping stuff that uses the Windows Media APIs, including the Windows Rights Manager parts you mentioned. The same document mentions the browser-opening feature:

Digital media files are maintained in a protected format at all times. This protected file can be freely shared between customers. When customers without a license attempt to access the shared digital media file, they are prompted to get a license for that digital media file by following the business rules specified at the hosting Web site.

Yes, it does

[SuiteSisterMary]

Does this give you the right to crack RIAA systems to make sure no one there is selling copies of your term paper?

Yes. Write something down. Under American law, you now have an implicit copyright on that thing you just wrote down. Ratify it, and open the door for criminal charges should somebody copy it, by mailing a copy to the Library of Congress.

You're wrong.

[SuiteSisterMary]

which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;

Let me bold the words that are important:

which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;

In other words, is hooked up to the Internet. Because you can reasonably assume that to get to an Internet backbone, you're going to cross state lines.

Doesn't this remind you of a witch hunt?

[AntiFreeze]

I get it now... according to the RIAA, I'm guilty until proven innocent. They want to be able to crack my system in order to prove me innocent. Oh, and if they fry my system, sorry, but I can't do anything about it.

RIAA: "Well, we thought she was a witch, so we tied her up and threw her in the ocean. See, witches float, so if she was a witch, she would have floated and then we could have killed her."

Inspector: "Uh..."

RIAA: "So anyway, she drowned. She wasn't a witch, so we don't see the problem."

Inspector: "So, you're admitting you killed an innocent woman?"

RIAA: "No, we simply proved she wasn't a witch and that there's nothing wrong with her."

Inspector: "By killing her???"


I hope my analogy is clear.

Re:Doesn't this remind you of a witch hunt?

[Tackhead]

Angry RIAA peasant in Monty-Pythonesque voice: "We have found an MP3, may we delete it?!"

heh..

[Danse]

How many $cientologists do you think are allowed to read /.? It's subversive man!!

Re:Consequential Damages

[bluGill]

You are paritally right. However courts do tend to frown on that type of thing. I wouldn't be surprized if concequential damanges don't apply because they did not verify the .mp3 file really was a song they owned rights to. That is before they can delete a file "latest_britney.mp3" they need to download it and listen to it (or do a byte comparition with something known to be an accual britney song. Otherwise it isn't concequential damages it is thier own neglect.

Concequential damages would be using a backdoor to windows that on (other os like linux) causes your harddrive to be formated, but once they know that the backdoor has otherresults on a different OS they will then be at fault for any harddrive formated.

The Other Amendment

[4of12]

Atty General Ashcroft was questioned later about the amendment crafted by RIAA lobbyists.

He explained, "that it was a compromise, the effective give and take of a freedom-loving nation acting of one accord for the national interest."

According the AG, evidently, earlier proposed legislation would have provided protection to agents acting on behalf of vital national security interests, such as the RIAA and MPAA, if they were to invade homes physically in search of terrorist contraband, such as open source/hacker computers that were used to criminally steal valuable American property, such as CD recordings of Madonna.

Said Ashcroft, "I thought physical searches were probably a bad idea because of the technicalities involved. Many judges would mistakenly interpret the Constitution too rigidly and impeded such searces as being 'unreasonable'. For that reason, I though it best if the searches were restricted to electronic means."

Senators in favor of the proposed legislation said they were "unfamiliar" with the amendments, which had been added at the last minute by staffers, many of whom had industry backgrounds that enabled them to understand complicated technical issues.

One Senator harrumphed "If Osama bin Laden thinks he can get away with software piracy, he has another thing coming!"

Re:How can this be?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Why does the RIAA need an exception to a TERRORIST law?

Obviously, the RIAA is admitting that they use terrorist tactics!

Collateral Damage?

[ktakki]

I used to be a musician and songwriter. I hold copyrights (dating back to the '70s), and have a fairly large collection of .mp3s of the songs I've written and recorded over the last 25 years.

How do they determine whether the .mp3 on my PC is an infringing item? Is it the filename? The ID3 tag? Or are they going to kill them all, let Hilary Rosen sort it out, like some crazed Crusader?

And does my status as a copyright holder mean I have a Get out of Jail Free card with respect to hacking? What if I suspect the RIAA of infringing on my copyrights?

k.

Missing the POINT

[ajs]

Lobbyists for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) tried to glue this hacking-authorization amendment onto a mammoth anti-terrorism bill that Congress approved last week.

A lot of folks are pointing out that this ammendment did not make it through (some others are claiming that it's already legal). I won't even touch that, because it's not the point.

