Hearing on Hollywood Hacking Bill

DaveAtFraud writes "CNN says that Hilary Rosen and the RIAA are once again lobbying Congress for the right to sabotage P2P networks. Of course, Hilary says that the RIAA wouldn't abuse this capability. Luckily, some of the lawmakers are dubious. Also, Rep. Rick Boucher asked, 'What are the implications for the Internet's functionality when the inevitable arms race develops?' and pointed out that overzealous attempts to enforce existing copyright law had all too often targetted legitimate postings." There's also a News.com story.

Comments

Interdiction and spoofing details

[writertype]

The ZD sites also have more on this story. Some more details of interdiction and spoofing are discussed, along with comments from the representatives who actually asked the questions. Zoe Lofgren (representing Silicon Valley) actually seemed to know what she was talking about.

National Association of Realtors isnt much better

[night_flyer]

they are wanting to resrict the use of the MLS information to non realtors over the web.

again its a case where the net is helping industry but the industry doesn't want to "lose control"

Re:Due process

[ChristTrekker]

Ahem. Ninth Amendment. Tenth Amendment.

A right is something inherent to yourself that does not involve taking from others. (You therefore have the right to pursue happiness all you want, but you do not have a right to happiness itself.) If it's not been expressly delegated to government, it is retained by the people.

Hilary and the EFF on CNBC Last Night

[Anonymous Coward]

Last night's Capitol Report on CNBC had a 5 minute piece with Hilary Rosen and a representative from the EFF.

Amongst others, Rosen made the following amazing assertions (I am summarizing, not quoting verbatim):

1) That the record industry's business is down 10% this year over last, yet normally in tough economic times people spend more, not less, on things like music so downloading must be the culprit

2) That the bill will give people more, not less, protection against intrusion into their computers (and that people currently have no protection) - that P2P is wide open and a means by which currently anyone can do damage to your computer with impunity by "planting a virus" (amongst other things)

When confronted by one of the hosts with a question as to why he should feel comfortable with the RIAA invading his computer to look for their IP, Rosen said that the RIAA would not in fact be doing this. She then likened the P2P community to a harbor with many, many small bays and said that the RIAA would be "policing the harbor", looking for their IP to cross it and then follow its route to the offender. Rosen also stooped to name calling - referring to the EFF as the "Everything for Free Foundation".

Fair Use was not discussed.

Rosen was smart and focussed and showed a politician's gift for evading issues and distorting facts. Twisted as they may be, she got her points across. The person from the EFF (her first name escapes me but her last name was Steele) was, in my opinion, not up to the challenge. Admittedly, a 5 minute rapid fire forum is not a good place to discuss a complex issue, but she seemed not to have a clear message that would speak to the average person. The only point that she got across well was that people want to download music from home for a reasonable price and see the artists fairly compensated. She never touched on the very important issue of invasion of privacy and potential damage that can be caused by IP bounty hunters.

They also aired one of the new "downloading is theft" commercials which equated downloading music to stealing a CD from the store. Like a music video, it was fast cut and fast paced and seemed to be aimed at under 25's.

Re:Legislated FUD

[WEFUNK]

I saw this exchange (on CNBC) as well. I generally agree with your assessment of the EFF spokesperson - she seemed like a very reasonable, well spoken person, but was not as well groomed for quick public debate as she could have been. To be fair, she may be too used to always being on the defensive about issues like file sharing. Until now, just to be heard the EFF has had to spend much of their time trying not to sound too radical. However, in this case at least, she could have taken the offensive because the arguments against the RIAA are clearly on her side and the media are begining to count on the EFF for their perspective as an important consumer interest group.

Surprisingly, the interviewer and Tyler Mathison seemed to pick up on this as well and really did a great job of grilling Hilary. Whether they were playing devil's advocate I'm not sure, but the EFF and others have done a really good job of setting the tone for this debate. For example, the interviewers asked Hilary about the ramifications of legalized hacking etc. Hilary's responses were quite laughable and she came off as being computer illiterate and very naive for selling a "just trust us" approach that doesn't play well with the media these days. They basically ignored her sometimes rambling remarks and continued to use language that framed the RIAA and the bill as being vigilante measures and they expressed concern about the RIAA impeding technical innovation and progress. Actually, because of the EFF spokesperson's almost passive stance, I think a casual viewer would have come away from the discussion as thinking that the journalists themselves believed that the bill was bad and that the industry lobbyist was probably flat-out lying about its consequences.

This was the first time I had ever seen Hilary Rosen on TV and I was expecting to see some very impressive arguments from her and cowtowing from the press. But from my point of view, the EFF clearly won the debate before it even started, even if their spokesperson didn't go in for the kill. Hilary also made a complete fool of herself by calling the EFF names - the interviewer made a point of this at the end that didn't paint her in a good light at all and she seemed flabbergasted.

Re:Due process

[Zeinfeld]

The right to trial by jury "of your peers" is part of British commonlaw, not American law. That phrase is there so that noblepersons can't get tried by peasants, plebians and other proles.

Not anymore it ain't. Lord Jeffrey 'crap author' Archer is currently in the slamer after being found guilty of perjury by a jury of plebs.

The right of peers to be tried by the house of Lords had not in any case been exercised for 80 odd years. The only reason that people remembered to take it off the statute book was after Obe Wan Knobie (Alex Guiness) made Kind Hearts and Coronets whih reminded folk of the anomaly.

Personally I thing Jeffrey the Liar got off lightly. I think they should have stripped him of his knighthood and degraded him in the manner that Cochrane was. In those days they paid a bloke to stand in as a surrogate, he would be taken off to Westminster Abbey at midnight wearing a knights spurs. These were then ceremonially hacked off with a hatchet and thrown down the steps of the Cathederal together with his banner.

If people are going to prance about being knights and such they should be subject to the whole hog. Plus think of the audience ratings you could get for that sort of thing on TV.

Cochrane was eventually exhonorated and pardoned but only after liberating most of south america from the rule of Spain and then helping the Greeks kick the Turks out.