Legalizing Attacks on P2P Networks

miniver writes: "Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) wants to legalize DoS attacks on P2P networks such as Kazaa and Morpheus by 'copyright holders.' The Washington Post reports on his proposed legislation here. Berman's bill, to be introduced in the next several weeks, would attempt to minimize the illegal trading of copyrighted songs and other content on "peer-to-peer" (P2P) networks by permitting copyright holders to use technology against pirates. As can be expected, the RIAA is in favor of the proposed legislation."

Comments

What's next?

[commodoresloat]

Representative Howard Berman (D-Viacom) has introduced legislation which will legalize the use of pipe bombs and plastic explosives against photocopy machines to enforce the rights of copyright holders.

"I am a strong believer in the beneficial potential of photocopy machines," Berman stated, "but most people currently use them for unbridled copyright piracy. Billions of copied pages every month constitute copyright infringements for which creators and owners receive no compensation. Photocopy machine piracy must be cleaned up. The question is how."

Berman suggested that the solution to piracy involved many elements. He noted the importance of widespread, online availability of copyrighted works through lawful, consumer-friendly services, strong digital rights management, law suits by copyright owners, and prosecutions against the most egregious infringers.

"Technological self-help measures," he said, "could be yet another part of the solution. Copyright owners could employ a variety of technological tools to prevent the illegal distribution of copyrighted works over photocopy machines -- tools such as detonating explosives, pouring black paint over the lens, or simply smashing the machine to bits with a sledgehammer."

"Use of such self-help measures is nothing new," Berman pointed out. "Satellite and cable companies periodically employ electronic countermeasures to thwart the theft of their signals and programming. However, when such measures are used to thwart photocopier piracy, they may be illegal. Their use may run afoul of certain common law doctrines and state and federal statutes."

Re:DoS Gnutella, et al

[elflord]

I wonder how it would be possible to DoS P2P services without destroying legitimate uses for P2P as well...

Ans: read the article

Additionally, wouldn't DoSing P2P services slow the Internet as a whole, harming all legitimate users of the Internet?

Ans: read the article. Basically, the point is that the record companies can put dud files on the network. It only hurts people who try to download the copyrighted titles.

Re:What happens when...

[elflord]

Someone posts the IP addresses of the "legit hackers" on the web? You can bet that all the script kiddies will come out of the woodwork then... As for the dummy files, what about a system that allows people to A) vouch for their songs, and B) give an MD5 hash?

As soon as they drop their anonymity, they're easy targets for the RIAA who can go after the large offenders in court. The whole problem with this mass piracy is that it depends on anonymity, so the record cos can abuse that anonymity, just like the freeloaders are.

Re:DoS Gnutella, et al

[elflord]

Putting dud files onto P2P networks would slow the network down, wouldn't it?

Not a whole lot. The primary goal is clearly to push the noise/signal ratio past a certain level, not to saturate the network.

*cough* bulls--t *cough*

[mark-t]

Let them do their DoS'ing... at present, I know I'm (at least in theory, supposed to be) unnaffected, but if or when legitimate file-sharing _IS_ affected, let those put out by it come forward at that time and start a class action suit for the costs of lost bandwidth. Hey, this time we'll even have court-supplied evidence of exactly who the guilty party is. Clearly, if legitimate use is actually threatened, there will be a case for it in court.

As an aside, of the people I know that use Kazaa or Morpheus, there isn't one of them that doesn't use it to obtain copyrighted works illegally. That doesn't mean that such use doesn't exist, it may only say something about the sorts of people with whom I am acquainted. Seriously, I would love to see these people punished to the fullest extent of the law, but unless I start carrying a tape recorder with me everywhere and recording these people's admissions, I'd never have any court-admissable evidence. At the very least, it would be my word against his -- case dismissed. Anyways, as for the legally obtainable stuff on these networks, such material is likely available elsewhere anyways. Given the sheer magnitude of illegally shared material on these networks, I see no reason not to give this a go. When legitimate use is ACTUALLY compromised, I have no doubt that there will be a sustainable court case.

Yeah, I'm ranting... I'll shut up now.

Re:Law against it?

[hype7]

Traps have a tendency not to be picky, so while allowing them could deter a few crimes, I think the average trap would be more likely to catch someone without criminal intent.

and while I know this may seem OT, that is the argument I'd take against the second amendment. Allowing people to arm themselves may deter a few crimes, the average gun is more likely to end up being shot at someone who has no criminal intent.

And for my second generalisation of the night, my bet is that it's all the 2nd amendment freaks who are arguing to allow the RIAA and MPAA to "arm" themselves to fight against the "infringers".

-- james
ps hehe trolling is fun

Re:Laws only for the poor

[seanyboy]

Contrast this disgusting RIAA funded practice with the screams of delight that emanate from SlashDot when Activists perform Electronic 'Sit Ins' (i.e. DOS Attacks) at politically un-liberal sites. It's well enough that you pull out the "one law for the rich..." argument, but at least recognise that it's a basic variation on accepted /. practice.