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.

23 of 1,049 comments (clear)

  1. Unconstitutional on it's face by sconeu · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Unconstitutional on it's face by carrier+lost · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah!

      This article over at The Reg gives a satiric slant on that.

      Go get yur black hats, podners!

      MjM

    2. 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.
    3. Re:Unconstitutional on it's face by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The logic of the MPAA is succinctly summarized in the caption to their copyright information page: "Copyright: The Engine of America's Economic Growth." That sort of logic is difficult to battle - it was used to justify slavery, among other things, and is successfully used to justify continued environmental degradation. "What's good for GM is what's good for America" has underlied a lot of policy in the past century - it's why we bail-out financial institutions and airlines, why white collar criminals who have reduced thousands of people to poverty still get smaller sentences - if any - than people who shoplift a bicycle or sell a few joints.

    4. Re:Unconstitutional on it's face by Washizu · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      Contact your Congressman, although many don't have fax numbers on their website. You can always call.

      --
      OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    5. Re:Unconstitutional on it's face by Bonker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is time for everyone to start faxing their Congressmen.

      Here is the simul email/fax I sent today:

      Dear Representative Combest,

      Recently, your colleague, Representative Howard Berman from California, introduced a bill that would allow copyright holders such as movie studios, publishers, or record labels to take 'technological measures' against computer networks they suspect of violating their copyrights.

      These 'technological measures' are computer 'Denial of Service' or 'DOS' attacks, computer cracking, and other actions that are otherwise considered computer crimes. Right now, if an individual did the same thing that these content industries are asking to do via Berman's bill, he would be investigated by the FBI and put in prison for harming a computer network or a computer. These 'technological measures' are no different. Besides harming an individual's computer, who may or may not be guilty of copyright violation, they also harm Internet Service Providers, Universities, or any other business that is connected to the Internet. The bandwidth lost to 'Denial of Service'-type attacks doesn't affect just people the content industry suspects being guilty of copyright infringement, but everyone connected to the Internet by reducing the amount of bandwidth available for legitimate data.

      Worse, if these industries are allowed to start perpetrating these kind of attacks on individuals or companies, it will become impossible for computer administrators, police forces, or federal investigators to differentiate illegal attacks from sanctioned attacks. Computer 'hacking' and cracking will rise in frequency and volume simply because malicious criminals will be able to take advantage of the 'noise' generated by legal attacks.

      There is no difference between malicious computer attacks and the 'technological measures' proposed by Representative Berman. I urge you to oppose his bill in the strongest possible terms.



      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    6. 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!
  2. What this might mean..... by Captain+Pedantic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  3. Corporations fuck Americans, news at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  4. In other news by BagOBones · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."
  5. Lets see how this would work by strictnein · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  6. Letter to the 6th District of North Carolina by lunenburg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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!
  9. 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.

  10. Notwithstanding by handorf · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  11. Re:new p2p scheme by macdaddy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sure there is. If it passes I'll be blacklisting every RIAA and MPAA netblock I can find. I'd also nominat the for an RBL listing due to the DoSing attempts from their netspace and their disregard for abuse@ mailings. They can't DoS my customers if they can't get past my border router. If they still flood me as a business, I'll sue for damages. :-)

  12. 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
  13. Lets get specific to who is getting DOS'ed here by $nyper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!" -$
  14. Re:It doesn't give blanket protection by Lxy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did the person who wrote the Slashdot editorialization for this story even read the bill?

    You're new here, aren't you?

    --

    There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
    :wq
  15. 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

  16. 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
  17. 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?