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....
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!
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
Unfortunately to have a PR nightmare the public has to understand something about the subject. Right now, that isn't the case. Joe Blow on Main Street has never heard of the RIAA, and couldn't care less. All he wants is to blow Osama bin Laden's head off right now.
I think I'll stop here.
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
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
...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".
How is this a good thing? It is a vigilante act that shouldn't be allowed. If there are people doing the wrong thing, bring them to justice. Real justice. That is what the court system is for. They have no legal right to attack (yes, this is a digital attack) the suspects. Exactly what restitution do I have after they hack my machine, delete all my mp3s (legally ripped for CDs in my collection) and expose any secret information I have that they feel like grabbing. They just burglarized and vanadalized my property and should be arrested.
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);
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
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.
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...
Its ONE thing to protect yourself, if a Thief comes into MY house, I have the right (thanks to the "Make My Day" Law, to stop them, however once they make off with the goods I do NOT have the right or legal protection to hunt them down and retrieve my stuff.
when you DL an MP3 you are NOT removing it from an RIAA server
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
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...
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.
So, does this mean that if someone detects an unauthorized attempt on their system and immediately tracks it back to an RIAA computer ("hmm, this is coming from Universal's offices") they have the full and legal right to launch a DOS/Nuke/Smurf attack and blow that entire network off the Net in order to protect their personal property?
/. :)
Talk about your legal conundrums. Thanks to the shortsight of the RIAA, we've got another can of worms to argue about on
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
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.
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*
(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
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.
You have the right to make archival copies. The DMCA has taken away this right if you buy materials that have a copy protection scheme in place, but this has yet to be challenged in court. I find it hard to believe that a court challenge would allow this new law to continue, but of course challenging the law would require having lawyers who could stand up to the RIAA.
Basically, it's another case of corporations purchasing "illegal" legislation through lobbying, while knowing full well that even if they're passing unconstitutional laws, they're economically untouchable.
Until we get some campaign finance reform rolling in this country, it's only going to get worse.
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.
You have more than that!
You are allowed to copy music you bought, for personal use, as much as you want, onto any media you want!
The 'archival copy' stuff you are referring to is some common stated software ruling... has nothing to do with music.
You have the right to make copies of music you own however and whenever you want.
Distributing those copies may be illegal, however.
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.
That's what they want you to think, but copyright law specifically allows you to make backups, so long as you do not give those backups (or the originals!) away. MP3s themselves are not illegal, however they may contain illegaly copied copywritten content.
In general, take any legal advice from RIAA or the MPAA with a grain of salt. They tend to subtly twist the truth to whatever makes them the most money with little regard for weather it's within the spirit (or sometimes the letter) of the law.
I read the internet for the articles.
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."
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.
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.
-
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!
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?
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!"
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?
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 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!
The sickening part of this is that the RIAA is essentially using the deaths of thousands of people as cover to expand their power.
No matter how bad copyright infringment may be, it is much less morally repulsive than using a tragedy like this to advance a political agenda. The RIAA has stooped to a new low.
Buy Hex-Rated Stuff, fight the DMCA!
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.
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.
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
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".
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
Yet that is exactly what the DMCA does. And it has been upheld as well as opened the way for DRM...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
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.
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.
> Does the RIAA allow us to make backup copies of our media?
Not the RIAA! The Bern convention (international copyright law) allows you 'fair use' and that includes the right to make copies for use by yourself. So cutting a CD copy old tapes, taping Vinyl, etc, etc.
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...