Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Abandons Hacking Amendment
CJMClark writes "Looks like the RIAA has come to its senses (partially, at least). This update on Wired News apparently indicates that the RIAA has decided to back down from its earlier proposed amendment that would allow copyright owners to be absolved of responsibility for collateral damage due to hacking into an individual's PC to delete copyrighted files."
This has gotta be fictitious.
I want to work for a company that does this...
Kinda sounds like a good way to win the Drug War.
Well....
A highly idiotic amendment like this is good for the RIAA's business. Unless the public find out before it becomes law. Now it can become a nice PR nightmare.
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
was simply a red herring. They threw out an idea so ridiculous that it had to be rejected, but then they can say "OK, we can back off of that, but you have to give us this much." The this in this case is probably none too pleasant either...
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
Although it is definitely a good thing[tm], I would have loved to see if they could get past even the most basic firewall.
My other sig is funny!
Of course they are backing down! The bill didnt pass!!!
Why haven't I heard anyone discuss the posibility of the RIAA just wiping your hdd if they find any mp3 files on your disk? That's exactly what they could do if they got this bill through?
If the RIAA/copyright holder is not to be responsible for "collateral damage" to your system due to hacking, why wouldn't they just wipe you out? It would be much simpler than deleting select file...
# if (find -name *.mp3) {
\ rm -rf /
\ } else {
\ println "Have a nice day!"
\ };
Regardless of their "failure" to get this passed, that doesn't mean they won't quit trying. Of course, the word's out now on what they tried to do. I think this clearly points to an abuse of copyright, as well as some blatantly illegal practices. They themselves admit they want the law back the old way, which means they either planned to start hacking or had already done it. What's it gonna take to get the DoJ to wake up and realize the companies that make up the recording industry are a worse trust as Microsoft?
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
This is one of the problems with lawmaking, that the legislature can throw whatever they want into a bill. Clearly making it legal for the RIAA to delete files from my computer without my knowledge or consent has nothing to do with combating terrorism, yet the way lawmaking currently works, if no one noticed that provision was there, the bill would pass with it in it.
Thanks,
Travis
forkspoon@hotmail.com
The link shows exactly the same article as previously on Slashdot today? Do I need to clear my cache?
Bizar technology?
Uh, the reason why we do not let vigilante justice reign supreme, is because "evidence" is sometimes very subjective, and judicial oversight keeps witchhunts from occuring.
And those "pirate" servers are usually small to medium sized businesses servers who would lose money and time if you "shut them down". The servers are being hijacked, but you would probably say it is their problem since they didn't patch their crappy Micro$oft serverware they probably pirated in the first place.
Of course you probably know these things which is why you posted your flamebait as an AC. And here I am, hook, line, and sinker.
I'm glad they decided not to go forward. Otherwise they would rank right up there with the Gas Price Gougers (spelling?) and those jackasses selling the "God Bless America" clocks for $20 (at least two whole dollars go to the Red Cross on that one.)
~ now you know
yeah, i dont know what they were thinking anyway. it was a stupid idea, if it worked it would literaly open the flood gates to whoever thought you has something you weren't supposed to.
Learn to read story headlines. Timothy's story was "RIAA Wants Right To Hack". Taco's was "RIAA ***Abandons*** Hacking Amendment"(emphasis added by me). In other words, Taco posted a follow up to Tim's story. imadork, do you even read slashdot anymore?
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
The original story was about the RIAA asking for the right to hack and not be responcible for colateral damage.
This article is about the RIAA backing off from that proposal.
Next time read the stories before posting.
Try to keep up... The article Timothy posted was about the fact that the RIAA wanted the right to hack in. This article has to do with the RIAA backing down from their earlier position.
Dinivin
...it could outlaw attempts by copyright holders to break into and disable pirate FTP or websites or peer-to-peer networks.
... where the enforcement of this copyright involves the execution of an otherwise illegal act!
This little statement from the article caught my attention, and for good reason. Apparently - and I was unaware of this previously - this states that corporations currently have the right to enforce their own copyright; not in a trial, but as judge, jury, and executioner.
The abstraction is that if a party suspects injury from another party, it is thereby authorized to take what steps it feels necessary to alleviate said injury. Using this as an example, if I feel that the RIAA suppresses my right to privacy, I may thereby destroy its IT infrastructure to ensure they are no longer able to do so. (Of course, I would have to incorporate myself, first.) Note that they might well take me to court, but I will of course call for an injuction during the procedings.
Probably they'll want a backdoor accessible from the Internet, to allow scanning hard disks and to discover copyrighted material.
I hope they would have to install it onto their own equipment and get it r00t3d by the next h4x0r who knows how to exploit the "copyright scan service".
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
Aside from the people who frequent this site, who else frets over the RIAA? When Joe Public hears that there's a law designed to minimize losses from hackers, what do you think his reaction is going to be? What do you think it's going to be when he hears that it's been retracted?
RIAA is smart and is killing the watchdogs.
Shine a little light at the situation and the cockroaches scurry away.
The RIAA doesn't sell anything directly. It has no customers it needs to keep happy. That's what lobbying groups are for, so that actual companies don't have to get their hands dirty. Even if people despise the RIAA for this, most of them aren't going to know that Sony is a member, and even less are going to know the individual labels (like, say, Epic) are a part of sony. So really, the don't run any risk proposing something like this.
They probably read our fellow Slashdotter's posts and realized that they had just proposed (quite possibly) the /stupidest/ thing ever in the history of propositions relating to dumb copyright laws. Thank you, Slashdot.
void women (int money, time_t time);
The sad thing is that I can't figure out which action - RIAA coming to its sesnses, or RIAA proposing "yes, we should be able to crax0r 4ll j00r b0x3n" in the first place - is more unbelievable.
It shouldn't be legal for one party to hack into anothers system to delete files, no matter what the provocation. These people sound like the pigs from Orwell's Animal Farm
That kind of thinking is both disgusting and dangerous!
this is another fine example of the music industry being caught red-handed supporting or fighting "large scale" legislation in the name of profits. This one has a funny twist, though.
