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.
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!
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
...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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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