Slashdot Mirror
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."
No wonder we never understand politicians.
RIAA can suck my CD's
-- RTFM:Slackware::Beer:Saturday
Fuckers.
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
While I think that technology is really the only thing that's going to realistically provide the media industry the defense they've been searching for, I'm wondering what exactly this law will permit. For example, I produce copyrighted works on a daily basis on my website, at my office, etc. So do I then, suddenly, have the right to launch attacks on P2P networks? Furthermore, what kinds of attacks will be legitmized. Would be rather bizarre to have a nasty and dangerous worm become legal simply because it was launched against a P2P network.
Seems like another case of a congress critter trying to bring the law into an area he truely does not understand..
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
1. Copyright Song.
2. Wait for someone to e-mail it to someone else on AOL.
3. Massive DOS Attack on AOL tottaly taking it out forever.
4. ???
5. Profit.
"Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) wants to legalize DoS attacks on P2P networks such as Kazaa and Morpheus by "copyright holders".
Umm okay. They can have that right if I can have the right to DoS the RIAA for infringing on my fair use rights. After all, all men are created equal.
"Derp de derp."
They want to make it ok to take the law into your own hands, well, their hands anyway.
Isn't it the job of the local,state and federal law enforcement agencies to enforce the laws? Deputizing the RIAA doesn't really sound like a good idea.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
where does it say anything about DoS attacks? From the article:
... "
"His bill would allow copyright holders to set up decoy files and use other techno-tricks like file-blocking and redirection to throw P2P pirates off the trail, but it would forbid those holders from employing tactics that would damage or destroy pirates' own computer systems"
And further along....
A copyright owner should not be allowed to damage the property of a P2P file trader or any intermediaries, including ISPs," Berman said. "(I) wouldn't want to let a particularly incensed copyright owner introduce a virus that would disable the computer from which copyrighted works are made available
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a good thing, but I also don't think we need to blow it out of proportion, who does that really help in the end? No one.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
His bill would allow copyright holders to set up decoy files and use other techno-tricks like file-blocking and redirection to throw P2P pirates off the trail, but it would forbid those holders from employing tactics that would damage or destroy pirates' own computer systems.
It seems like a futile attempt, however, as people can always route around trouble, and if such tactics become commonplace, software will soon adapt so even the most clueless newbie can be autoupdated with the latest and greatest roadblocks to avoid.
You're absolutely right: people automatically think flooding or hacking when they hear DoS. But denial of service attacks can mean rendering a network virtually useless in what it's supposed to provide. In the case of a web server, you use up so many connections no one else (ie: valid clients) can connect. In the case of Morpheus, you imitate so many false matches that clients can't get valid results (they can't retrieve the information, even though the information is available and the server -- or network -- should technically be able to produce it).
The RIAA has already started doing this -- by posting songs with repeated choruses or large sections of the songs faded to silence, but the calibur has been relatively small -- you can usually pull off a legitimate copy after a few searches.
Legalizing this operation would give the RIAA a defense for using these mechanisms, and they could avoid [further] bad publicity. They would also be permitted to store massive amounts of slightly varied mp3 names that house illegitimate or incomplete songs, register numerous Kazaa/Morpheus/etc. accounts and attempt to pose as valid song providers, flooding the network with useless information.
Let's see when radio first came out the record companies freaked. They figure that no one would buy a record if you could get here it over the radio. They were wrong.
::sigh::
When the tape cassette came out, the record companies freaked, everybody would copy thier friends tape or tape off the radio. They figure no one would buy would buy their tapes. They were wrong.
When the vcr first came on the scene, the movie industry freaked, who would go see movies if you watch it for free? They figured people would stop going to movies. They were wrong.
Don't have the stats but I would guess that the above three all made them more money than without them.
Now, we have recordable cd's and dvd's, and they are freaked. Who will buy music/movies if people can copy it over the internet?
I believe I am sounding like a broken record, but these folks are obtuse.
As can be expected, the RIAA is in favor of the proposed legislation.
Should read,
As can be expected, the RIAA proposed the legislation.
;)
I stole this Sig
Here's the big thing. Who will this affect? If the RIAA has any say at all (and this goes above and beyond whatever means they use) it will affect everyone. That would be everyone in the world. Everyone in the world regardless of whether or not the US Constitution even affects them.
Sure it's been said, and maybe not even necessary for this topic, but I can see no good coming of this when a US bill gives the RIAA power over everyone in the world. That's impossible, but very likely that it will be taken as such. No bill in the world, save from maybe a direct mandate by the UN, can give a company this power (and the UN is a little busy right now trying to stop people from killing each other, not making sure I don't download the latest N'sync auditory torture). Why don't we just launch targeted deterrents against everyone pirating music? Oh, wait. We can't. Sure we "can", but it would be illegal in THEIR country and wide open to a good old All-American lawsuit, just like everybody else. Or maybe we just forgot this little fact.
Oh please let someone in Belgium sue the RIAA. It would just be funny.