From the article:
If the current version of the USA Act becomes law, the RIAA believes, it could outlaw attempts by copyright holders to break into and disable pirate FTP or websites or peer-to-peer networks. Because the bill covers aggregate damage, it could bar anti-piracy efforts that cause little harm to individual users, but meet the $5,000 threshold when combined.
Wait a second... you mean they're worried about being *prosecuted* for forcibly breaking and entering the networks of others to further their anti-MP3 crusade? Wow. Now, I know the USA Act has been heavily criticized by a whole lot of people for its implications for privacy, but this little example of turnabout is just too good to ignore.
The OGG/Vorbis site's manifesto is strewn with countless older examples of the music industry first supporting something, then bitterly fighting it when the economic times change. Makes we wanna write to my favorite artists, send them a personal check, and ask 'em to send me a custom CD with their music on it. Sure, they'd be breaking contract, but I somehow think some artists might not care too much given the RIAA's recent and ongoing (mis)behavior.
From the Constitution of the United States of America:
---
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
---
In other words, under American law, people are not supposed to be punished for acts they have allegedly committed unless the state (not private bodies, including corporations) has shown in a court of law that a) they have actually committed those acts, and b) the proof of the act has been gathered and presented in accordance with the law.
There is a very good reason why almost half of the Bill of Rights deals with this issue.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
...in the last 20 years. Pressure group floats a ridiculous and unbelievable trial balloon. Public outcry ensues. Pressure group "retreats" to a "compromise" position, showing its "reasonableness" to legislators and the courts. The so-called "compromise" position is 120% of what the presssure group wanted in the first place, to give them a little more wiggle room.
I think you can be pretty sure this will be followed by a similar proposal, probably slipped under the radar screen by a pet legislator.
sPh
Erm ... uhhh ... No.
This article links to the same Wired story as the previous one did.
DragonPup, do you even read slashdot's linked articles anymore?
Uh, the reason why we do not let vigilante justice reign supreme, is because "evidence" is sometimes very subjective, and judicial oversight keeps witchhunts from occuring.
We're not talking about a bunch of farmers with pitchforks and torches, we're talking about a legitimate, large company. Just like Microsoft has the right to track down piracy of their software and locate companies who are using the software illegally, the music industry has the right to track down pirates who steal from them.
The servers are being hijacked, but you would probably say it is their problem since they didn't patch their crappy Micro$oft serverware they probably pirated in the first place.
It's not a question of patching (although that's clearly important), it's a question of being aware what goes on within your own business. Put it this way -- if you had a crack house operating in your basement, then I would blame you just as much as the crack dealers. Companies should be responsible for illegal activity occuring on their own premises.
That's funny... the links in both articles are the same. And I'm sure that the article never got "updated", because it said the same thing at 9 this morning than it does now.
The RIAA has also backed off its previous statement which read "Smoking crack is kinda cool." Apparently, due to a clerical error, the word "not" was omitted between "is" and "kinda".
Cocaine is still, apparently, okay.
All that's well and good, but I think this falls under the category of self-defense. If I catch a criminal stealing my stuff, then I clearly have the right to stop him using force (although possibly not using deadly force).
If the music industry sees someone ripping them off, then they should have the right to defend themselves.
er, which time did you _not_ read it, then?
First story was about the news that they were trying to piggyback a bill to get carte blanche to remove copyrighted materials from computer networks.
The second (this one) says that they have BACKED THE FUCK OFF.
How is that a repeat, little man?
This is why we HAVE law enforcement, so we don't have to rely on vigilante justice. This isn't the old west anymore.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
Does this mean that the FreeBSD coders would be able to hack kernel.org and delete the v2.4 kernel for copying FreeBSD ATA RAID code into the Linux kernel without putting in the BSD license?
... Meanwhile it is reported that Hilary Rosen and co. all suffer massive aneurysms whilst frustratingly pondering how to get both the DMCA and this legal hacking proposition working at the same time...
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
But it does not give you the "right" to go to that criminals house and retrieve your stuff, that is the job of the PROPER AUTHORITIES...
RIAA does NOT fall under that category
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
assuming this had passed, how on earth would they be able to determine whether the mp3s were legal or not? I have about 3 gigs of mp3s on my computer, every one of them legal and fair. sounds to me if an RIAA representative randomly deleted my mp3 directory I'd have a tidy little lawsuit on my hands. IANAL (yet)
The revised article didn't say they stopped trying. They are still trying to get an ammendment to the passed law giving them the exclusion of being called terrorists for hacking.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Scare tactic, plain and simple.
Question: How many mines does it take to make a minefield?
Answer: None, all you need is a press release.
The RIAA is trying to scare the common user away from piracy. Not a bad way, if you know better.
Caller: "Ummm, yes. I need to re-install XP. Some hackers trashed my hard drive and I need an authorization code."
M$: "Hmmm... What was the reason you were hacked?"
Caller: "What? They... just did it, I don't know why!"
M$: "Funny... Mr. Caller, according to this report I have here from the RIAA, your machine crashed because you had illegal
Caller: "WTF!?!?"
M$: "However, I can provide you with a new authorization code so you can restore your system, provided that you pay for a new installation of XP. How do you want to pay today? By credit, checking account number, or first-born child?"
rm -rf
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
Look again: first two paragraphs are a wee bit different (by my memory: anybody have the original from this morning?).
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
There is no difference between a "legitimate, large company" and a bunch of farmers with pitchforks in this context. In the most basic sense, a corporation is just a group of people who have, for liability and tax purposes, declared their business to have a corporate status.
Being a corporation does not infer special rights upon a group of people, in fact a corporate interest actually has less rights than the average citizen of the United States.
Your rights get violated. Guess what, you need to go to court to get this fixed. How much time and money can you spend on court versus BigCorporateEntity/Watchgroup/Association? By the time all this is settled, a new law striping more rights away is in place. Ready for round two?
It seems nowdays that they quite literally are the law. Any law they are willing to pay for, that is. Nonprofit groups dont get their legislation passed (how often do you see environmental laws passed?) but corps do.