Folks, the RIAA has shown us its true colors! In the face of one of the greatest national tragedies in the U.S., the RIAA decides to use the political momentum to sneak through controvercial legislation granting them the power to subvert the bill of rights without even so much as notifying law enforcement!

This is deeply anti-freedom, anti-American and just downright evil. If the RIAA had pushed for hearings on the topic, or even bought enough of a congress-crittur to get a bill introduced, that's one thing. If they had pushed an amendment to related legislation, that's kind of slimy, but I'm (unfortunately) used to it in the U.S.

But, when you try to hide your actions under the cloak of an anti-terrorism bill, in response to the death of thousands... I don't think I want to have to look at someone associated with the RIAA for a very long time.

Oh BTW, in case you were wondering why anyone would ever want to risk such public backlash, let me clue you in: the RIAA wants this amendment to be part of a bill that the courts dare not strike down. Do you think the supreme court would toss and anti-terrorism law because of an entertainment-industry amendment? Sorry, I can only take so much.... I have to go wash.

New solutions

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

That's why a new amendment to the proposed amendment gives them the right to burn down your house as long as such action is "intended to impede or prevent the infringement of copyright". Of course you could sing the songs. Well a Senator from South Carolina wants to add murder to the list of measures copyright holders are allowed to use. Its called the "Rightsholder Lethal Self-help Authorization Act". Cool, the acronym even ends in "AA".

Of course infringement is not going to be a big problem, since the new version of the SSSCA expands the definition of an "interactive digital device" to include humans, so the neural implants required under the Act will keep things under control. And if someone tries to infringe, it can be set to kill them on the spot. After all, no one has the right to infringe, and it must be stopped by any means necessary. Any collateral damage is the fault of the infringer - if they didn't want to be electrocuted from within, they could have chosen not to infringe.

;)

(yes this is sarcastic, but you can see the parallels to what the copyright cartel is trying to do)

Two word solution to our problem

[Scoria]

ROT13
DMCA

Re:Two word solution to our problem

[Scoria]

From:

Dear Consumer,

After decoding your message (illegal under our own pet act, the DMCA), we have decided that since the acronym DMCA is our lawyers' and our lawyers' alone, we must file a lawsuit.

Now, if you'll please share your primary hard disk (preferably the big one with the /porn directory; hey, we get lonely too!) on your computer, we must also whack off to your porn, erm, investigate your computer for materials (Linkin Park is *not* a boyband in disguise, really!) that you may have pirated. If you haven't pirated anything, we'll just upload a couple of MP3s.

Thank you,

Your friends at the RIAA

Say What

[haplo21112]

Now before you go off again, lets take a global view of this. If you add all the pieces together.

This a**hole has attacked the US at least twice outright, why because he sees it as a Holy war...
but, if he is so damned Holy, he should be reading his own damned Holy book...I have spoken to several people here where I work that are sicked by what that Idiot over there is doing...they follow the same teachings and religious background, the first hing they are thought is the sanctity of Human Life, no matter what. They claim infact that all these Radicals, are the ones in the wrong, and where ever they are inconflict they should be living in piece and infact being the piece makers! I have even been told that as long as he is being harbored that they consider the US to be justified, as anyone who would harbor him, or allow their govenment to harbor him is not following their holy teachings, and therefore is looked down upon, and deserves what is happening.

you hack me..

[josepha48]

.. maybe I should hack back..

If someone starts hacking at my computer and tries establishing a new connection or spoofing a connection my machine will log this and in the future if this happens enough I may have it launch a couter attack.

Lets face it if someone hacks software or a site it is against the law, but they want to be able to hack your computer? I think not, what is to stop them after that of getting into your financials or address book or mucking up your system by mistake.

Yeessss!

[hrieke]

If this bill passes it would be great!!!!
Since I hold the copyright to my name and MAC address I can now freely hack into the RIAA systems and delete all referances to my copyrights. And if I happen to ruin the whole database, oh well.
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

Rule of the thumb that they don't like: "What is good for the goose is good for the gander."

And WHICH lobbyists in particular?

[marxmarv]

None other than Mitch Glazier, the little toady-whore who tried to kill the 35-year ownership limit on works for hire by corrupting a committee on the Satellite Home Viewing Improvement Act.

/.'ers need to find out where this scumpuppy lives and make his life as hellish as is legally permissible.

-jhp

RIAA SUCKS!

