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....
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!"
\ };
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".
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 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.
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
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...
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.
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.
As a veteran of the Armed Forces, who now is Director of Marketing, I am all for this.
"Cry 'Havoc' and let loose the dogs of marketing!"
I have no idea what that reply says. Note the question is worded in english. I can only guess at the language used in the reply or its meaning. I think it says "Yes." Why couldn't they just put "Yes" and make my life easier?
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
HEY! RIAA!! I've Got 2000 MP3's that you can delete! Come and Get Em!! My IP address is 127.0.0.1!
Oh, please! Everyone knows that's loopback. Your real IP address is 127.63.174.221. Didn't think you'd really fool the RIAA, didja?!