Slashdot Mirror
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.
They tacitly approve of these nasty tactics from the RIAA, then turn around and sell MP3 players for their Clies and Playstation 2s? I don't get it.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Does anyone else have a problem with the word suspect in that sentence. So this bill would grant someone the "right" to take away my pursuit of happiness (most definitely found on most P2P networks) without the due process of law?
The next (il)logical step would be to allow bill collectors to hack into your bank accounts to collect on past-due accounts.
..is a quick telling of why this would cause problems for even what the RIAA calls "law abiding netziens." The RIAA/MPAA claim that "law abiding" people wont be affected by the proposed legislation.
In actuality, if the RIAA were to launch a DoS attack against a P2P node, other nearby nodes (eg, cable modems) would also become affected from the influx of incoming traffic against that node. The reason for this is because of how computer networks work and operate.
When writing to your congressman, include this tidbit of info and why that it is the case. Include a short discussion of why it's the case in terms they will understand. Analogies work great for things like this.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Say my DSL account got shut down one day and I found out it was because my daughter did a book report on a band and it had mentioned song titles in it. I use my connection for business, as I'm a freelancer. I wonder what legal action one could take against them. I have a feeling it would become quit expensive for them.
First of all, this would be a prime example of Fair Use, so legally they couldn't do a damn thing about it.
Not that they should be trusted however. If they were to take action against you for this, it would pretty much be up to you to prove that you were in the right (side note: isn't it supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? that's not what is happening nowadays). I'd give you some estimates on how much that would cost, but I don't want to give you nightmares. You would of course be legally clear here, and clear according to any AUP your ISP might have, but don't expect overzealous IP lawyers to give a damn about your rights.
It is quite sad how our legal system has been reduced to a system of "survival of the wealthiest."
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
What about the other customers of the ISP that the suspected criminal is using? A denial of service attack will obviously affect the ISP's bandwidth and the Internet as a whole.
If someone is breaking the law shouldn't they be charged with a crime and shouldn't we use the judicial system and due process?
If someone steals something from my house I don't have a right to break into their house and steal it back, or burn their house down.
This is outrageous.
LoRider
She described the P2P scene as a harbor, where everyone has their "house" on the shore. There's a lot of traffic in the harbor, and the RIAA is going to "interdict" in this traffic to prevent illegal file transfers from taking place. She completely glossed over the fact that this involves interfering with my property and privacy. She assumed that there was some reason that the citizens of the United States should transfer police duties to a corporate funded self-interest group.
Unfortunately, the EFF spokesperson wasn't much of a match for her. Her argument was too soft. If you're going up against a corporate self-interest group, go for the throat, go for blood, and go quickly. She should have pointed out that this sets a legal precedent to commit digital vandalism from afar with legal immunity (terrifying to the average person). She should have mentioned that there is no way for the RIAA to differentiate between American citizens legally exercising their fair-use rights and criminals (uninteresting, but...) and she should have likened this to burning books if the RIAA doesn't know how you got it (terrifying). She failed to represent the loss of privacy and liberty in the name of closed-market corporate profits.
She should have pointed out that TV studios don't sell TV shows for $18 each to consumers, newspapers don't derive their profits from selling content to readers, movies sell an in-theater experience for a reasonable price, and radio is free. We would need legislation to sell each of these to the consumer for $2 a song/article/episode, because doing so would artificially prop up a broken business model. Nobody complains about bands' merchandise and concert ticket sales - because consumers feel that there is value in these products. Take the hint - consumers do not want to pay $18 for crappy CDs.
Is this not an American market economy, where failing business models and unpopular products fail due to a lack of demand? It's looking more and more like a command economy where useless and unpopular products are perpetuated by beauracracy.
In summary, I was horrified to see Hilary Rosen acting like a complete fool, mocking the EFF name, spreading untruths, and all the while being accepted by the anchors as someone trying to do the right thing, while the EFF spokesperson was treated as some sort of hippy wacko. The EFF person should have been more cunning and critical, and she should have immediately and unquestionably taken up a stance as protecting the American people from corporate corruption, a very effective angle these days.
Obviously, technology is our first line of defense when we can't count on the law to be on our side against the RIAA. That doesn't mean that what they are doing is right or okay just because they can, though. That kind of thinking is what makes people believe that "might makes right" and leads to abuses of the powerless in our society.
Also, waging a technological war on the RIAA will only be possible if we are afforded the same legal advantages they are, in order to make the playing field level. I can guarantee if you are caught r00ting the RIAA's site that you'll be branded a terrorist and thrown in jail.
These people are not about fairness and freedom, so we need to do everything we can to constrain them legally.
Has anyone wondered why the RIAA and music labels don't figure out why people continue to download, and not buy CDs? It seems to me that P2P file sharing would decrease if we all had more incentive to actually buy CDs. I think the issues here are music quality (currently the majority sucks) and CD price (way too expensive). If the RIAA just took a short term hit, lowered CD prices, and produced higher quality music, people might go back to buying CDs, which would in turn make the record companies make more money again.
Do I understand this correctly?
.08 per song and call it even. Is this sales they are losing or simple digital distribution costs. I find it hard to believe they think they are losing 2.88 BILLION per year. Is this a change for the RIAA? They gave up on the downloading prevents sales ploy, now its lost money on digital downloads too?
In his opening remarks, Rep. Berman (D-Calif.) claimed that 3 billion files a month were illegally downloaded. Since the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel charges eight cents per digital recording, Berman concluded that the industry is losing about $240 million per month.
I would gladly pay
Rosen must be a business genius, what other CEO can lose more in one year then they made in the last 5 combined, and still turn the same profit as the previous year!
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
(Howard Coble)
and
(Howard Berman)
They both need to be marched into the woods for legal re-education. Copyright has nothing to do with property rights. All it represents is that someone has a temporary government-granted monopoly on copying a work. Someone does not "own" the work itself just because they have been granted the copying monopoly.
I understand the copying industry's desire to cast it in this light. After all, property law is much stronger than the actual copyright law they really fall under. In fact, they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't try and twist the truth like this. But that doesn't mean we have to swallow it.