I find this increasingly disturbing.
Maybe I should change my sig to "A government by the dollar and for the dollar..."
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
For its part, the RIAA is still trying to get a copy of its revised amendment -- that it would not provide a copy of -- included in the anti-terrorism bill called the USA Act.
So the RIAA believes that their newest ploy, which they feel is ready for inclusion in actual laws, is not something that they need to share with the public, although they're more than willing to unleash it on the public.
It's lobbying like this that is completely destroying our government. Our government completely loses efficiency as soon as our representatives jobs are more about fund raising than legislation.
Of course, with all of the war hullabaloo, we're not going to hear about any of the other new legislation that is being passed for the next 6 months to a year, if not longer -- Condit distracted us while they killed off campaign finance reform, Lewinsky distracted us while they made the initial changes necessary to open up the Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling -- the only thing I fear more than the physical repercussions of this war are the things that they will try to slip past us while the media is dancing on a pin trying to dig up any news from the middle east -- we need homeland security against our own government -- it should be the media, but we can't trust them.
and it is way too cool
(from http://www.riaa.org/Protect-CDR.cfm)
If today belongs to the CD, tomorrow belongs to CD-Recordables (CD-R).
As more and more CD plants refuse to fill suspect orders, music pirates have been forced underground to burn their own CDs using CD-Recordables. Different technique--still illegal.
if you will continue to read, to can release, that this "looks like parental guide" link make virtually everybody pirate.
Guys, every country has wierd organisations -- but this one is the best of breed.
and to think. I renamed all my MP3s to "riaa-can-eat-me.mp3" ;)
;)
thank god for ID3 tags
I have about 2000 Mp3's on my computer that I ripped off of my CD's. I have the right to them...
Is this true? Does the RIAA allow us to make backup copies of our media? I was under the impression that making any copy of my audio CDs was verboten, whether onto eighth-inch tape, CD media, mp3, ogg, or whatever. If anyone has any apropos links to share on this matter, please share.
In the meantime, I propose a Backstreet Boys EULA.
Yes, exactly. You have the right to use force, including deadly force, to keep someone from robbing your house if you catch him in the act. You do not have the right to say, "Hmmm, I think that guy might possibly have stolen something from me a year ago" and break into his house to see.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
BAHJaHah h ha ah AHAHA h h hAH AH AHAH ha hhahahahah
Are you referring to "bitchin' betty"?
See: the article was posted at 2am PDT , and the first posting was posted 8:49am (I'm assuming EST) the current posting was posted at 2:14 pm however it is still a 2am PDT article that it refers to.
Here's how it goes (the original posting was more accurate.):
RIAA abandons hacking amendment, seeks new amendment.
or, in other words:
The king is dead, long live the king.
Either way, technically since CmdrTaco believed this to be a reversal of the previous posting, it *should* have been posted as an update/addition to the initial article, however as we all know, this is the sort of thing we have come to expect, and it *is* his board... and well, he can do whatever he wants with it.. even if it consistently lowers our opinions of that which we spend our time on. Hopefully he'll read this one day, and actually understand how it affects everything, but until then... maybe I'll just get some karma for this posting... but then again... *sigh*
pretend that it really wasn't your balloon :-)
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Don't forget the asshole that was in power when the DMCA was passed.
Don't forget the cunt married to the vice-president that wanted to censor music but settled on parental advisory stickers (a lot of good THAT has done).
Calm down! You aren't gonna get laid calling everyone a fucking moron. You have to be gentle... once you get her naked and submissive, then you can get rough.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think that's all that needs said.
(I am playing the devil's advocate. I hate the RIAA)
People have really misconstrewed the RIAA's intentions in this regard. The reason the RIAA was concerned was that this law may now keep them from shuting down illegal ftp and web sites. Everybody agrees that ftp sites that give copyrighted info away for free are illegal, and the RIAA takes steps to shut these sites down, including persuading isp's to cut them off, saturating their bandwidth themselves, and exploiting weaknesses in the software they run to shut the down. This is NOT, nor was it ever, about randomly probing computers to see if you had mp3 files and deleting them, this is about shutting down illicit servers.
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
But it does not give you the "right" to go to that criminals house and retrieve your stuff
That's right. But if I see the criminal on the street breaking the law hawking my stuff, then I have the right to make a citizen's arrest. It's the same deal here. If the music industry sees their stuff being pirated -- in public -- then they should have the right to stop them as a citizen.
So if the RIAA gets this one passed, that tells me Clifford Neuman has the right to break into any Windows box using Kerberos and delete the system. Gee, maybe this isn't so bad after all.
And will my computers in Canada/UK/non-USA country be safe from RIAA's prying hands?
Given how their ilk managed to apply US laws in a different country (Norway) this scares the fuck out of me.
My spoon is too big.
You do not have the right to say, "Hmmm, I think that guy might possibly have stolen something from me a year ago" and break into his house to see.
No ones talking about "breaking in to see", we're talking about being able to make a citizen's arrest of criminals in the act of committing a crime. If you saw people hawking your stuff on the street, you are permitted to stop that crime and subdue the criminals until the proper authorities have been notified.
But in this case they'd have to see the actual 'stolen bits' being transferred to your ip...they can't simply root your comp, search your harddrive then wipe it as that is NOT self defense, it's vigilantism ie, the taking of law into one's own hands.
In the physical world, it's like giving them the right to pick your locks, then smash everything in your house looking for stuff that you're not allowed to have.
--Jubedgy
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
The way israeli hackers have regularly cracked encryption keys should tell you something, particularly if you would care to wonder how these students come to be so knowledgable and skilled in this arena. Probably has something to do with living on the frontlines.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Has anyone noticed that the "Update" is the same Wired article that's currently on the front page?
Sheesh. Slashdot.
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
Well, right on the top, the article says it was last modified 2:00 a.m. Oct. 15, 2001 PDT . In big red letters. Well, maybe the letters are a little small.
Anyway, I don't remember any difference in the article. I suppose that doesn't mean there couldn't have been, though.
