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.

9 of 1,049 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Unconstitutional on it's face by uncoveror · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would still be the law until the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, if it passes. A lot of laws that are contrary to the constitution don't get challenged, so the Supreme Court can't strike them down. Hopefully, we can keep it from passing. It is time for everyone to start faxing their Congressmen. E-mail is too easy to ignore, and snailmail takes too long if it even gets there. When elections come around in November, anyone who supported this should be voted out. Slashdotters need to get politically involved.
    Also, consumers can boycott the movie and music industries. It is our money they use to bribe Congressmen and Senators. Don't give them any.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  2. Let me get this straight... by liquidsin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. Write your representative. by kabir · · Score: 5, Insightful
    First go here to figure out who your rep is, then write them an actual, physical, pen and paper letter detailing your concerns over this issue and asking them to vote/committe it into oblivion.

    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!
  4. What about collateral damage? by Geckoman · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Suppose I'm on a cable modem, and although I'd never do anything illegal or immoral with my connection, my neighbor down the street has multiple Napster clones running 24/7.

    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.

  5. Re:What's the big deal? by MegaGremlin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Except for the very small legal issue that until you are proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, you are in fact innocent.

    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.

    --

    .sig
  6. Playing into their hands by Kefaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  7. According to the bill, there are large exceptions: by stienman · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The crux of the bill is in subsection (a) which states that they won't be liable for any ciminal or civil action which results from impairing the distribution of copyright works. However, there are exceptions to that, which I find quite large. If I'm reading this correctly, then they cannot claim their actions fall under this bill if it:
    • (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
  8. Re:Unconstitutional on it's face by WEFUNK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Boycotts, legal challenges, and voting people out are all fine after the fact, but the best way to stop this is to stick a real damaging spin on it before it becomes law. The usual anti-MPAA/RIAA and copyright rants probably won't win enough media interest in time to stop this, but politicians could be convinced if the "corporate vigilante immunity law" is lumped in with the recent accounting scandals.

    Write a letter or call your congressional representatives, senators, activists, and/or media outlets pointing out the audacity of big corporations to ask for special privileges and less accountability even in the face of the ongoing accounting and financial investigations. Ask them how we are supposed to trust big corporations with legal immunity from federal laws when we can't even trust them to tell the truth. Tell them that CEO's still just don't get it and that this proposed legislation is further proof that corporate lobbyists are out of control and out of touch with reality. Tell them that allowing corporations to legally unleash hackers on private citizens will be the first step on a slippery slope of immunity and abuse. Tell them that corporations can't be trusted to a lower standard than citizens - if anything they should be held to a higher standard.

    Ask candidates if they are planning to support legal immunity for greedy companies that take the law into their own hands or if they are going to take a stand against corporate excess and fight this latest example of abuse of trust. Ask them if they'll stand up for the little guy, or if they plan to let corporations get away with anti-consumer vigilante tactics. With a little suggestion and the upcoming elections in mind, somebody should recognize the opportunity to run with this issue and make it totally unpaletable before it ever passes.

    --
    My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
  9. Re:How low? by gilroy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Blockquoth the poster:
    P2P networks - "Can we have immunity to steal intellectual property, as long as we call it "sharing""?
    Leaving aside the fact that copyright infringement != stealing, let's see. Do we let convenience store clerks take guns into the apartments of people they think might rob the Kwiki-Mart? Do car owners get to blow up suspected car thieves? Does the local mall have the right to cut off your hand because, hey, that Gap shirt might have been stolen?