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.
..As long as the courts recognize the right to self defense for system administrators.
"They were haxoring my boxxen. I responded with deadly force, as per my rights. It's not my fault their servers couldn't take a link from Slashdot and exploded."
I would love to see a war between the RIAA and techies. I wonder who will win?
LoRider
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.
[The boss from Office Space] Umm, yeahhhh. Good job guys, now If we could just get you to stop sponsoring DRM chips and bills that allow broad interpretation of "illegal" activity that infringe on fair use, that'd be great, yeah.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
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)
Wow!
Hopefully Rep. Berman (who is seemengly regretting his latest bill, or at least what he supported) will realise this won't do any good to his image or that of his fellow cronies images and not push for this bill.
Why no links to riaa.org? Did they complain about the slashdot effect or something?
C:\>
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?
...quite a bit about this subject, but I gotta quit eating up bandwidth by surfing so my copy of Star Wars Episode 2 can finish downloading over Kazaalite.
The next (il)logical step would be to allow bill collectors to hack into your bank accounts to collect on past-due accounts.
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.
would not abuse this priveledge in the short term ...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
I see in the RIAA a group acting out of desperation. I think they have been spouting on about piracy for so long that they have begun to believe their own propoganda. Until they restructure the way in which their business is conducted, they will be in constant fear of the internet bankrupting them. I think in five years they will have either changed or succumbed to their own shortcomings. Either way will, IMHO, be for the benefit of the listener.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
It's the end of the world as we know it... its the end!
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
..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.
If the government decides to allow the RIAA and/or MPAA to pollute/attack/royally fsck the P2P networks, who's to say it won't get out of control? Hilary Rosen says that the right won't be abused, but who will enforce that? The government? I'm seriously not comfortable with that.
Onto the Mount Rushmore of geekdom.
What are the implications for the Internet's functionality when the inevitable arms race develops?
I love this comparison. This indeed seems like an arms race.
On one side you have the big corps armed with heavy lawyers and lots of money.
On the other side, groups of hackers, filesharers, IT-rights activists. We're armed with technology, innovation, and a whole lotta people
RIAA can probably buy the techs though, this evens things somewhat.
It's the case of the an army of the elite Vs the large army of gorillas. The elite may have a lot of neat tricks, but it will probably really hurt if the gorillas manage to close enough to make a few punches.
You;ll get a snazzy, streaming web site, dynamic generated from your collection. Keep it to yourself, or let your friends in. It's your choice.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
In many countries around the world (like the on I'm living in at the moment) a fee or tax is charged for every blank media such as CD or Tape, which is then paid to copyright holder organizations. I can coun't 20 disks on my backup spindle and about 4 in my garbage and today I brought some sources to my client and he burned some specs one one that I took back to my office. I hope the support is appreciated.
They don't really have a moral right at all, legal or not. I'll be damned if they hack me "incidentally" to checking for copyrighted material.
Im so glad when they publish articles like this, because it just reenforces the fact that Im not buying crap from these people. But the sad thing is, the people that Im boycotting are all bands and singers that suck and I dont listen to anyway....
Doesn't RIAA see that there just so many more internet users with so much more skill arrayed against them that they're just going to lose? No matter what copy protection scheme they come up with, or P2P assault software they write, their targets will stay one step ahead of them. They can't possibly pay for enough bandwidth to attack everyone with files they don't like - or even find all the files.
You have to wonder how people this obvlivious to a free market managed to become an executive anywhere. It's simple: There is a demand to easily share music files. Users will use the least expensive means to satisfy that demand. As long as the RIAA's members insist on charging too much for access to an inferior system, users will refuse to use that system. It doesn't matter how many p2p networks or users you take down if the easiest solution is still to just set up another p2p network.
If the RIAA wants to make a killing on music sharing, they'd just offer a system that actually WORKS. People WOULD pay for a system that offerred reliable connections to the files they wanted. Don't sell the music, sell the connection to the music.
paintball
Or newsgroups
The text of this bill doesn't prevent the RIAA from installing software/spyware on the computers they hack and doesn't give the site they hack any rights at all. Depending on the skill of their techies and how many computers they hack, the RIAA could easily use this power to set up a single point of ownership over the US portion of the internet and attack anybody anywhere with overwhelming force with their legion of commandeered computers. I would just like to say to any Congressmen reading this: This bill royally sucks.
Funny, I bet lots of Slashdotters know what bullet could solve this problem.
..If you can't get the flag right? /., and osdn.
Yeah, this is off topice and I will take a karma hit, but there is only 12 stripes on your icon.
I have emailed people at
Quite frankly, its embarrassing.
sure, I can mis spell somthing, and 5 people come down on me, but get the US flag wrong, nobody cares. Maybe it's not just the people in congress that need to get there priorities straight.
note to moderators: yes I am off topic, but is this so horrible you need to waste your point modding it down?
I won't complain if you do, but there are usually worse thing outthere.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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"
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
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
This article on CNN gives good voice to the "anti" side of things. In fact, the "anti" quotes were much better. I would never have expected that, when you consider who owns CNN. Hillary Rosen sounded quite false. "I can't foresee any scenario where it would be in our interest to go into anybody's computer and delete a file," but you want a law written so that you could get away with that? Does she think Americans will believe any corporations now that say "Trust us"?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I am no Californian, but isn't Hollywood where they make movies? If you're bitching about the RIAA, then you probably mean "Motown."
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
they are to busy posting repeat stories...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
This is a very real possibility:
Much of the PTP swapping happens on university networks.
Universities often have medical facilities, and share the network.
Say the RIAA launches an attack which inadvertently damages a medical database -- someone gets the wrong prescription or diagnosis and dies as a result of the RIAA.
Or the RIAA launches a DOS attack which just happens to deny service to an important medical service, as a result some patient's treatment is delayed/denied and dies.
Deaths would be acceptable "collateral damage" to the RIAA perhaps, but I have to wonder WTF legislators are thinking when they give even one picosecond of consideration to this bill.
This isn't as unlikely as it sounds. Despite what one might think, university hospital systems are more often than not NOT FIREWALLED and NOT PROTECTED and suffer from the same poor security as the rest of the university networks.
