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.
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?
..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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
"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
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).
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.
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.
> > 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
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.
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
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.
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!"
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.
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...
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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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
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.
They may not be idiots but the music and movie industry certainly do not understand technology as a whole. Perhaps the biggest point they've missed is the one that underlies all others: making bits uncopiable is like trying to make water not wet. SDMI and DeCSS are the poster children of this attitude.
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.
Oh I agree that they're very smart and know how to work the system, but their skill is in the political and legal arenas.
We have to fight this war on their territory.
Yes. By giving money to the EFF and let them do their job. We should get on with writing, documenting, testing and debugging freely available software while encouraging hardware vendors that support it and boycotting those that don't.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
That is the most insightful post I have read on /. for a long long time. Thankyou for that.