[rice_burners_suck]

Here's how you can ruin the RIAA's argument. See, they keep arguing that they're doing all this for the poor artists, when in fact, they are robbing the artists just like they're robbing us. They charge 20 dollars for a CD but the artist gets pennies on the dollar. The way to win this fight is as follows: mail a check or money order for a fair amount directly to the artists for the songs you have. Accompany that check with an explanatory letter telling them that you believe they should profit from their work but the RIAA shouldn't. Tell them that you downloaded the songs for free but since you're paying them, the artist, for their work, you believe it is not piracy. When the RIAA starts complaining of people doing this, they can't argue that we're robbing poor artists, so they'll have to come up with some other argument, and then we can argue that the RIAA is the only one robbing anyone: they rob the artists coming and they rob the consumer going.

README

[ocie]

I wrote a very important and copyrighted document called README. I believe a copy of this file has been stolen from me and has been copied to many machines around the net. I have yet to break into a machine that didn't have a copy of my file.

Re:Ultimate Honeypot

[mpe]

Someone could just put out a bunch of fake MP3 filenames without actually allowing anyone to download them (to verify content) and wait for the RIAA. They hack in, sue them. It wasn't copyrighted material thus they didn't have the right.

Except that in such a case it was copyright material. Only problem is could you bring the full force of the DMCA down on them?

Re:I want some of whatever they are smoking

[mpe]

A new law could of course circumvent old anti-hack/crack laws, and being Federal it would trump any state laws.

Except that this would appear to violate the 14th ammendment. Since it's creating a law which applies to only one group of "people". Which IIRC explicitally states that any such laws must be ignored.

Re:I want some of whatever they are smoking

[mpe]

Exactly. Some time ago, the politicians realised that they could circumvent the 4th Amendment (among various other rights guaranteed by the Constitution) through a third party.

Interesting that they need to jump through hoops with one part of the US constitution. But other parts e.g. IP clause, 10th and 14th ammendments are simply ignored.
Does this represent which parts of the US constitution the average US citizen even knows exist...

Poorly represented counter-argument

[orpheus2k]

The most disturbing aspect of this article is that the opponents to the RIAA have as their main argument, essentially, 'What if something goes wrong while they are creeping around? What if they corrupt your hard drive?'

This completely misses the fact that the violation and penetration is on its face reprehensible. What if the RIAA presents to a congressional hearing a supposedly fool-proof method to do what they want?

This places the burden of right-behavior on the wrong party. Compare this to what is required to enter someone's home to retreive stolen property. It requires a search warrant obtained through proper legal channels, and then the searching and reclaiming party would be police or FBI, not the party who was stolen from.

We need to assert strongly that our virtual space (which resides in a place -- hard drives, CPUs, etc that exist in a particular place) can be defended like our physical space.

Nothing a good firewall won't prevent

[einhverfr]

Breaking into a system presupposes that the system is vulnerable. Properly securing a system will go a LONG way towards preventing this possibility. And unless the RIAA wants to engage in real computer vandalism, they will be hard pressed to break into any system I administrate.

But again, it is the little guy they are picking on. Not the knowledgable security professional.

Re:Okay, you Vigilantes,

[mpe]

Yes, the government is supposed to be for all people, but lately they've been getting more and more partial for certain groups. Particularily, the ones with a lot of money and loud whiners/lobbyists.

Which just gives one more example of how the written US constitution is simply "ink on paper".

The fact that the RIAA would even bother to propose something like this is proof of it.

But also look at the lack of critisism of the RIAA in the mainstram media. Is anyone asking questions of why these "terrorists" would want such a law...

The RIAA knows that they can get whatever they want passed, provided they word it confusingly enough and make large enough campaign "donations".

The former is IMHO down to a slightly different problem. That is legislators lacking the good sense to throw out any proposed legislation they don't understand.

Re:And WHO executes the laws???

[mpe]

The biggest question this leaves in my mind is: WHO EXECUTES THE LAWS IN THE USA???

Is it the local Police/FBI/CIA/President/etc.? And, even if they wanted to search my hard drive for illegal content, wouldn't they then have to follow due process, which
includes getting a search warrant from a Judge? Remember the 6th amendment?

Isn't the last bit the actual problem. That far too few people in the US (including police officers and judges) actually know what the US constitution says.

A snowball has a better chance in hell.

[solios]

First, about the only people that would fall victim to this ridiculous proposal would be consumers. Companies, artists, writers and programmers aren't about to let ANYONE look around there systems just because they might have MP3s - and hey, what if you actually OWN the CD to begin with? Like I'm going to carry my Fear Factory CDs with me to work every day just so the staff can see proof that I have the "legal" "right" to listen to the Fear Factory MP3s on my system. My boss knows my system is loaded, knows where I got 'em, and knows that having music on hand makes me a hell of a lot more productive.