Sony is, like most major conglomerates, dozens of businesses in one heading. No matter what happens one part of sony will lose something and another part will gain something. By tacitly supporting this (or rather not coming out against it) they avoid pissing off the other music publishers (Sony is one). While their electronics division makes a profit off of the current state of affairs. If the laws don't get passed they continue to make money off of the clie and their publishing arm takes a hit. If the laws do get passed then they move in to making money off of "secure" players taking a hit for sales of old rios, and the publishing arm does fine.
Eaither way they're still standing, and still making money.
As much I dislike the idea, the **AA should be free to put up anything on P2P services, including fake songs. If the idea of P2P is to share files, these are legitimate files to share. Just because you are looking of the full (illegal) version of the file, and you happen to find their fake version doesn't mean it is any less a legitimate file to be shared. It's the double edged sword of file-sharing. If you claim you have the right to share any file, then they also have the right to share any file.
Now as far as havking people's system (which they have seemed to smartly back away from) or even blocking file-sharing to people's systems, that is just plain wrong. They do not have the authority to perform a DOS (which is basically what they are doing) to a system or to kick that person of the P2P network.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Steve Griffin, who watched from the audience as lawmakers and witnesses castigated his Morpheus peer-to-peer service, said Congress would do better to establish a per-song royalty rate to compensate copyright holders
Steve Griffin? The same guy that thought it was ok to rip off Amazon affiliates is making suggestions on how to be fair?
Pot, this is kettle. Come in kettle.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
I vote yes with one amendment:
I waste 2 hours watching a crappy film, I get to break into the box office and steal $100 (2hrs @$50 ea). The term were are missing in this arguement is Vigilante. Heck let's make this kind of selfhelp the law of the land! If someone breaks into your house you can find them and beat the crap out of them, protected by law. We promise not to abuse them that are not criminals,
CD
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
Twice in the same day we've had examples of our digital freedoms under siege (see this morning's discussion).
Help make the EFF as strong a lobby as the NRA and this stuff will be stop! Gunowners protect the tools (guns) they think help keep them free. We should too.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
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.
From Berman's quote in the News.com article..."There is no excuse or justification for P2P piracy. Of course, consumers would like free music at the click of a mouse," he said. "They would also like gasoline for less than $1 dollar a gallon. But we don't confiscate people's property and pass it out because people want it for free."
A more legit comparison would be if I were to steal gas. Lets look at that, shall we...
I pull up to a gas station and fill up w/o paying.
What happens now?
Does Texico come by by house and slash my tires? Does Chevron sneak in and fill my tank with water? No. They call the cops.
The Way It Should Be!
I still don't get why the RIAA thinks that age old method should differ for them.
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.
I hat the way the RIAA/MPAA is paying for their own laws. The US is not my country, so I cannot stop them, but I will do all that I can in my own country if they try their tactics on me and mine. That said, we are all advocates of supporting independent OSs, so why not music? I have happily subscribed to EMusic.com for the enormous fee of $10/month. I can download as much good quality MP3s as I want at great speeds with the knowledge that I am supporting independent music and the RIAA can kiss my European a$$ as they won't see a penny.
I just looked at this site and, while having a laugh at some of the "artists" that quoted about the evils of sharing music I came accross a few comments that seemed pulled completely out of context for this site:
Trent Reznor, member of Nine Inch Nails: "Just because technology exists where you can duplicate something, that doesn't give you the right to do it. There's nothing wrong with giving some tracks away or bits of stuff that's fine. But it's not everybody's right. Once I record something, it's not public domain to give it away freely. And that's not trying to be the outdated musician who is trying to 'stop technology. I love technology."
Scott Weiland, Lead Singer of Stone Temple Pilots: "There should be some way to compensate the artists. Because obviously they wouldn't be providing a service if they weren't getting compensated, it's not a free service, it's not like it's done just to please fans. Everything that's done is done for a profit."
Looks like, at least to me, that many of these quotes were part of much larger discussions. The Trent Reznor quote is more along the lines of the rest of the page, but the Scott Weiland quote doesn't really fit very well. Do these people know that they are being quoted on this website?
"They would also like gasoline for less than $1 dollar a gallon. But we don't confiscate people's property and pass it out because people want it for free."
Maybe this only stikes me as funny because I'm from Chicago, but I seem to think that this has become the main function of government.
And what about the CDR tax in Canada and the blank tape tax here in the US? Record companies wanted more money so they lobbied the government to confiscate ours and pass it out to them. I don't see the difference.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
This was a very interesting hearing, and by interesting, I mean distorted half-truths and the like. It was a full packed room, and the people around me could barely contain their scoffing of some of the dramatics.
Prior to the hearing, while waiting, I talked to an MPAA lobbyist (brand new to the game, he was complaining of having to stay up the prior night and bone up on the subject). When I said, half in jest, so you guys support this bill--he responded by saying it does not have all they would like, they really want to go after irc channels as well. I hope there is never a hearing on irc, with videod demos showing irc channel traffic (as there was showing a d/l of "save the best for last" off of KaZZa).
The two main contradictions I saw were this:
1)RIAA described how big the IP industry was, and how important it is to preserve it with these laws. However, she then bemoaned the fact that they are engaged in litigation with Verizon who is much bigger then them, in fact bigger then the whole RIAA member companies. Umm, so shouldn't we then focus on the ISPs, if according to her logic, we need to help the big industries? Also, she characterized the lawsuit as just a disagreement over a minor legal technicality (you know, the LAW is a minor technicality--the case revolves around RIAA demanding names of Verizon subscribers that they properly need subpeonas to obtain, but are not getting, it is to protect subscribers privacy).
2)Rosen also said that they need this bill to stop piracy b/c the DoJ is too busy with other matters to enforce the laws, and civil suits cost so much money, more than the recoverable damages. YET, she claims that they would be under bigger restrictions with the bill passed, b/c there are remedies for users that they can bring up in civil case (which I guess would not be expensive to do????) or the DoJ can enforce criminal sanctions (which they have a lot of time to do over a few missing files, or whatever--no one would say what they want to do with the powers granted by the bill). Just such distortions.