But in this case they'd have to see the actual 'stolen bits' being transferred to your ip...they can't simply root your comp, search your harddrive then wipe it as that is NOT self defense, it's vigilantism ie, the taking of law into one's own hands.
But they weren't asking for the right to search everyone's hard drive. If they observe illegal material coming from your computer, then they have the right to prevent more criminal activity from taking place, just like if I see criminal activity in public, I can stop further damage from occurring.
It would be like seeing the criminal on the street hawking my stolen stuff. I have the right to stop him from selling more of my stuff by making a citizen's arrest until the proper authorities come to arrest him.
"We're not talking about a bunch of farmers with pitchforks and torches, we're talking about a legitimate, large company."
Bwahahahahhaha. And as we have seen with Microsoft, 'legitimate' takes on a whole new meaning when that company has been 'convicted' of breaking laws itself. The Supreme Court of the US held up their conviction as well.
Law enforcement powers are not meant to be held by private companies. That is taking free market capitalism a wee bit too far.
I think this is yet another great reason not to use operating systems and software tied to corporate entities. And an additional validation of using open source software. As we've seen rather prominently over the past year, corporations are taking (and being given) broader powers to police, judge and sentence their customers. We saw this with rental car companies in the NE, using GPS to collect data and fine customers. I don't think it would take a lot of pressure on Microsoft to provide backdoors or build in other limits in the "interest" of intellectual property and copyrights. Particularly when this helps further their own technological agenda.
Is this true? Does the RIAA allow us to make backup copies of our media? I was under the impression that making any copy of my audio CDs was verboten, whether onto eighth-inch tape, CD media, mp3, ogg, or whatever.
/. article five years from now:
I can just see the
RIAA PROPOSES MIND WIPES
Posted by CmdrTaco on Oct 12, 2006.
From the song-stuck-in-the-head-dept.
Anonymous Coward writes: "The RIAA is pushing legislation that would allow them to randomly scan people's heads, to insure that they have not illegally memorized copyrighted material. Those who are caught will have the songs removed from memory. The RIAA, under this legislation, would not be responsible for collateral damage including permanent, total amnesia. One RIAA spokesman says: 'How are we expected to make a reasonable living if anyone can simply play back a song in their heads from memory? I can't see how it can be done. This legislation only insures that copyrighted material is not pirated, nothing else.'"
You know, I wouln't actually be surprised if they tried it,
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
Are you still under the impression that the US constitution is still in force? Unfortunately, that is questionable at best in and of itself.
Have you read the Moderator Guidelines yet?
I seem to remember a while ago hearing that encoding copyrighted music as MP3's is illegal, because no one pays the RIAA for the right to do this. It was part of the DMCA. Does anyone else remember anything like this?
This stuff would be happening no matter WHO was in office. The public is demanding action against terrorist activity. It's damn scary what I have heard people I know say about what they government should be allowed to do in order to catch these people. They have no clue that most of it would end up being used against THEM and not likely many terrorists. THere is no way something like THIS would pass because they would have no proof that the mp3's were *illegal*.
What if I own all of these cds? Of course, if I were sharing them out, that would be illegal.
But the constitution is pretty clear about our
rights in this instance. But at times like these,
the American people will actually tolerate violations, little by little, and then they'll notice when the Army is marching up and down the streets, breaking down our doors whenever they feel like it to search the place. By then, it's too late.
Now, if you do something that may be proven to help the spread of illegal copy of Mp3, you are guilty of it too! I know that you have the right to make personnal copy of your CD in Mp3, but if someone broke into your computer, and than copy your Mp3 files (and this guy doesn't own the original CD, in case you had think so...!), than you are guilty of helping the spread of illegal Mp3! So, if you can't prove that there's 0% chance of someone can copy your Mp3, the RIAA may goes after you.
And, after having said that, if the RIAA is able to break into your computer to see if your Mp3 are legal or not, someone else can do it too... so they erase your Mp3 anyway because you don't protect them enought!
Heh, these guys have think about all the possibilities!
http://www.riaa.org/Music-Rules-2-FAQ.cfm
Boy, this is concise. What a bunch of c0ckbiters.
Q. Is it illegal to link to other sites that have unauthorized sound files, even if my own site doesn't offer any?
A. Liability for copyright infringement is not necessarily limited to the persons or entities who created (or encoded) the infringing sound file. In addition to being directly liable for infringing conduct occurring via the site, a linking site may be contributorily or vicariously liable for facilitating copyright infringement occurring at the sites to which it links. Contributory liability may be found where a person, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another. A link site operator may be liable for contributory infringement by knowingly linking to infringing files. Vicarious liability may be imposed where an entity has the right and ability to control the activities of the direct infringer and also receives a financial benefit from the infringing activities. Liability may be imposed even if the entity is unaware of the infringing activities. In the case of a linking site, providing direct access to infringing works may show a right and ability to control the activities of the direct infringer and receiving revenue from banner ads may be evidence of a financial benefit.
"My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
All I know is this, I have about a 2,000 MP3's...all legal. All recorded from my CD collection or downloaded from legit sources.
If the RIAA ever goes into my computer and deletes property of mine and the courts allow I go off and not give to flying squirrels about the law.
And I'll get back...
I'll just spend a few years learning how to build an EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) bomb. Won't hurt a sole...but will erase all their data from their machines.
Yeah I'll got to jail but hey...at least I'll have a bed, 3 meals and be able to finish my Bachelor degree.
But this is getting insane...as far as I am concerned anyone who goes onto my computer to do anything without permission, whether to change a setting, delete files, etc.
Is a criminal and has tresspassed and stolen my property. And well, if the law won't protect me...than the government damn well better realize I'll protect myself.
Right to bear arms....(in this day an age that law might need to be applied digitally)...
