Slashdot Mirror
Howard Berman Talks About P2P Piracy Prevention Act
An anonymous reader writes "I know Rep. Berman is not held in high regard on Slashdot, but he has posted an article on Findlaw where he discusses his self- help for P2P piracy bill. He has not convinced me that this is about preventing theft, rather than preserving old business models, but the bill does appear to have a lot of safeguards built-in." I'm confused about what measures Berman believes would be acceptable, after reading the many disclaimers here.
Ah, is this the new justification for stealing? I'm starting to see this phrase more and more. "You see, your honor, I didn't actually steal this stereo. It was that Circuit City has an outdated business model!"
How about this: if you like the product and think it's worth the money, pay for it. If you don't, then don't buy it. Maybe I'm just old fashioned and "out of touch" to think that people should be paid for their work.
Yeah, that must be it.
> Most of the 150 million or more P2P software downloaders believe they will never be hauled into court, and they are right.
"...and I'm eternally grateful that so few of them bother to vote."
I do not care how many safeguards are built into this law, it is still nothing more than legalized vigilantism. The right to determine guilt and mete out punishment belongs in the hands of our justice system, and not in the pockets of billionaire movie producers.
This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Sugar coating poison might improve taste, but it will still kill you.
The bill specifically states that the safe harbor does not allow a copyright owner to delete or alter any file or data on the computer of a file trader. Thus, a copyright owner can't send a virus to a P2P pirate. Nor can it remove any files on the pirate's computer. Nor can it even remove files that include the pirated works. All it can do is impair the illegal distribution or reproduction of those works through a public P2P network.
While it may help to stop people from destroying your local computer's files it will NOT stop them from DoS attacking you?
They need to be held accountable for ANY and ALL financial damage that they do to the computer that was being attacked AND the computers around the original that were also being hindered by their attack.
While I agree that P2P have little use outside of illegal activities (outside of FurthurNET and the like) I don't think that these laws are the way to put a stop to it.
Nor do I believe that infesting the P2P networks w/poor files does it either.
I know that ATTBI was disabling users that were leaving movies in their shared folders (yes, ATTBI users be careful). I believe that going through the ISP may be the only method. If the ISP doesn't cooperate, uhh, sorry.
Assuming everything in the article is to be believed (and that I understood what he was trying to say correctly), copyright holders can only take technical measures to stop the distribution of a file if it doesn't interfere with the distribution of the other files and doesn't cause any (much?) harm to the computer and doesn't affect the stability of the network or the ISP. To be quite honest, I'm not even sure this is technologicly feasable. If they aren't allowed to root my box, how are they supposed to stop me from sharing a single file?
The only explination I can come up with is that either Berman thinks that it is feasable for the RIAA et al to do this, or he doesn't think its feasable but feels obligated to pass useless legislation for people who I assume are compaign donors.
Of course, if it is possible to stop the sharing of a single file, remotely, without taking drastic measures, then I want to know how...
The problem is that I just can't believe it, because (perhaps due to stupidity) I cannot imagine any way for the counter-attacks to be so narrowly limited, and yet still be at all effective.
This leads me to believe that this law, the way Berman is describing it is absolutely useless and no one will ever have any opportunity to use it for any purpose. But then why is it being purchased? Probably because there's some backdoor or technicality, so that someone will be able to use it beyond the scope that Berman is talking about. I'm getting a whiff of that "too good to be true" stench, and think that in a few years Berman will be saying something like "I had no idea it would be abused in that manner."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
...so put a license on something you write that
allows public access EXCEPT to RIAA and anyone working in connection with it, write the AG to inform them you will be looking for illegal copies of your stuff, and hack away at the machines of the RIAA to find same. Whatever they do or have done, can be done to them, if they are crazy enough to want such an environment. Registering in this way even if you don't intend to do anything extraordinary could provide a "get out of jail, free" card should you happen to accidentally hit someone's machine...
This of course is a feature neither Berman nor the RIAA seem to think about (any more than he evidently has thought about the dollar threshold; it would be better if there were no such threshold and the enforcement were criminal, not civil, so that the RIAA's larger number of lawyers would be less an imbalance),
This bill is written in such a very diabolically clever way. It sounds so reasonable and safe, but as they say, the devil is in the details. Berman points to all the safeguards and asks how a reasonable person could possibly be against such a harmless little self-help measure. But there are so many exceptions and limits that those safeguards have no teeth. The most telling thing to me is that the RIAA wouldn't say what they would do if this law was passed that they cannot already do legally. The two examples of actions they would take, (1. seeding P2P with fake files and 2. finding shared files and intiating multiple slow-throughput connections to the host so it accepts no other users) are already legal.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
If a copyright owner can find a way to only impair the piracy of her copyrighted work on a P2P network, she will have no liability. A copyright owner who does more will still be liable.