On the plus side, Boucher was great when he brought up the letters referring to the harry potter book report (again a stupid RIAA response: "our members would not do that." Boucher responded, "it was done by the copyright holder"--AOL/TW, which I believe is a member of RIAA). Also Zoe Lofgren pointed out the meaningless aspect of the remedies for innocent hacked users. I gained a new respect for her, and I am on the other side of the aisle.
The american flag has been hung on ever piece of real estate on earth, its on the moon, its been painted on walls, draped over coffins, worn as clothing, burned, tatooed, planted in flowers to be visible from space, improvised from shirts, rags, and drawn in dust with blood. It is probably the most recognised symbol on the planet, second only to the cross. You dont need to get it perfect for people to recognize it and understand what it stands for.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
How can industry-fronted CD clubs give away fifteen CDs in exchange for the promise to buy two CDs at regular price over the next two years?
Inquiring minds want to know...
The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. -- Will Rogers
"There has been a lot of misinformation about this bill," said Hilary Rosen, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America. "Some have characterized it as allowing copyright vigilantism or letting record companies and movie studios hack into people's computers and crash networks. These irresponsible descriptions at best reveal a misunderstanding of the text and purpose of the bill, and at worst purposely cloud the real issues."
Nice try Hilary. I think we all see what happens to artists who sign a contract with you.
I'm sure it doens't say anywhere in your contracts that you're allowed to make indentured servants out of your artists, but you are able to get your lawyers to do just that!
I envision a dream parody where all the senators are lined up to sign this bill. And afterwards Hilary cackles in glee, "All your future bills are belong to us!"
And then we see congressmen having to actually PAY money at the end of the year, just to stay in office. They propose bill after bill, but the RIAA denies all the ones they don't like. And then someday on slashdot, we'll all be asking, "Dude, why would anyone want to become a politician?", and we'll all answer, "Because the Big-5 lure them with big $$$ and fame!"
According to the P2P Crime Prevention Act, property owners would have the right to disable, interfere with, block, or otherwise impair an individual that they suspect is using their property without permission. The bill doesn't specify what techniques--such as baseball bats, brass nuckles, lawn inplements, or pits full of sharpened sticks--would be permissible. It does say that a property defender should not kill, but it limits the right of anyone subject to an assault to sue if they are accidentally killed.
SD
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
Wouldn't a move like this essentially allow the RIAA free reign to develop their own viruses, perhaps embedded in mp3, that would track a user's p2p usage and target those that swap more? That might also open the door to have hackers produce viruses that imitate the RIAA viruses and perhaps do more damage. Anti-virus software might be required by law to allow these RIAA viruses through undetected which would open the flood gataes for copycat viruses... just a thought...
big brothers are usually pretty mean.
I saw Hillary on CNBC saying that legislation was no longer being considered. Might have been the day before... Two-faced lying little daughter of a ....
Where does it stop then? If the RIAA can break into my computer to verify I "stole" copyrighted materials, and disable my computer (but not damage it) then where will it end? Can I say then if i suspect someone stole my property, can I break into their house to verify it was stolen? And then render their house unusable until my stolen items are returned?
This essentially allows the RIAA to take justice into their own hands, by-passing due process, and presuming suspects guilty rather than innocent. I highly doubt this will fly, and if it does, it just confirms who's lining who's pockets with cash.
America - Land of the tightly controlled free.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
"...Of course, consumers would like free music at the click of a mouse," he said. "They would also like gasoline for less than $1 dollar a gallon. But we don't confiscate people's property and pass it out because people want it for free."
And I think that this argument shows that Texaco should be able to inhibit the use of somebody's car since they have "reasonable suspicion" that that person pumped gas yesterday without paying for it.
DA's office: Hello, This is [enter name here]
Texaco on 3rd and Main: Yes. I had a red SUV pull up yesterday and pump gas without paying for it
DA's office: And what is the address of the suspected offender
Texaco on 3rd and Main: [etner address here]
DA's office: Ok. I'll file a report.
*Texaco owner puts up cement baricade to stop the usage of the vehicle that might have been used to "pirate" his gas*
Now.. does it get any more ridiculous than that?
"The door (would be) wide open for abuse by the copyright owner and harm to computer users," Sohn said. "For example, the limitations on altering and deleting files...conceivably would not prevent a copyright owner from cutting a user's DSL (digital subscriber line) or even his phone line or knocking his satellite dish off his roof."
Not only that, but this opens the door for all kinds of shady business practices (Not that this is a big leap for the Big-5)
They could look around your computer, find other legal mp3's (from non-RIAA) and delete them. Or more likely corrupt them so it mysteriously doesn't work. They could plant Trojan Horses on your computer so that whenever anyone in the FUTURE connects to your computer, they can then track that person.
It doesn't have to end with RIAA and MPAA. It could open the door for Software companies. Root around your computer and see if ANY application is pirated. If so, then fubar your whole machine.
Wow, this is just so ridiculous that I can't even find words for it. ('course we have to pay an extra 'duty' to the record companies on blanking CD's but that's another /. story...)
This flies in the face of due process so much that it's insane! Ugh stupid governments always making more and more and more laws - even when there's perfectly cromulet (hehe) laws around to cover situations.
Unauthorized copying of music etc., is already illegal, they need to use those laws. And if they can't keep up, then tough crap. Cops can't keep up with all of the speeders, but that doesn't mean they can shoot the tires out of parked Ferraris because they suspect that the owners might use them to speed (of course they are using them to speed, but you still gotta catch 'em and ticket them).
Well, one or two. I agree, companies should be forced to fend for themselves without actions that would be illegal under other circumstances. Of course, that would involve actually spending more of their money on new encryption technology and other nifty gadgets. Why do that when you can lean on the government and Intel?
Rain falls on everyone... lightning strikes some. -Maria Doria Russel
hehe, you gave me a chuckle with that one. Cheers.
You're right on though with the analysis that you can't just go making new laws because the old laws don't work efficiently enough. Why doesn't the government just slap a *REQUEST DENIED* sticker on this whole thing and tell those a$$es to use the current laws like everyone else has to.
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.
As a confessed UK geek, I can only look on in wonder at what the RIAA are trying to do. I also shudder at the thought of what happens when they extend their threat into other countries. I for one would consider an attack on my PC as an act of war, - no I'm not an 3l33t h4x0r but I'm, willing to learn. RIAA - if you get this power and use it ........... Be like the Boy Scouts and BE PREPARED FOR WAR !!
