Slashdot Mirror
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?
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! ;-)
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
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.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Under the proposed anti-terrorism laws, wouldn't this make the RIAA a terrorist organisation?
My other sig is funny!
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
`find / -name "*your_base*" -exec chown us:us {} \;`
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.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
As long as they don't delete any of my porno they can have my MP3's
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.
spacefem.com
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.
The anti-salmon
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.
Skivvy Niner? Email me!
HEY! Look left just ONE MORE TIME!
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?
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
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.
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.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
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...
_______
I just wish I could c:\format Internet
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 . . .
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
Will the last geek to leave America, please turn Slashdot off? Thanks.
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!
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
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.
------
Let me give you the lowdown
I knew there was something insidious about an organization that trains brownshirts in survival skills.
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.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
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....sig
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
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.
.... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".
. . . 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.
"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.
The anti-salmon
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.
TANSTAAFL
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.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
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.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
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
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
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. < evil grin >
And what do you mean theoretical?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
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.
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
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.
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)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
ROT13
DMCA
Do you like German cars?