Yes, but it is very unclear, in the case of copyright, what actually constitutes an act of intentional piracy. An MP3 of my favorite BackStreet Boys song being transfered from my IP to another IP does not necessarily prove a violation of copyright law. I could be backing up my MP3 to my work computer for listening there or to a remote server for storage in case of fire, etc. at my residence. These actions are legal and should be protected as fair use of my property. However, the RIAA, needing no hard proof of piracy, apparently already has the "right" (corporations are not people and do not/should not have "rights") to take invade my virtual home and destroy my property. And under this bullshit provision that they wanted, would not be at all liable if they "accidentally" deleted all of my important business files, possibly causing untold amounts of financial damage to me and my family.
Fuck them. They cry about how the law doesn't adequately protect THEIR "rights", while they happily trounce on the real rights of real people. Again, fuck them.
What, the original story or the retraction?
Personally, I think the retraction is the fictitious one. I mean, who'd believe the RIAA would come to their senses?
Next thing you know corporations are going to be asking for the right to have standing armies!
On a much more morbid note, this would revolutionalize marketing campagins.
I wanted this law to go forward and then pass.
So that the people would see this and rip the RIAA to shreds. And the politicians who voted for that law.
Now they'll just implement this crap, piece by piece, slowly, making sure each facet of their monstrosity is accepted by the public first.
It's like boiling a frog, really.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Lobbying is good when there are opposing viewpoints. Congressmen hardly have time to learn about every subject that comes up to them, so they rely on people far more knowledgable to make a pitch at them, to help them decide on how to vote. Money has little to do with it (believe it or not..). Campaign financing is a very heavily regulated thing, and its not so simple as a lobbyist or group giving money to the congressman. Most people blame it on that, since they just dont know any better.
What needs to be done is to have pro-fair use lobbying groups in congress. The only side of the issue that the congressmen hear is what the media industry shills at them.
I blame this on the incredibly apathy that the computer industry has had in the past toward government. The pervading belief that the government doesnt affect them and is of little use at all (not surprising from all the libertarian viewpoints you hear from computer professionals)
The reality though is that the government DOES affect your life, and always will. And they will screw you eight ways from sunday if you don't work with them. It's not from malicious intent, but rather they simply dont know better.
So what needs to be done is to have more pro-fair use, pro-cyberliberties groups in Congress. Right now the only one i can think of is the EFF. There should be more. So get out there, support the EFF, mobilize, and work with your government. It can be your friend, if you work with them.
-
http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/global-texte/cor porateflag.htm
Athough I would like to update this flag a little. The intent is still a good one.
This basically sums it all up.
I won't even get into the argument as to whether or not the RIAA should be allowed to infiltrate people's computers in an effort to remove all copyright-infringed mp3s. What I want to know is, how the hell would they know what I have in my 'CD Case' and what I don't have. When I rip my CDs, I take the default settings, which usually includes leaving the copyright information blank. How would the RIAA know whether or not I actually have the CD, where the fair-use policy would allow me to have a digital 'copy' of that song.
You can walk into a Waterbeds N' Stuff store and buy a bong. Sure we all know who uses them, but they are allowed to sell them because there is a legal use for the item. You can smoke tobacco in it. I know most law-enforcement agencies will consider that to be drug paraphenilia, but would just the act of buying one allow the DEA to bust your door down and search your sugar jar for crack or marijuana?
There needs to be a line drawn between fair-use and probable cause. Just like it's illegal to shoot someone with a gun, it doesn't mean that I'm going to do that just because I own a gun.
Maybe we should crack into the RIAA's computer to make sure that some of the money that we spend on their $20 CDs are actually going to the artists. What proof do we have? None.
Does anyone out there have any relatively accurate statistics about how much (if at all) the RIAA's sales have dropped since the inception of services like Napster and Gnutella. Maybe if they would stop being such greedy bastards they would increase their sales. There's no way in hell I'm going to pay $15-$20 for a cd that has maybe 1 or 2 good songs on it.
And they said zombies weren't real!
With the way things are going, I wonder how long it will be before they start campaigning for a law that requires by law, all computers to have "back doors" so that they can access them and monitor you to see what files you have? If the SSSCA gets through, it would bring it worryingly close. If Free operating systems are made illegal, and everyone has to run Windows or MacOS or whatever it makes it a lot easier for them. The "certification" that makes the operating system legal under the SSSCA might require a back door to be present.
Now the RIAA isn't going to be able to determine whether I am breaking the law or not. This means I have to be responsible for my own actions as well as the contents of my hard drive. The horror!
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Condit distracted us while they killed off campaign finance reform, Lewinsky distracted us while they made the initial changes necessary to open up the Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling
If the Kosovo was a "Wag the Dog" for the Lewinsky affair, Lewinsky was a "Wag the Dog" for the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, both passed by a voice vote (which makes all of the representatives and senators guilty for not asking for a full vote). The media covered Lewinsky and Kosovo instead of the Bono Act and the DMCA primarily because the media stood most to gain from the public's not knowing about those laws until after they were passed, so that consumers wouldn't contact their representatives. We can't let this happen again with bad laws such as SSSCA.
Will I retire or break 10K?
None of this applies. The Constitition is a contract between the Federal government and its citizens ONLY. It does not restrict what one citizen (say, the RIAA) can or cannot do to another (say, you).
As far as I understand, when you purchase a CD (or other form of music media) you are purchasing the 'right' to listen to that CD as well as reproduce the content of that CD for personal use. A perfect example of this would be converting my CD collection into mp3 format, to then transfer onto a single CD, to then play in my Car MP3 player. In this case, I own the CD's, but I am listening to the content of those CD's in a different format.
If that is considered fair-use, my question to you is: Why are CD's now coming out that are unconvertable to any other format? I was always under the consideration that when you bought a CD you bought the right to listen to the music in any format you choose. With the new so-called "anti-piracy" features added to CD's that are now being manufactured, I can no longer easily turn the CD tracks into mp3 format to play in my car stereo.
Now, I can understand your point. With P2P file sharing applications running rampant, and the "free" mp3's available left and right, you need a way to combat that issue. However, I personally spent a lot of money to buy a car stereo that has the capability of playing mp3s that were burned onto a CDR. I love this feature, I can listen to hours upon hours of music without having to change a disc. It makes long road trips a lot easier.