I remember back in the day when IP 'phones' were the hot shit being sold for a 'fortune' (ie, being sold).
Today, you can launch any of the most primitive online games (such as CS or even HL), and use voice commands to hear your whole team.
You're already sharing files on a p2p network by playing the game since maps and sounds get downloaded and uploaded.
Fuck, the internet is peer-to-peer when looked at from a certain perspective. This RIAA shit really scares me.
I've never used a P2P or Gnutella client -- I'm on dialup, and although I'd love to impact the RIAA's profits by downloading songs it's just not technically feasible for me.
But one part of the story intrigues me. The RIAA is making spurious files on P2P networks in an attempt to fool users, so that 'nine out of ten versions on a peer-to-peer network may be empty shells'.
So am I to understand that there is no moderation or filtering on P2P networks? Doesn't any of the clients out there allow users to vote on a file's usefulness, so that other users can highlight files known to be good and filter out files known to be bad? I'd think that would be a basic feature for any peer network. 90% of everything is crap, after all, and nowhere is that more true than on the internet.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
I would say that it has, I find it extremely difficult to find valid mp3's these days particularly on kazaa.
However I don't think this is right across the board, there are very few spoofed videos (just wait until the porn industry wakes up and realises how much money it's potentially losing on p2p). And Kazaa is certainly the worst client for fake files but others like edonkey seem to fare a lot better content wise.
Over and over, I see posts that seem content to write off RIAA and MPAA representatives as idiots who simply don't understand the technology. This is a grevious mistake. I have friends in the entertainment industry. I'm practically family with a major-label executive. These people are very, very smart. And they know how to work the system. They are playing the game their way, and if we're not careful, they will win. The mainstream has never looked favorably on anti-establishment subcultures, and we have been slow in making inroads in government and in public perception. We need a PR department, and we need a lobby, and we need them yesterday.
Sorry, I'm ranting, I know. But I really think that we need to stand up and take a good look around. We can't fight the RIAA and MPAA with mathmatics proofs and P2P clients. By continuing to simply set up new P2P networks in spite of the Law, and by ignoring our governments, we resign our cause to the fringes. We will be troublemakers, miscreants with no morals. We will have a very, very hard time making ourselves heard in government or anywhere else. We have to fight this war on their territory.
> > What are the implications for the Internet's functionality when the inevitable arms race develops?
> I love this comparison. This indeed seems like an arms race.
> On one side you have the big corps armed with heavy lawyers and lots of money.
> On the other side, groups of hackers, filesharers, IT-rights activists. We're armed with technology, innovation, and a whole lotta people
It's been done before. Look at the history of alt.religion.scientology -- the Scienos on one side with money, & lawyers, a bunch of activists on the other with hackers & a clue about the Internet. So far it's been a quagmire for the Scienos, whose ideology won't allow them to compromise, let alone cut their loses & run.
Unfortunately, it's not been all that fun for the other side: this little battle has taken its toll in money, careers, & burnout. However, practically every current Scientologist will become an ex-scientologist & thus be interested in picking up the fight where another has left off.
One thing about this one fight is that it has provided a battle plan for Hollywood to follow in its own approach to the Internet & protecting content. A number of actors & musicians are Scienos, & there are only a finite number of lawyers who specialize in media law: anecdotes & experiences from the Scienos battle with the Internet have undoubtedly seeped into the studios & recording music offices. Thus Rosen's interest in attacking the personal computers of anyone connected to the Internet -- something David Miscavige, the head of the CoS, would give his right theta for.
As a result, Hollywood believes they have to fight a war where there really isn't one: as it has been said before, all but a negligible amount of this ``piracy" would vanish if simply music & films were easier to buy or rent online. The industry would make more money, consumers would have more choice -- a win-win situation.
Fortunately, these industries are far more interested in making money than in pushing an ideological point-of-view. Hopefully if we keep defeating these misguided acts, the PHB running these companies will get the message, & at last see how to make money by offering an effective online point of sale.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
here's a nice what if:
i record something and copyright it.
i then ul that file somewhere.
i now have a nice entry tool.
alternate:
record & c/r.
upload the file to someone with a public share
attack that person's comp
look at it this way, now you have a way to take down ppl you hate.
-.no
I've been working on a story for New Architect about RIAA's lawsuit against Verizon and in that case (as well as this one), the RIAA appears to have little regard for standard legal procedure--according to those I interviewed, it's trying to subpoena information about a P2P file trader without presenting evidence of wrongdoing and without actually filing a legal action against that person. In effect, the RIAA wants the law and your ISP to view you as guilty until proven innocent where copyright claims are concerned. It's a sound legal strategy, actually--certainly, it's more cost effective than trying to sue several million music fans.
Who gives a damn about the Libertarian model? It doesn't work. It's as doomed as Marxism. Oppressive government is evil, but no government is infinitly worse. Do a little research on the days of privately owned Fire Departments.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Well, since these DOS attacks would consume all of the cable provider's bandwidth, as well, I think that they'd have something to say about it. I mean, if half of their customers who AREN'T filesharing have no bandwidth because the RIAA has decided to DOS their neighbor, they would have a LOT of irate customers in a hurry, and I imagine that they would be inclined to sue the RIAA for stealing bandwidth.
(or, they'd just preemptively cut the connections of all the file traders. but somehow I doubt that it could be anything but economic bad news for cable companies if a large entity has authority to launch non-discriminatory DOS attacks on mere suspicion against a large portion of their users.)
The Berman-Coble bill creates a safe harbor for technological self help to impair infringing file-sharing on peer-to-peer networks. The relevant passage reads "a copyright owner shall not be liable...for disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing the unauthorized distribution...of his or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network." This would appear to create safe harbor for the system described above, despite the costs it might create for ISPs, universities and users. However, section (B)(1)(b) creates an exception to the safe harbor if the copyright holder "causes economic loss to any person other than affected file traders" It would seem that any large scale scanning or impairment system would cause economic loss by virtue of increased bandwidth costs to affected ISPs or other network owners.
