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.
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.
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.
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.
(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
I'm more concerned that they tried to sneak it into the terrorism bill, rather than propose it on its own. How, exactly, does trashing my MP3 collection prevent Osama Bin Laden from steering jet planes into buildings? I'm not trying to be insensitive -- I'm just wondering what's with these corporations that try to take advantage of a horrible situation by pushing insane laws?
It makes me wonder what else could be inside that bill that is completely unrelated to terrorism. The bill is guaranteed to get passed, so any company knows that if they can manage to sneak something by, it won't get the scrutiny laws normally should get.
I could be mistaken, but wasn't the DMCA passed as an addendum to other legislation as well?
Who cares about the sheep-like consumers? I am a CITIZEN.
;-)
Same difference really, since few are one and not the other
Reminds me of Starship Troopers (it was on fx lastnight)... where people take pride in be citizens instead of civilians. If you can get over the (intentional) comic-book style, it's really a great movie.
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
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!
Get over the movie, and read the book. It's much better, though it makes a different point (although I suppose you should say that the movie makes a different point). Actually, I don't think the movie makes a point at all, just some bloodthirsty entertainment with a weak thrust at commentary which, in typical hollywood style, misses.
funny munging
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?
I've heard the book is excellent from several people, and it's certainly on my list of book's I'd like to make time to read. ;-)
Actually, I don't think the movie makes a point at all, just some bloodthirsty entertainment with a weak thrust at commentary which, in typical hollywood style, misses.
I thought the "weak thrust at commentary" (the interesting take on a not-so-far-off future) was as intertaining as the blood and guts. Not that I didn't like the blood and guts, of course.
Interesting that they can air the unedited scenes of blood and violence, but they had to cut the nudity for last night's cable tv presentation. American moral values are a strange beast.
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
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.
That's just silly. I don't need to listen to Russ Feingold to know that money is a very big part of it; and that campaign financing is, in fact, an unregulated thing. Oh sure, if you go out and donate through the normal channels you fall under federal limits for 'hard money'. But what most entities do is make an end run around the democratic obstacles and funnel money through non-federal accounts, while screaming "Hey, you can't regulate this! I have a first amendment right to bribe elected officials!" And so, year by year, a loophole becomes niagra falls.
Maybe so, but it had not just one Hot Babe(TM), but two Hot Babes(TM): Denise Richards and Dina Meyer.
Besides, I happen to like the citizen/civilian distinction. A civilian has all the rights of a citizen except that the civilian can't vote; and to get that vote you have to put in some time in national service. Everyone can, no one is refused; two years of your life and the vote is yours.
Those that don't value the vote can just avoid national service and keep their mouths shut if they don't like the way elections turn out.
Right now I think that's a far sight better than 'universal suffrage'.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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
Here in Washington State, our state constitution forbids any bill that has more than one subject. Two recent very controversial bills here were revoked in the past few years (with a total of 4 subjects). This restriction has been a huge help to the sanity of the government here (the bills were not only in blatant violation of that aspect of the constition, but were extremely anti-tax and would have effectively crippled the government had they remained in effect).