- Relativistic? That's barely Newtonian!
How does downloading an MP3s of Hanson music constitute as terrorism
Playing these MP3s within anybody's earshot would certainly qualify as terrorism, I think.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Actually, the main thing that stops child porn is that most people don't find children sexually interesting.
Check out OpenSecrets.org if you want to see who's financing this guy's campaign. Top donors, surprise surprise, are: Walt Disney, AOL Time Warner, Viviendi Universal, Viacom, DreamWorks, and Sony. Gee, no bias there.
The problem with this, if you didn't see it already, is not that it allows them to attack, it's that is gives them the ability to enforce the law.
It makes the copyright holder a law enforcer without all the nagging issues about due process.
If something like this is passed, how likely do you think it would be that is would include statues for just cause or disclosure? They could empy it just on the off chance they "think" something illegal is going on, and if they get in trouble they can plead ignorance. It could vary easily be used by companies against individuals or companies against companies.
A good example -- and one where I pick on microsoft too -- would be easy. Owing that this legislation simply says "copyrigth holders" and not "musical copyright holders", it could be used by anyone. So, suppose Microsoft wanted to buy some technology from a company, and the company didn't want play ball? Well, Microsoft could do around the clock DDOS attacks to tie up all ther bandwidth (which the company would be unable to stop, as it would be illegal under such a law), and cause the company to be able to do no business and as such go out of business -- and they could do this all under the guise of "well, they were using a pirated copy of Excel 97".
And suppose it doesn't lay out what kind of retaliation is allowed, or on what medium? Suppose ClearChannel Communications (who own 87% of all radio in the USA) "though" that some mom&pop station iun Bumsville, Iowa was inteding to rebroadcast one of their programs? There stand a good chance that CC would be allowed (under such a law) to jam the offending stations signal until they got satisfaction.
Ever play Shadowrun, a game where giant corporation war against each other?
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
Simple solution. Totally black list any riaa sites from the rest of the net. Enter their ips on the major backbone routers, and blackhole their traffic. Think about it, you dos someone, and we blackhole 100% of your traffic. No email, no vpn's, no nothing for you riaa pigs. A dos attack is an abuse of the net. And if the fascists want to abuse the net, then they simply dont need it. And i think its likely that the riaa WOULD get their net nuts cut off if they started this crap, simply because a dos is against any kind of TOS (terms of service) in existance. If your uunet, exodus, etc, would you tolerate that kind of crap on your network? i sure as hell wouldnt.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
Considering that flooding a P2P network is easiest when you have the greatest resources to throw at the task, it's hard to imagine that this recourse would be viable for any but large corporate powers or those lucky enough to find themselves in the RIAAA's, etc, best graces. Thus this technique would have the effect of extending the monopolies of the most dominant players, and would choke off P2P distribution paths that could be used by any dangerous upstart rivals. Maintaining their distribution monopoly has, of course, long been the recording industry's primary concern.
It is also perfectly plausible that any organization with sufficient resources could squash any sort of offending content, beyond any specific type of media, rendering entirely useless existing P2P systems. Note, however, that by sufficient resources I don't mean just network resources. Rather, the most useful resource will be money. Since this is designed as a tool of harrasment, it's likely there would be lawsuits -- but small entities might not be able or willing to risk the cost of a lawsuit. That could work in favor of large entities in two ways: first to limit the ability of individual parties to sue those disrupting a network, and second to empower only the wealthiest entities to venture to disrupt that network. So once again the largest entities benefit at the expense of the little guy.
I don't see any mention of any special recourse unfairly targeted parties may have, but it's not far fetched to assume that by design any recourse wouldn't be very effective -- otherwse there wouldn't be any point having the law in the first place (It's hard to image much opportunity for recourse when the law is designed to inflict haphazard damage.) Without disincentives, why shouldn't companies spam & otherwise disrupt the P2P for any perceived or concocted reason?
Thus the system could be ripe for abuse, but without the opportunity for that inconvenient oversight afforded the wronged under our official legal system. But then again, that's why modern society doesn't tolerate vigalantes...
Of course these concerns are on top of the already harebrained notion that it would be a good idea to destroy the current implementations of an extremely popular emerging technology that can be (and is) used for legitimate purposes.
Finally, what's to prevent a broad interpretation of a law like this? At this point the details are too vague to comment on with certainty, but it's not far fetched to imagine that a few poorly worded lines could turn something like this in to another DMCA.
Fortunately for the 'net and the economy, it shouldn't be difficult to make someone -- even a typical luddite congressman -- understand that unleashing vigilante chaos on the Internet is a very bad idea. With only a small amount of luck this media industry power grab will be quickly defeated.
Finally, I would like you to consider that corporate censoship can be more dangerous than government censoship, since we do not have any direct individual control over corporate power as we do (theoretically) with our government. Plus, the more control corporate interests with agendas have over mass communication, the harder it is to democratically render grass roots changes. This self-reinforcing cycle of corporate media power is well evidenced by the proposed legislation.