I'll give money to the artist for making a kick ass product- but the suits that are grubbing for this haven't a lick of musical talent in their bodies, haven't recorded a single damned song of their own, and flat out just do NOT deserve the proceeds or the right to poke at my system to begin with. Personally, I feel it's all a diversionary tactic to cover up the fact that the major labels have produced nothing of interest or value within the last five to ten years; how much money did you SAVE when you realized that out of ten albums you wanted to buy, less than three had more than two tracks worth listening to?

Folks, the DMCA, the RIAA, the entertainment industry in general infringe on our civil rights (or are quite obviously attempting to) a hell of a lot more than any terrorist activity or threat thereof. Money may talk, and they may have most of it, but the current state of the federal bill that they're trying to work around is a serious sticking point; as is the patently obvious fact that the RIAA seems to be more concerned with the mp3 FORMAT than any method to differentiate between songs that they distribute and music on independant labels.

[example; if something like this went down and they deleted a live recording of a friend's gig that I'd compressed to listen to later, that would technically be destruction of private property, wouldn't it?]

Re:Slashdot Is Spreading FUD

[mpe]

The RIAA has a legitimate case (and I by no means support this fascist organization) for wanting this law- to allow themselves to go after mp3 pirates

Why should they be given special powers (which is is against the US constitution in the first place) to do this?

Re:This is delaying legitimate legislation

[mpe]

It seems to me that the RIAA (and others) are using anti-terrorism legislation to promote their own personal agenda.

Isn't the whole thing about promoting a whole set of rather questionable pre-existing agendas.

his is not only a slimy tactic but keeps real anti-terrorism provisions that are in the bill from becoming law quickly because there will need to be debate on these issues.

How much in there would actually do much to fight terrorism. Remember that any terrorist organisation can easily adapt to changes.
More to the point there are very real issues about prevention of terrorism which simply cannot be solved by legislation.

Re:Subvert the piggypacking mechanism

[mpe]

Why is piggypacking stuff like this allowed in the first place?

An interesting question, especially when you can end up with legislation where the riders comprise the largest part.

Maybe some pro-cannabis group should get legalization passed covertly?

Difficult unless these people were also either corporate (or possibly PC sexists or racists)...

The rest of the world?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

OK, so let me get this straight. A US firm thinks it has the right (under US law) to come and invade my PC (in the UK -- but how can they tell?), on the off chance that I have come of their copyrighted material on it (which I don't) so they can delete it, and furthermore, if they happen to trash my PC in the process by mistake, they are in no way liable? That sounds very illegal under UK law to me.

Still, laws aside, let me see if I can reason my way through this. I bet I'd be a better cracker than they are, if I chose to be. I further bet that a lot of my colleagues and friends are, too. I further bet that there are many more of us than there are of them. It's the great thing about democracy. When you piss enough people off, you lose. Governments get un-elected, and people who want to control cyberspace get run out of it. And you know what? If they piss enough people off, all the absurd laws and lawyers in the US won't help them.

BTW, what about legitimate use? I happen to be a member of a dancing club, and we sometimes record good dancing music (all of which we have legally bought) from various CDs onto a single compilation (which we legally play at the club, having paid for a Public Performance Licence). Would they be allowed to blitz that, if it happened to be on a PC I owned, even though it's entirely legitimate?

So lemme get this straight,

[trilucid]

their proposal, in essence, is designed to give private industry access to "police powers" traditionally (and currently, frequently misused) reserved for law enforcement agencies?

Okay, that's funny in a twisted sort of way. Starting from point A, the corporate interest, let's see if we can figure out where this leads. By our current way of doing things, government at least (sometimes) has *some* accountability (well, unless it claims it can't disclose details of such action because it would "breach national security", ala FBI) to the public at large. The second we grant such powers to corporations, all bets are off.

Sure, some would say that companies would be hesitant to misuse such powers for fear of stiff fines and legal penalties. However, I don't think so. Most companies are able to move *much* faster than the wheels of government could ever hope to turn, because they're based on the fundamental goal of competitive pursuit of profits. Gov agencies at least are supposed to be motivated purely for the common good (again, not so much recently, but I digress).

