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".
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
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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!
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!
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 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?
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 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.
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