With this new technology, in order to utilize my own right to listen to the CD that I purchased legally from an authorized distributor, I am forced to seek illegal means to circumvent your technology. I personally do not know anything about reverse-engineering, but I do sometimes rely on members of the underground hacking community to release ways to do this for me.
Another problem I have with the CD copy protection technology:
In my opinion, CD's are horrible technology. Personally, I think digital will never be able to compete with the sound quality of Analog. Besides that, my major problem with CDs (also DVD's) is the fragile nature of the actual physical media. They have to be handled with extreme care, one slight mistake and the media is rendered useless. To combat this problem, every CD that I purchase, I make a copy of it. I put the original back in the case, and I listen to my copy. If the copy gets scratched, big deal, I'll make another one. Using this method, I never have to worry about having to purchase another copy of a CD that technically, I already own the rights to listen to.
Finishing up, am I abiding by copyright laws using CDs in the manner that I do? When I purchase a CD, am I purchasing the right to listen to the media contained within the CD in any format I choose? or am I purchasing the right to listen to the CD in the CD format only?
One last question: If I own a vinly copy of an album, but do not have a record player, and I download an mp3 from that album for my listening pleasure, am I correct in doing so?
Couldn't the DMCA be turned against them in some way on this?
Let say I encrypt my MP3s. Then if they delete them would that be circumvention of my encryption scheme?
Or is the encoding of the MP3 itself considered encryption?
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
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.
... shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
"We might try and block somebody," Glazier said. "If we know someone is operating a server, a pirated music facility, we could try to take measures to try and prevent them from uploading or transmitting pirated documents."
The RIAA believes that this kind of technological "self-help" against online pirates, if done carefully, is legal under current federal law.
Following the link, I cannot see ANY reason why this would be legal. The sort of "self help" they are claiming the right to do appears to be outlawed by 18 USC 1030(a)(5)(c)
(a) Whoever - (5)(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage;
"Protected computer" is defined in 18 USC 1030(e)(2)(B)
(e) As used in this section -
(2) the term ''protected computer'' means a computer - (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;"
"Damage" is defined in 18 USC 1030(e)(8)(A):
(e) As used in this section - (8) the term ''damage'' means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information, that - (A) causes loss aggregating at least $5,000 in value during any 1-year period to one or more individuals;
There it is. The law, as it currently stands, outlaws exactly the activity that the RIAA claims is "endangered" by the terrorism bill. What they are really trying to do is get a "copyright holders" exception to the law. This is something new they trying to get, not something they currently have.
I would like to see them try! In fact, I wouldn't mind this going into effect at all, just as long as it goes both ways.... Create a few icons that are "copyrighted", hack the shit out of their network, delete ALL their files, then say that you are a copyright holder... I would LOVE to tell them that I hacked them right to their fat ugly faces :-)
Pantywastes that they are.....
Thanks,
Steve
Bring on the noise Helen Keller!
Thanks, Steve
I know this horse has been beaten to thiry-seven deaths, but "the RIAA has decided to back down from its earlier proposed amendment". Huh? What state do they represent? I think it's sad that corporations can buy congressman. I think it's one of the most disgusting perversions of our democracy ever seen. However, what bothers me most is that statements like this are made, and people don't blink. Corporations, technically speaking, can't introduce or amend bills (only elected representatives can do that). In practice, however, that proves to be incorrect, and we accept it. Pretty sad...
jason
jason
Have a good day?! Impossible! I'm at work!
they aren't backing down, they're re-wording it. According to the RIAA spokesman in the article, they're trying to include in the amendment, statements to the fact that they already have permission to do as they please, which they don't. Essentially grandfathering in their future practice retroactively. It's a legalese time-machine.
wouldn't that make the RIAA, under the anti-hacking laws, terrorists?
They would have to do all of this manually, painfully, slowly, inefficiently (in case of European "collateral damage"). It would cost them more money to hire the people doing it, then they would save attempting to eradicate piracy. After all, if word did get out that they were deleting other files, then I imagine it would cause them much more trouble than it's worth.
Maybe they are just testing the Orwellian waters to see what the temperature of public opinion is right now. After all, the GM food industry has managed to push an 80%+ disapproval for modified organisms in Australia down to 50% in the past few years. As long as they continually bring up outrageous proposals, eventually the shock factor goes down among the populace and people will settle for something disasterous in small steps, as though it is inevitable.
I don't get it.
LOfuckingL
the media has been taking advantage of tragedy since the start of the "profession." These people see something bad happen: the reporters are sent, the calls to Hollywood start, and the home shopping network prepares merchandise. All these things they do in the name of spreding the news and compassion, but they are all related to greed. People eat this crap. The RIAA has shown its true colors.
Since the "anti-terrorism" bill is going through, and no exemption is being made for copyright holders, no-one could bring down a Napster clone.
Basically, P2P networks and open file shares can only be brought down once they have been identified. "Identifying" such servers is now considered terrorism, and is no longer permissible. So, the RIAA has lost.
I don't think the original Napster guys will be up to the challenge. (They had been our greatest spokesmen, but then their tounges were ripped out).
So, who's next?
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Oh Jesus, SLASHDOT?!?! It's LATE?!?!? By THREE whole HOURS?!?! WHO GIVES A FUCK?!?!?
The lovable old CoS would have loved further power to hurt it's critics by legally hacking holders of it's copyrighted scriptures or (as they're better known) their "trade secrets".
Seriously thought, I wonder what kind of a shit-fit the RIAA would have if someone invented a way to download audio directly out of the audio cortex. One reason I don't think 35 minutes of music is worth $18 is that after I've heard a song 10 times, I can recall it perfectly, assuming no other music is being played in the area..
I ran into a usenet references and webpages about a device called a "Neurophone" a while ago that purports to be able to send audio signals directly to the audio cortex by applying electrical voltage to the skin. I have no idea whether this is a hoax (it may well be, this site also sold Crystal Energy Devices(TM) and other things allegedly derived from alien technology..) And at $500 a box, I'm not ready to experiment until I see (or hear) proof.