Even in the event of companies pulling serious fast ones with this sort of thing, under much of current corporate law (IANAL) I don't think their executives could really be slapped too hard for it. The company might cease to exist under the load of fines, but perhaps not if they were large enough (hmmm... anybody remeber the "$1M/day fine" proposal for a certain software company?".

Now, this whole post *may* be null and void for much of the /. crew, because a lot of us tend to pay very close attention to security on our boxen anyhow, and would likely make life miserable for companies attempting to bogart our tunes. Even so, I can just imagine what some ISPs would have to say about this... "you used our network to hack into OUR customers' boxes? Here, talk to our corporate attorneys now..."

Sorry, this gets me a little hot under the collar. I'll terminate this rant now; I need another cup of coffee anyhow. Back to bash.

This won't pass.

[Fixer]

This can't possibly pass. This is so entirely wrong I lack words to describe it fully.

It's illegal. Wouldn't this be a violation of "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."?

It's got loopholes galore. In order for me to verify you do, indeed, have illegal material, I have to break into your machine. "Ooops, sorry, nothing found here. Sorry about your machine.."

It's quite fucking hostile to me as a buyer of the RIAA's music. It's an assumption of guilt, backed up with the force of law.

The appropriate responses? Depends on your ethics. At a minimum, don't buy any music associated with the RIAA. At most? Do everything to hit them in the pocketbook. If it takes money from them, it's useful. Fucking bastards. Yeah, I've got great respect for our legislative process now.

Copyright.

[richie2000]

Copyright is an abstract concept, not a technology that can be circumvented with a device.

I've said this before and I'm afraid I'll probably find reason to do so again and again and again. The RIAA just does not get it and they will not get it until every group, man, woman, child and dog artist have gone independent. Sure, they'll try to sue them back, but in the long run RIAA will be as dead as the dodo with the sole difference that no mad scientist will want to hack DNS strands to get the RIAA back.

I don't like Courtney Love's music and I don't think I would like her personality, but I respect her stand against the industry. I believe her mutiny is just the first and most publicized in an upcoming long line of artists leaving the big labels. I sure hope so, anyway. The big 'uns are to music what Microsoft is to computing - a disease. They are simply too big and it's not healthy. They are cancers - big, fast-growing blobs grabbing all around them for more money to keep growing until they have killed the host.

I'm just thankful I'm not in the US - land of the captive and home of the scared.

Filing that in Michigan won't do didly squat...

[Pollux]

I'll file charges in michigan (my home state) against them where any hacking is considered a felony.

Article 6, Section 2 :
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Anotherwords, no matter what the laws of the state of Michigan say, because this is a federal bill, it beats out any laws that Michigan, Oregon, Idaho, or any other state have to say on the subject.

Translation for the man on the streetcorner: bullshit or no bullshit, it's legit.

Code Red ....

[taniwha]

it's pretty obvious that some RIAA exec has been reading about Code Red and thought "gee I wish we had ourselves one of those" ....

Ultimate solution

[Ogerman]

Musicians and music lovers need to get a few clues from the Open Source movement. If you're fed up with the establishment, you don't just whine and complain. You go do something about it!

Writing music is not that damn hard but people always make a big deal of it for some reason. Sure, if you're talking classical or big band jazz or other intricate music, then yes, you're going to need some serious time and education to do it right. But that's not what we're talking about here. That's not where RIAA members make their cash cows. No, we're talking about the people who lay down 3 or 4-chord patterns, add a weak rhythm section, then sing about their ex-ex-ex-ex-girlfriend being lonely without them or some such nonsense. Any armchair musician with a general ear for 'what sounds good' and a beginners book on music composition can do that or better.

Try this exercise if you've got some spare time. I think you'll find it enjoyable and rewarding..

- pick out a simple musical style and read up on it online. Read about its history, it's musical theory, and identify songs you already know that fit this style.

- pick a rhythm style that you'll compose to and decide on a time signature and tempo

- spend a few days writing poetry that fits the rhythmic parameters you've chosen. Write about something you feel pashionate about and let your emotions flow into your work.

- compose the basic rhythm (bass drum and snare - think drum machine)
- add a simple melody to sing your poetry to, spacing a simple chord progression appropriately

- go over the melody a few times to make it properly expressive of the feeling you want to convey in the words. Imitate melodic patterns you've heard in your favorite songs

- Congrats, your song is now ready for 1.0 alpha release. (-: Get feedback and suggestions, then flesh out the parts you kept simple at first and add a few twists.

- The last step, of course, is to actually play the song on real instruments, so you'll need a little help from other musically talented friends.. or at least some multi-track recording software.