Whether or not infringement and impairment systems can meet the economic loss exception of the Berman-Coble bill, the costs for development and implementation of any scanning and impairment system will likely be passed on to consumers. Because copyright attempts to strike a balance between access to copyrighted works and incentives to creators, the Berman-Coble bill could increase incentives and thus increase the creation of new works because it creates a new means of self-help for rights holders. However, this might not fully be the case. Because costs for this system will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, demand for works might be decreased. Further, it has been argued that users of peer-to-peer systems are low-reserve price consumers of music who are willing to spend time, but not money on acquiring music. Raising prices to cover the additional enforcement costs will add to the pool of consumers for whom the market price is above their reserve price--users of peer-to-peer networks. However, since the aim of the Berman-Coble bill is to impair the ability of peer-to-peer networks to traffic in copyrighted works, it will eliminate whatever social value these networks created through the increased access to copyrighted works. If low reserve consumers weren't going to buy music anyway (thereby creating no new incentives for creators), the reduction in their access to it is essentially deadweight loss. Since the Berman-Coble bill will likely result in increased prices for music, possible economic loss for ISPs, and reduced access to works, it would seem to reduce overall social welfare, while at the same time overtly shifting the balance of copyright from access towards protection of incentives.
Hollywood is the largest hub of the Music Industry in the USA. More record labels are based there than anywhere else. Motown and Nashville are tiny in comparison.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
In other words, there is a distinct legal process and considerations for hunting/killing copyrighted material: the copyright holder must notify the Department of Justice about what technology it will use in blocking the work, and there appears to be an opportunity for the file trader to be notified what files are allegedly copyrighted before the copyright hackers move in.
My point centers in the language of the bill:
"1) If, pursuant to the authority provided by subsection (a), a copyright owner knowingly and intentionally impairs the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of a particular computer file or data, and has no reasonable basis to believe that such distribution, display, performance, or reproduction constitutes an infringement of copyright, and an affected file trader suffers economic loss in excess of $250 as a result of the act by the copyright owner, the affected file trader may seek compensation for such economic loss in accordance with the following..." (emphasis added)
Yeah, IANAL, but still, spoofing could bog down the network, which could interfere with the trading of legitimate files (class action lawsuit opprtunity). Or, if interdiction were applied (sucking up all your outbound file connections) it could be argued that that would also prevent legitimate files from being shared.
So once you violate this, you move to the penalty track, where a copyright holder must submit a claim with Justice and try to get compensation.
Something to think about.
If this law passes, it would be open season for hacking. Just put up a an original two-line poem on your web server. Claim copyright on it. According to the DMCA, when anyone's web browser downloads it, they have made an actionable copy and therefore infringed your copyright. So now you have the right to go and hack them to kingdom come, with no penalty whatsoever!
It would be even better if someone created a central repository of logged copyright infringements, indexed by the source. Want to hack Microsoft or IBM? Just look for a company IP address in the repository.
Any idea when we'll see Congressional action to look into how RIAA members can collude to keep CD prices artifically high?
[sounds of crickets chirping]
?If this passess, then well they well be given the right to do what others would be jailed for. If I decide that I am against somthing, such as Paypal (just a example) and I decide to DOS them, and case damage by doing do. Then hell paypal is not ging to be happy and can get cops on me if thye wish.
... what ever, I can't get anyhting from RIAA.
Now we are saying that if this bill passess, then the RIAA well be alowed to DOS psp networks. Now considering how DOS works not only is the guy next to my house get DOS, but I get it to. It would affect the general area to be honest. Now lets say my system takes damage, software messed up
There are countless examples I can go into but hey my time is worth cash. But also noote one thing, this is a US bill. I am in canada, so what happens when they do a DOS attack that goes over the border. If my companey is hit because soem one ran kazaa on our network even tho its not alowed. Then well they can mess up corporate data and such. Now this just became a VERY tuchey subject.
my 2 cents plus 2 more
Ok, I am against this sort of actions they thinking of. I am also for that we should be able to listen the music we buy on several different devices as we have paid for the music.
But what we are doing at the moment is defending our right to break the law. By sharing copyrighted material to others we are violating laws and we argue about this as it is our given right to do this.
Do like we should do with copyrighted software, if we dont like the license dont buy and don't use it. Our lifes doesn't end because we cant listen to music. And if you really like the music then buy it. Of course you support the record label by doing so but at least the artist gets something, pirate the music and the artist will get nothing at all.
We can have many arguments on the record industri and that sort of stuff, but we do break the law by sharing copyrighted material to people on p2p.
who shot the cat in the hat to experiment is insane
Hilary Rosen: Computer, you have a problem, and it's affecting the entire music industry! Computer: Click, click, click, click (HD red light flashes) HR: Your RIAA family thinks you need help. We're worried. You're in denial. You need to go to Hard Drives Anonymous. C: Click click click HR: Don't talk back to Me! We have it all set up for you. Just let us type format C: and press enter on your keyboard. C: Click,click click click HR: Okay then, we have your permission? C: click click click......silence.
If politicians get the idea that millions of people who use such software will know if their representatives are screwing them, it could be deterrent.
Maybe some sort of e-mail feature can be built in that allows you with the press of a button to send a message to your representative that you intend to vote against them in the next election if they vote to approve some legislation.
People will most likely not act on their threat, but politicians won't necessarily know that.
Here's a great link: EFF legal actions You'll see how your contributions can actually help.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
(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.
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.
Most of the time I'm searching for live performances, outtakes, or out of print material etc. If I have no other avenue by which to acquire it, am I really violating copyright? Who does that material belong to, the artist or the record company? I've been researching this issue for quite some time and my initial conclusions still seem to be intact.
- Piracy is only piracy when the pirate is compensated; this does not happen in P2P networking since material is freely distributed.
- The idea that material freely distributed is equal to lost sales is simply wrong; what if I never intended to buy that record in the first place - it's not a lost sale if there was never going to be a sale.
- People like me have actually purchased more CDs since getting involved in file sharing due to increased exposure to more bands that I find I like. I would never have heard of more than half the CDs I bought in the last year were it not for P2P sharing. God knows the radio ain't playing any of it.
- Finding obscure and out of print material does not cost the record company a dime since they're not offering it for sale in the first place. Who the hell are they kidding?