/.ers out there, but I certainly can't afford my own in-house counsel. If I get my files wiped out, I'll curse, I'll scream, I'll rant on this website (for damned sure), but I won't be able to afford a suit.
If you think about it, this shifts the burden entirely on the P2P user.
The Congressman is correct when he states that there is no way that Record Companies can drag 150 million downloaders into court. What this legislation does is allow the record companies to take matters into their own hands and then see who has the stones to come back and sue the record company if they go too far.
Think about it: If a company sends a virus to your computer that wipes out all mp3 files, whether legitimate or not, are you going to sue the record companies? I don't know about any other
I think the record companies are betting on this. Much like the way they do business in general, they'll just sit back and make everything and everyone come to them.
Brilliant. I think barring a class action suit or a really rich person who gets a vital business document wiped out, the companies are pretty safe from anybody watchdogging excessive vigilantism.
Although....how ironic would it be if Shawn Fanning came back to sue the very companies that killed Naptser? Almost makes me want to take up a pre-emptive collection.
-FC
To hear him tell it, the bill doesn't allow anything that is currently illegal. The bill also obviously doesn't say what it DOES allow. To hear his description of this very vague law, it would seem to be completely unnecessary. Therefore, the fact that it's out there implies that it actually does something. Therefore, he must be lying.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
I know for a fact that this simply not true. I am currently a memeber of an industrial band. The only place people have heard my music is from downloading it off of P2P networks. I do have a siteon mp3.com (Mendeleev's Machine). However, very few people have visited it. I have gotten more exposure on P2P networks by sending messages to people (on KaZaA) or by chatting to people (DirectConnect). I am able to tell them about my band and they download it and give it a try.
P2P has given me a free method of distributing my music. And I currently don't care much if others download my music. I would not be receiving any money anyways. I am making music because I like it and I want to let others listen to my creations. P2P gives me an easy method to do so.
neurostarThey set the prices (they have settled and been fined a minimal amount) and we have to pay them. There's no real other option for music lovers.
If you can't afford Britney Spears, switch to another band on another label. In addition to the Universal label, Vivendi also offers the mp3.com label, which has mostly new bands, and a CD usually costs less than $10.
Will I retire or break 10K?
How hard is it to run a line out to your sound card?
How hard is it for Congress to close the analog hole and criminalize the possession of high-end audio equipment without an audio engineering license?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Okay, the RIAA is more than welcome to launch all of the attacks on my system they wish to. I reserve the right to viciously retaliate with whatever is handy. If I have a CCW and some person takes a shot at me with a gun, so I pull mine and fire back... it doesn't matter that the person was an off duty cop, they didn't tell me, and they tried to kill me, self defense.
I suggest we all just prepare to have very fun "self defense" tools ready.
By and large, what Rep. Berman says is irrelevant. What matters is what is in the bill.
He can clarify until he's blue in the face, but until he changes the contents of the bill, he's talking out his hat. Everything anyone has said about the bill, every criticism, is still in full force. This does very little to negate any of it.
The exception is that some courts can consider the "intent of Congress" if they want, but depending on that to clearly define the purpose of the bill is awfully cavalier, at best.
What you are suggesting, on the other hand, is that it is morally justifiable to steal from someone simply because you think their asking price is too high. This position is indefensible.
Assume everything Berman says about limits to the law is true, just to avoid bogging down in the details. Let's look at what this law is really about. Let's apply Berman's P2P "piracy protection" theory to laws about slander/libel: I have the right that only the truth should be told about me - anyone spreading lies can be sued for the damages it causes me. Therefore, I should have the right to block content on the internet to anything anyone says that I feel is slanderous. Further, I should be immune from prosecution if I do so. I promise I won't trash their hard drive - but I will shut them up and unilaterally deny them their free speech rights so long as I have good faith in doing so. I don't need the courts to validate that I'm right and the other person is wrong - no need to bother with law enforcement, probable cause, any of that. If I say it's libel, then I can enforce the law myself without the help (or hindrance) of the courts. Anybody else see anything wrong with this theory?
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.