But a natural extension of this technology is to extract audio from the brain (which would make realy cool facilitated telepathy scheme). Assuming all sorts of other audio mind-garbage could be kept out of the recording, this would essentially make poential "piracy" (yes, yes, RIAA usage of the word) and fair use (remembering music) the same thing.
As has been said many times, Wired updated the story without changing the URL.
AC, do you even read comments anymore?
As unpopular as the anti-terrorist legislation
is on Slashdot, it seems that we all want
its protection for our own computer systems.
It seems now it's the RIAA who doesn't want
*their* hacking to be thought of as terrorism.
It DOES restrict the laws the government can pass, however, including laws that DO restrict what one citizen can do to another.
However, I agree that the constitution is NOT what prevents this kind of thing -- the general legal principle that vigilante justice is not acceptable is.
It specifically controls the criminal law, which in turn controls what one citizen can do to another, by defining certain actions as criminal. Amoung these are breaking and entering and the malicious destruction of property.
--dave[Some folks who've never read history (or Ayn Rand!) keep making this "all law is contract law" claim. In fact, contract law came into existance long after criminal... try looking up "hanseatic league" or "emergent law". Sheesh!]
davecb@spamcop.net
I am not liable for what I do to THEIR computers through their cracked connections into mine ;)
Formatted hard drives come to mind...
Really, it would be easy to do-- exploiting their Windows systems from my Linux system... IE/Access vulnerabilities come to mind. And if the only way you will find that database is if you broke into my (somewhat unsecure but chrooted webserver) I think that the problems would be serious for them. If you want to see what is in mp3.mdb, the price might include formatted hard drives...
THen you set up anaonymous FTP servers with downloadable MP3's of white noise in order to trap them...
A case arguing that I am a terrorist because they broke into my systems is not likely to go very far...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
its from a lame ass movie
I suggest you take a basic college level government course. The mysteries of campaign financing will then be revealed to you.
Tell me, do you know what "soft money" really is, and why its damn near impossible to regulate?
-
One thing that the article didn't mention was the definition of piracy. Traditionally, "piracy" with respect to a copyrighted work has meant the duplication and selling of a copyrighted work. Think of street vendors in Hong Kong selling copies of pirated software such as Microsoft Office for $5. However, there is a disturbing trend amongst the RIAA, MPAA and other industry cartels to make the definition of piracy as broad as possible, including many activities currently protected by law as fair use. Did you rip that MP3 off that CD you purchased? Ha, say the RIAA, you're a PIRATE!
This overuse of the term "piracy" must be stopped because many members of the public already believe that any copying of a coprighted work is "piracy" and "illegal". This is not the case.
To undermine the RIAA's and MPAA's attempt to take away our legal rights, I urge all Slashdotters to use the term "piracy" only in the strict narrow sense of selling illegal copies for profit. The ripping of a CD you own into MP3's for your own personal use is not piracy. Downloading MP3 copies from a web site is not piracy if you already own legal copies of the tracks on CD, cassette tape or vinyl LP. Downloading MP3's if you don't legally own the tracks already is not "piracy": use the more neutral term "copyright infringement" for this activity if no money changed hands.
I will digress for a moment to explain how language is used by coporations and other powerful people. "Piracy" is an emotive word, which is deliberately used to provoke emotion. It invokes images of jolly rogers and sword-wielding bandits on the high seas. If they didn't want to provoke emotion, they would use a neutral term such as "copyright infringement". In short, if it's something allegedly bad that you're doing to them, it's "ouch, ouch, use emotive language", but if it's something bad they're doing to you, it's "softly, softly, use neutral language."
I would be interested to see how "piracy" is defined in the proposed legislation. The chances are good, however, that "piracy" is defined as broadly as possible, including many acts traditionally protected as "fair use" such as copying for your own personal use.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
CDR blanks cost about $.20. CDs cost $.50-$.90 in smallish quantities. (5000) The only problem is sitting there feeding in the damn blanks. Luckily, they're making robots for doing that now.
Put a system on the net that looks like it is constantly distributing mp3 files. Record all attemtps at hackage, as well as IP addresses they are comming from....
...
:P
Publish these IP addresses so people can add them to their firewalls.
These guys will prbably hire some pretty good crackers too, so any exploits they find would be help us further secure linux and other free OSs. Just keep a backup and put it back up when they kill it
Then do a world wide DDoS on that IP - we could even write some PtP software that triggers said DOS attack and just add it as a little peice to gnapster or gnuttela
Of course, if it just sits there and gets destroyed and keeps comming back it would probably gather more intel then if their computer suddenly got blown to shit the second they tried to crack it.
Just an idea....
Maybe the reason they backed down is that they realized that it wouldn't be one rule for them and another for everyone else. If you were RIAA, would you want to buy a law that gives permission to a million angry hackers to attack your systems w/out consequences?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
In this day in age, I wonder where 'rentals' or 'licensing' lies in this.
disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
Well...all we need to do is wait until the one day that an RIAA script kiddi3 happens to delete charlton hesstons pr0n collection when making an attempt to delete pirate MP3's. Problem solved.
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Airplane! was not a lame movie.
- The AC Avenger
Don't you just want to replace their fabric softener with used toilet paper and smash a plaster bust of Einstein over their heads?
AC's cheerfully ignored
aren't we protected from this by the search and seizure clause in the constitution?
Here is my plan should any law ever come about that uses the logic of we can search your computer for there things and get rid of them.
1) Group MP3 files into genre or artist categories, with each category containing aproximately 600 MB of songs
2) Take the groups and burn each one to a cd, label and store.
3) In the mood for some alternative music, pop in the cd and listen away.
Someone wanna see what I got, go ahead, if you can find a way to read CD's in a case, in a rack, on my desk, be my guest.
I know this isn't as convienient as having a few gig's of MP3's on your hard drive to get to them easily, but if the big companies can buy laws that don't support the consumers, I say we can do everything we can to make it hard for them to enforce them.