- Most people don't download Britney Spears records from P2P networks - they tape it off each other or the radio. Honestly, why would someone take the time to download a song that gets played on the radio constantly? Besides, those artists that are already successful seem to be the most freaked out by this; does the equation 'Increased exposure equals increased sales' mean anything to anybody? I know I'd like as many people as possible to hear my band for free - that's marketing and exposure - but if someone charges for it and I don't see a dime then that's piracy (*which when it comes down to it, is exactly what record companies do the artists).
Finally, I'd really like to see Eminem kick the ass of 'those guys on the internet that are downloading my songs' as he so intelligently put it. Cripes, I think I'll go download as much Eminem as I possibly can, burn it to CD and then set it on fire. That'll show 'em.
-B
"Look, Smithers! I'm Davy Crockett!"
In other words, the check hasn't cleared yet. ;p~
Yeah, mod me down. You know I'm right.
Hmmmm....If this law were to be passed, would it give me the the right to legally hack the systems of any company or organization that supports web browsing? After all, web browsers are making a copy of my homepage.
:-)
Sure, posting a web page might be considered to be giving implicit permission. But I could always put a notice at the top of my webpage (in lawyer-sized type of course) denying that permission to anyone but myself. Then I just need to look at my web server's logs to see what networks I'm leagally allowed to hack.
Shouldn't it be Cracking Bill?
Aren't we trying to get rid of the image of hackers being bad? We should use the correct terminology ourselves then.
I just found a new sig.
Just out of interest, has anyone here realized the potential weaponry we already have to stop potential attacks from the RIAA, MPAA, et al? Folks, we control the routers. Last time I looked, the internet was an organic beast controlled more or less by us. (checking my router monitoring CGI scripts) If you don't like the policies, or 'legitimately' fear an attack from a network, then isn't our responsibility to either route around them, or crank up some access-lists to block them? Attacks from a network certainly generate access-lists on my WAN routers.. I'll just leave you folks with that, and let you marinate on it...
MediaDefender president Randy Saaf said the company can also block downloads through a technique called "interdiction," which closes off a user's hard drive to others on the network.
Whoa. For a second there I thought he was going to request the Pope interdict any offending user. I guess even the RIAA realizes that an eternity of fiery damnation is a bit much for a few mp3s.
Wo whose files are exempt from copyright? I guess everyone not in the RIAA?
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
Aren't we all libertarian here?
What in the world makes you think that?
Woah, ok, its the slashdot flag of 1777 before new hampshire joined the union. SHHHH!! Dont tell the TIPS people.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
You're right on though with the analysis that you can't just go making new laws because the old laws don't work efficiently enough. Why doesn't the government just slap a *REQUEST DENIED* sticker on this whole thing and tell those a$$es to use the current laws like everyone else has to.
I belive that the answer to your question was contained within the question itself:
$$
The congress-critters like money, and the RIAA/MPAA gives it to them.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
You're right; it's "boxen". There's absolutely no excuse for doubling the 'x'. That makes it look like one of those brand names, like Exxon or Nixxon or ...
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Berman makes no sense. Your point does. Out of the "240M" they are losing, how much of that represents people that would have actually gone and bought the music? I would be that about 5% of that 240% is the real impact. I would actually like to see the RIAA find success in their witch hunt, shut every door for making a copy of a song, and thus cause consumers to finally give into their hate of big corporations. This way their sales will fall flat, and perhaps they will go out of business. No one likes a smartass, and no one likes a bully.
Ok slashdot, tell me this - The RIAA wants permission to, amoung other things, launch DOS attacks against people they see who are serving their files. Fair enough - now what is to prevent kazaa from reserving a small amount of bandwidth on everyone else's computers which could then be used in a ddos counter attack? (Besides the obvious legal implications)
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Out of curiosity has the RIAA ever thought of this:
With all of their sue, this stop that, flood this network stuff. Why don't they just bring the price of CD's down?
Heck that would probably be cheaper.
Just my 2 cents.
Britney fix? They have a fix for that?
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
Most lawmakers are dubious: questionable or suspect as to true nature or quality
Perhaps the author meant that some of the lawmakers are doubtful: lacking a definite opinion, conviction, or determination that "... the RIAA wouldn't abuse this capability".
Age 12 - My mother, never one to be really interested in music at all, acquires an 8-track tape player. She soon discovers that there is a store - yes a legitimate business here folks - where you can walk in, select the 8-track of your choice and bring it to the counter and for a meager $4 they will make you a copy in less than 2 minutes. Did I say copy, damn right! They had several high speed 8-track duplicators sitting right behind the counter. These guys were printing money and you had to shove your way to the counter on several occaisions we visited. There was nothing like getting that crappy Neil Diamond record for only $4.00 and my mom was hooked.
This lasted for several months before they were shut down - hmm...wonder how that happened. But not before the whole town was rocking and rolling with these illegal copies. So let's go skip to the next track here.
Age 16 - Mom finally breaks down and let's me get a stereo - receiver, big ass speakers and record player. A few months later I discover cassette tapes, man I gotta get one of those!! So I acquire a cassette tape recorder and some blanks. Hey guys, can I borrow your LP of Styx or that new Van Halen. I hear they're smoking! We traded LP's and cassettes back and forth for years - I think if I opened all the boxes of tapes I have laying around there must be at least 500 blanks I recorded at one time or another.
Fast forward to 1984, CD's are looking like the next big thing, great sound, compact, portable, wow. So I get a CD player! Guess what, I still have that tape deck too. Ooh that Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon CD sounds so much better on CD (wonder if they'd really have ever sold anymore of that one if it hadn't been remastered on CD) gotta borrow it and tape it off.
We really hadn't thought of duplicating a CD onto another CD at that time, PC's just couldn't deal with the amount of data and commercial duplicator's were way too expensive. But boy those record companies were really raking it in! $17 bucks for Dark Side of the Moon and guess what - they don't have to spend any more on art work, the artist, recording or any of that crap, but they can sell it to you all over again! Now who was printing the money. They were laughing all the way to the bank!
About this time, I walk into my neighborhood video store and guess what - yeah that's right I can rent the latest audio CD's from them for $1.00 a day. I did a double take and thought to myself - I want that one and that one and hey that looks good too. I taped like there was no tomorrow. Why spend $17 on a new CD when I could get 13 on tape after buying the blanks. I had more music than I could possibly listen to - still do for that matter. And now the record companies were starting to feel the pinch from home taping so they got Congress to enact the taping tax on blanks. The bastards!