If you like the final piece, go ahead and release it to the public -- the written music, your sample recordings, everything -- under an open license that keeps your name on your art but allows free distribution, performance, etc.

Who knows, you might have more musical talent than you ever thought.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again...

[Maul]

Tell everyone you know to vote out incumbants in Congress. The fact that the RIAA even thinks that they can get crap like passed into law shows that they are well on their way to totally owning Congress.

lobbyists ok, lawmakers need a spank

[Sebastopol]

sure lobbyists sometimes do some unethical things that are bad for society as a whole, but some lobbyists aren't all that bad (like moderate environmentalists). however, they need to convince a lawmaker to take up their bill/amendments.

keep your eye on your local lawmaker, and if they introduce shit like this, get in their face as much as the law will allow. especially those of you who unfortunately have legislators (well, senators) like jesse helms, bob barr, and trent lott... my condolenses...

Better Yet [Re:Making your own MP3s for hacking]

[Puk]

Make your own MP3, don't release it publicly, keep it on your (password-protected) machine, and when they break in, sue them under the DMCA for circumventing your copyrighted work's "technological protection measure".

w00t.

-Puk

Seems like a great reason to use ZoneAlarm

[Goldenhawk]

... or any other program which can deny web access to selected programs. While THIS program launches the browser, at least that can be interrupted. Who knows what other tomfoolery can happen under the table?

Dear Mr Bin-Laden

[t_allardyce]

Dear Mr Bin-Laden,

Please could you kill COUGH!, i mean 'take-out' the members of the RIAA, and MPAA. They are responsible for all the bad foreign policies that America has pushed, and the election of G.W.Bush (the ape man). For years they have bribed judges, and politicians to do their bidding, and have recently funded a number of airstrikes on your country which they have dubbed: "Drop CD samples onto Afghanistan" where they are attempting to fix the lack of market penetration in that area.

P.S
They are all high on crack too

Re:Time to get active

[elefantstn]

If it were as simple as you suggest - loss of profits = court attacks and legislation - your Catch-22 would be right, but it's not. The RIAA does not need the "evidence" of lower sales to push draconian "anti-piracy" legislation through Congress or to shut down "piracy" sites through legal action. During the entire Napster ordeal, sales were up. That didn't stop them from going after Napster and succeeding. They don't need any kind of evidence. What they do need is money - money to pay lobbyists, money to pay lawyers, and money to dump into Congressional members' reelection funds.

For the love of God, stop listening to and buying their crap. It's as simple as that. Turn off MTV, turn off the radio. Their are myriads of great indie artists out there on small labels who write music because they love it, and there are thousands of people who buy that music and t-shirts and go to their concerts because they love the artists back. You don't need to financially back the RIAA's efforts to shut down the music-loving community to listen to music. Just stop giving them your money!

This goes for the movie industry as well. The Slashdot editors always complain about how evil the Disney corporation is, and then when they release a new movie gush over how "revolutionary" the animation is. Give me a fucking break.

Re:And WHO executes the laws???

[Chris Johnson]

*G*

What "monopoly" on force? Are you a libertarian? ;)

Welcome to reality- this is the logical extension of the libertarian worldview, precisely because force isn't restrained to any one group in particular. As you can see, companies are perfectly free to pursue this sort of thing- the only way a government would be able to stop it would be if it was able to punish the company in some manner. And that's not a given, that's just your assumption, if you tend to immediately think 'guns and armies' and not think further.

Think 'red tape' and 'lawyers' instead and you'll begin to see force in a lot of other hands.

So buy something online.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Most of the language of the bill refers to "protected machines" (machines belonging to the government or financial institutions)

Protected machines includes machines used in interstate commerece.

So buy something on e-bay and your machine is a "protected machine".

Re:Time to get active

[LionKimbro]

Moooooooooooooooooood it up!

Re:So let me see - OT b!tchslap

[Twylite]

The US is withholding Free Trade from Iraq. It has not allowed any other member of the world community to decide independantly how they wish to deal with Iraq: if a country does not ceed to the US imposed sanctions, it too faces sanctions from the US.

Re:A Correction

[ksheff]

I pulled it out of a recent Sunday Times piece

George Orwell noted in 1941: "In so far as it hampers the British war effort, British pacifism is on the side of the Nazis and German pacifism, if it exists, is on the side of Britain and the USSR. Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi." Elsewhere he wrote of the "unadmitted motive" of pacifism as being "hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism".

As far as I'm concerned the he is as correct today as he was sixty years ago.