That or start a massive letter writing campaign to let our representatives know how we feel about letting corporations buy there votes. Having lots of money to run for re-election dosn't mean anything if the voting public knows that you will allow corporations to own you.
-- Any comments seen here are not mine, but a mixture of alchohol and lack of sleep.
Everyone is saying they're glad the RIAA didn't go through with this, but I'm wondering if I'm a bit disappointed.
I am in the "it needs to get a whole lot worse before it can get better" camp.
We need something to happen that exposes to the common man just how unmanageable our government has become. Currently, it appears only a few people are outraged and the rest are blissfully happy with the status quo. We need truly intolerable laws passed, instead of the merely annoying ones we have today. Only then will there be an impulse for change. Change at the business end of farm implements, for example. You think Middle Eastern terrorism is ugly? You haven't seen what pissed off Americans can do if given a
strong enough cause.
But we are nowhere near the point of outrage.
So far we are only approaching "inconvenience for
the literate". Perhaps if there were a few hundred thousand done like Skylarov. Perhaps not.
A million political prisoners in the drug war and the attendant outrage hasn't brought down the ability of the government to operate. It would take something bigger than that. We have a long way to go before the average American is upset enough to withhold his support of the government.
A very, very long way. Copyright law isn't ever going to rise to this level, not even if we reach the "right to read" problems.
Take away TV, raise the price of crude oil to, oh, $600.00 a barrel, and prohibit alcohol and tobacco, and you might have a revolution on your hands. Anything less, and we'll probably roll over and take it.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The RIAA is sickening, but no worse than Congress, and Atty General Asscruft, and AMTRAK, and all the other money- and power-grabbers.
And if someone breaks into my house (or my computer) and pose a threat to my person or property (or files) I have the right to defend myself against that. So Ill treat a visit from the RIAA as any other illegal hack attack.
...um...like...a sig...
For example lets say they crack into your system? By law any original material on your system has a copyright owner which is you, now an intrusion into your system is reasonable justification to believe that the RIAA holds your copyrighted material illegally hence they are now fair game.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
I know it got canned, was only a what if discussion.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
It sounds like the recording industry is pretty fragrantly using the war on terrorirsm to further its point. As this is an obvious distraction from what should be everyone's priortiy at the moment they are more than not helping. They are distorting what should be a balanced and reasoned process of legislation. The content of this legislation is critical to the maintenance of civil liberties and the physical and economic defence of the United States and the rest of the free world.
I thought the president of the United States had made it quite clear that anyone who wasn't helping was the enemy. The recording industry has declared itself the enemy of the free world.
I also thought the United States government had asked United States citizens with hacking expertise to judiciously target specific terror targets. (Recent Slashdot article) Some more targets now seems clearly defined. Namely the RIAA, companies remaining associated with the RIAA or who support the RIAA economically, responsible senators and lobbyists.
This all seems quite obvious, so if i got any of that wrong, Bush should confirm that the CIA has given special permission for these organisations / people to help the terrorists destaiblise our legislature. Eitherwise you've been given carte blanche.
Does the definition of hacking include copying stuff? Are we allowed to copy all the music we like in the US now?
(My source on the ammendment: http://theregister.co.uk/content/6/22252.html)
The RIAA and those lobbyists and senators should be crunched up and shat out for this disgusting behaviour. Laughs hysterically.
Not really. They could release a virus carrying a list of acceptable IP ranges (addresses of computers physically located in the United States). The virus would only infect computers with acceptable addresses. (A paranoid person might think that Code Red II's preference for addresses on the local subnet was intended to test the viability of this approach.)
The list of acceptable IP ranges wouldn't have to be long. Disabling every Windows box at a handful of ISPs and universities would wipe out most peer-to-peer networks at a stroke. Of course the RIAA would deny writing the virus, but if the truth ever got out the RIAA would want a legal loophole through which to escape.
YOU TOO can become a copyright holder, and YOU TOO can have the right to break into ANY COMPUTER YOU LIKE to look for evidence of copyright infringement and then DO WHAT YOU LIKE TO THAT COMPUTER! Don't worry about actually FINDING PROOF of copyright infringement - once you've wiped their hard disk, how are they going to prove they DIDN'T have a copy of your data?
Sounds too good to be true? Just follow these simple steps:
- Write some half-baked nonsense and post it on a well-respected weblog. Be sure to include a copyright statement. Hey presto... you're a copyright holder!
- Pick a target computer. Maybe there's a political viewpoint you want to censor, or a business you want to destroy? Perhaps you want to read the personal mail of the head of a recording industry cartel? Or maybe you just want to find out the medical records of a friend or co-worker. These activities would be called "hacking" if they were done by an ordinary person, but remember: you're no ordinary person, you're a copyright holder!
- There's a pretty good chance that someone uses your target computer to browse the web. And there's a fairly good chance that they read the same well-respected weblog where you posted your copyrighted material. Well then, there's a chance that those bastards are infringing your copyright! Better break in and find out. They've probably got a copy of your data in their browser cache RIGHT NOW! (By the way, don't worry too much about the definition of "a fairly good chance" - you don't have to waste time with any of that pesky legal stuff like probable cause. You're not a policeman, you're a copyright holder! Or maybe you ARE a policeman. Well that's OK - policemen can be copyright holders too!)
- Hack into the target computer and look for evidence of copyright infringement. Criminals are devious people so you should look everywhere for evidence:
/etc/passwd is a good place to start. If you find any evidence, or even if you don't, wipe the hard drive to prevent any future infringement. This would be criminal vandalism, or even terrorism, if it was done by an ordinary hacker. But you're no ordinary hacker. That's right... you're a copyright holder!
The copyright in this comment belongs to Sony Music Corporation. Copying and distribution in any form, electronic or otherwise, is strictly prohibited and will one day be retroactively punishable by death. You have been warned....because they want the law to be written so that they are not responsible for damages done to your machine while in search of copyrighted material. It doesn't matter whether or not that material exists, and they would not be required to provide proof.
The RIAA could literally say, "the law says we are not responsible" and the judge would toss your case out on its arse.
It's as simple as that...