About this time I started working at a radio station - reviewing records. "Hey, Sire how about sending out copies of that new Talking Heads album for us to give away and anything new you might have going so we can play it out here." I was in taping heaven - a direct fix from the record companies on an almost daily basis. I didn't have to rent it anymore because they would just send it to me and pay the postage too. I was taping things almost 12 hours a day, there was always something laying around that looked interesting. God I loved that job!
It really wasn't until about '98 that CD-burners and the internet caught up with the record companies technology. While they were too busy counting their profits to invent new technology to prevent this, THE PEOPLE got tired of paying the same $17 for a cd they now know costs about a quarter to make. Now we could make a perfect digital copy - in the privacy of our own homes. Hey dude, can I borrow that Floyd disc again - I just got a burner. It was no different with software and porn - burning night and day, while asleep, while at work. And by the way, where are these porn and game devoper people in this debate, how come they aren't right up there on the front row screaming with the rest of them, "They're stealing my god damn avi's of Brittany naked!!"
Now with the advent of compression schemes like MP3, we can steal that song in seconds. Ooh there's that Dark Side of the Moon track on MP3. Yeah I know I own 3 copies (lp, cassette, CD and soon to be DVD video) of the damn record already and I'm too lazy to rip it, just download it and be done with it.
You know where I'm getting most of my CD's to burn these days? The freakin' public library!! Oh yeah and there's that cool DVD I've been wanting but didn't want to shell out $25 for, I think I'll check it out and rip that over to VCD too. I can keep it for a week, no problem, thanks. And now with shn, you can compress the tracks and not worry about quality loss like with MP3. Watch out BMG, I'm coming for your whole damn catalogue next!
I guess the point of this whole rant is that we've been stealing your music for years and you're still making plenty of money. Get over it! We will find a way to do it. It's human nature to rise to that challenge. It's the little kid in all of us that likes to do exactly what he's told not to do just to be rebelious. And besides, 90% of the stuff I taped was CRAP. I listened to it maybe once. I look through it now and it's like, "man why did you tape that shit."
The record moguls need to worry less about us copying there music and more about coming up with a replacement for the CD. They got themselves into this mess with their new technology and that's the only way they are going to get out. They need to come up with something that is so far beyond our computer's power to duplicate, so far beyond consumer electronics and so superior to compact discs that we can't say no. That's the only way out for them.
Laws are made to be broken. And besides, I bet they find that they are going to get hacked a whole bunch more than they will ever be able to hack us consumers. What a pea-brained idea anyway! This was probably the second great idea of the guy who thought up the copy protection scheme you can defeat with a sharpie!
Sorry, the mail man just delivered those VCD's of the Rush - Vapor Trails tour show on 8/24/02 in Colorado I traded for, gotta go check it out. Oh yeah, and what are they going to start doing now, checking my mail? Give me a break and get a life you RIAA idiots!
You know, systems like Echelon and Carnivore are bound to hold quite a few copies of various emails I wrote (particularly as I like to throw in random "bomb", "terrorist", "attack" and "allah" keywords in there). I wonder if I could claim they are _sharing_ those emails (my copyrighted material) through that system...
Scientology has succomed to its own bullshit, and it hasnt killed itself yet. So i wouldnt be to sure in saying the RIAA is going to hang itself.
This
So I guess the fun will start when someone launches a virus that instead of "damaging" Windows it just starts up filesharing and shares a ton of "copyrighted music" -- either spoofing or downloads of the real files. Enough to attract the RIAA Gestapo. Then sit back and watch the fireworks as the RIAA does all the dirty work of trashing the machine. Admittedly you could say this virus already exists as any PC User, but it isn't as efficient.
It would be fun to see how long the RIAA tactics lasted. Especially as the virus made it's way through the government agencies...
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
What if you suspect them of distributing your copyrighted works? I suspect that they've been distributing the novel that I've been working on. Disclaimer: only pay attention to what I'm saying if you have a lawyer and a buncha money.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
I cannot believe that this issue is even up for discussion. This is a clear cut case of someone trespassing on my property without permission. I'm not talking about anything as fancy as cyberspace, either. I'm talking about the fact that the computer, which they are using, which is using my electricity is in my house. It is trespassing without a doubt.
The police don't have this kind of power and I certainly don't want any old corporation to have this kind of power. The precedent this law would set for someone like Microsoft is ridiculous.
My computer belongs to me. If you suspect that there is something on my computer that shouldn't be there, take it up with the authorities and bring evidence so you can get a warrant. Anything short of warrant is going to guaruntee nothing short of a retaliation. I don't let theives into my house and the RIAA isn't invited either. This is a clear violation of my 4th amendment rights against search and seizure.
For those of you who might want a refresher: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
As the rednecks in my part of the country like to say, "Get the hell offa my property!"
_________________
Even if that's true, which I sincerely doubt, "well over half" is not anywhere near "all".
Wouldn't this be considered a DOS attack against the ISP? I don't own the connection, I just lease it. This would be especially true of cable internet where there are many users per area...their tactics would cause congestion across the entire segment...Also, would there be grounds for a lawsuit if their activities caused you to go over your bit cap?
Great! Maybe that'll help out all of us jobless geeks!!
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
I wonder if we'd get away with it...
No no dude, don't nuke that place, that's my home computer downloading the LOTR soundtr... I mean... let's nuke this person distributing Britney Spears' latest album
(mental count, 99 Spears' lovers taken out, yesss)
A slashdotter put it best in another RIAA discussion I read a while back: Game On
No sig for you.
Assuming this becomes World War "T", where are the targets?
Hacking the RIAA website is amusing, but it's been done. And done. And done. They still run IIS so the next exploit is just a malformed URL away, but what's the point? A PR website that produces no revenue is hardly a strategic target. Ditto for Sony, Disney, MPAA, and the others. If this turns into a war I would hate to see the black hats waste their time on a bunch of meaningless, defenseless websites.
There has been talk of creating a Political Action Committee for technology issues, but so far, nothing has come of it.
Laws vs. Laws. If they want to bring in the big guns, don't expect us to continue using spitballs.
It's been a long time.
There should be a "Draft Boucher" movement started. Certainly he's the best choice amongst the Dems. He's prolly the last Dem that isn't 0wn3d by Hollywood, at least.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
That makes all government agencies excempt from the rules.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
According to testimony MediaDefender actually connects to your shared folder as if it was another "pirate" and downloads the files at a really slow rate tieing up all of the upload availablity.
From the outset it seemed the congresscritters had made up its mind before the hearing ever started. One thing that Ms Rosen kept saying was that they aren't hacking, but only accessing the hard drive that is freely available.
Gigi Sohn handled herself pretty well considering ever congresscritter kept trying to trip her up and admit that she supported "illegal music theft". She stuck her ground, and came off pretty well.
Maybe after the capmiagn reform laws become law after this years elections, we won't have certain of the cogresscritters out "whoring for $$$$", to the highest bidder. Check out yours at Opensecrets.org
They pass bills, they embed DRM chips in the CPUs, they run DRM software, they kill Linux, yada, yada, yada...
The result? The consumer stops buying and spends their $120/month entertainment money (IIRC, that is the national average) on something else, like going out to dinner more often with friends or paperback porn or whatever...
And the music and movie industry collapses into a depression...
You CANNOT legislate human economic behavior.
So let them do what they want - it'll kill those industries quicker than the speed of light...
And something better will take over - making those who invest in that something better the billions currently going to these assholes...
I can't wait to get rich off other people's stupidity.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
The other day on Kudlow & Cramer (CNBC), I happened to see Ms. Rosen along with someone from the EFF...
;-)
Among the usual FUD she spreads around, Ms. Rosen would poke at the person from the EFF. Quite frankly, it was the first time I saw her on TV... It was funny, the person from the EFF didn't poke fun at her, and Ms. Rosen ended up looking stupid
Shows what happens when you channelsurf and just stop it on CNBC for a few seconds. The first words I heard her say were "everything for free foundation" and I almost fell off the couch laughing!
Why should a musician or a artist have the right to make a living on something that is basically a hobby for a million others? How come a bimbo like Britney Spears makes millions of dollars a year and scientist doing cancer or aids research has to beg for money. We live in a society we're the intellectual inferior prosper while the truly important segment of humanity (scientist) are budgetly limited.
A baseball player makes 1 million dollars for hitting a ball with a stick, a slut with no talent makes 10 million dollars for lip syncing in a mike. THINK ABOUT IT!!!
This BILL is declaration of war on are rights of ownership, territory and privacy. If the RIAA attempts to attack MY COMPUTER or MY PAID CONNECTION to the internet, I will hunt them down and bring them "JUSTICE" in the physical and virtual world.
Anyone how calls themselve a Hacker or a Free American should get out their guns, load up Winamp, download latest Denial Of Service toolz and read out loud the Second Amendment.
( A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE State...)
All technology emerges from the "supreme will" of man to become GOD!
They have a notice that if your check fails to clear for NSF, they reserve the right to (for 30 days) remove the money directly from your account, ALONG WITH the NSF fee of $25.
Now, it's been a few years since I had a check bounce, but does this seem patently WRONG to anyone?
Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
1) What's with the qjkx? It reminds me of the subjects in spam...
... They may well be CRIMINALS in your country (since you must, as the law was written last I knew, NOT be based in the US). I'm not sure what the US Gov't can do to protect multi-national corporations from lawsuits in other countries. Hopefully, the gov't just won't buy this--last I knew, they weren't buying this crap, but who knows? P.S. elections are coming up--this would be a GOOD time to yell at your congressperson.
:] It's their own fault if they get DoS'd offline, then, not yours.
2) The law, last time I read it, only allowed them to go after OVERSEAS (e.g. non-US) based file-sharing. It also required them to notify the government of their intent to DoS whoever.
3) Since it's a US law, it's not binding on whoever it's used against (theoretically... note that there are exceptions like DeCSS author & Dmitry). If they do any real damage, you might well try suing them in your country, if they do business there. Remember: they [hopefully] haven't got any extra leeway with your government [yet?]
4) No part of it says that the service has to take this lying down. They can blacklist them (or whatever). I doubt that the RIAA is clever enough to stop people who are determined enough to continue. Just so long as those who are attacked don't do anything illegal (in their jurisdiction) they can do whatever they want. How about finding ways to "reflect" the attacks back at the attacker? That's always fun
5) It might not be a terrible thing if they actually went through with this stupid plan. Just be sure to publicize the result (and embarass the congresspeople involved in passing this thing).
"There must be a hundred silver dollars in here," moaned Boggis, waving a purse.
"I mean, that's not my league. That's not my class. I can't handle that sort of money. You've got to be in the Guild of Lawyers or something to steal that much."
-- (Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters)
I think the crucial question is not why God doesn't reveal himself us, he may simply be too busy, creating new universes or something. Rather, why didn't he make his existence obvious from his creations? For example, he could easily have signed his creatures so that we would find somewhere on the animal something like: "Copyright (c) The Sixth Day, God. This animal is commanded to be fruitful and multiply. It may do so freely, provided that this copyright notice is included."
-- Ted Ts'o, VA Linux Principal Engineer
And what about free speech in all that sucking stuff? You got money? No! So shut up... thanks.
-- You
freddo
-- search the web
That is the most insightful post I have read on /. for a long long time. Thankyou for that.
...to paraphase a rock song...why have we not started to contact our representatives and tell them how horrible this legislation is? If nothing else, the 2000 election should have showed us that a few votes can count and that we should voice our opinions. If the millions of P2P users actually emailed or called there congressman, this bill would die very quickly. I already wrote my representatives. When will you? ooguru
I believe the best way to fight the RIAA in this battle is to give them nothing to fight about. Establish peer-to-peer networks that actually do NOT condone illegal transfers. Promote bands who allow the trading of their music. Use the peer-to-peer internet radio protocols to build communities of musicians and listeners enjoying new, original music all the time and build a collection of music we dont have to worry about getting cracked down for. Don't let them change our ways, lets change theirs. What will they do when they don't own any of the music being traded and becoming so popular?
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/
You are misinformed. People ARE downloading music and people ARE buying CDs.