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.
No matter what you do, no matter what measures you take, you can't constraint what you do or not do with computers.
/. stories. Please make the voices stop.
...
It all started in a garage, as a hobby. If necessary, it will start again in a garage.
Those who love computers and the community created because (and with the help) of them can not stop to do their thing, irrelevant if it's moral or immoral, legal or illegal.
Computers are tools. No more, no less than your common screwdriver. "Clever" tools, yes, but what you do with them is *use* them.
I'm sick and tired of all these p2p-related
now where is that asbestos suit
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
How about some legislation to make music subscription services possible? The record companies have driven musicbank, myplay and napster out of business by making it impossible to get reasonable licensing terms. Legal distribution technology was built before napster ever appeared but the music business saw this as too much of a threat to do business with.
There should be legislation for a compulsory on-demand music license, a flat fee for one off streams and higher fees for downloads. Oh then they should fix up that silly CARP royalty rate so that we can have small stations again....
... is that they intend to cause small amounts (in terms of $ value) to *many* people & still escape liability.
That and they are being so vague about the DoS they have planned that they hope to snow technologically illiterate folks (e.g. congress) to pass this because they won't "really" be causing harm.
Why not ask this guy if there is any sort of due process in this? E.G. if I'm not doing anything wrong & they harm me (even if I don't meet the caps), why can't I sue them?
OTOH, we all know that liability can be trumped up, right? Go to small claims, name the CEO of whoever DoSed you & state that your damages are more than the minimum; count it however you have to. Enough nuisance suits like this might draw a bit of attention, even if they probably wouldn't hurt them financially...
Then again, they only intend to unleash this DoS overseas, right? I guess it makes it so much easier that way, since they may not be able to fight back with lawyers as effectively. OTOH, you could (possibly) have them declared criminals under the anti-hacking laws in some countries. I hope they don't plan to travel much...
My first reaction is that this notification clause means that if you ask the person you are trading with whether they are knowlingly giving you a bogus file, then they are obligated by this bill to disclose that. Can that be right? Wouldn't that just mean that you could send a Kazaa IM saying "is this file legit", and if you get back an negative answer go ahead and download. That might be an interesting balance - if you had to do this by hand, it might move file trading back to a level difficulty similar to copying tapes (i.e., not that hard for one, but mass distribution's not worth it for the average consumer), which I think was a good balance.
Also interesting is the requirement of listing tactics with the AG's office. Is this information available under FOIA? What exactly do the record companies have to disclose?
Maybe I should peruse the text of the bill before coming up with more theories.
Naturally, they want to end free music on the radio, The RIAA wants Pay-for-Play radio. Let's hope lawsuits and trying to buy legislation both fail.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
You can shoot people who break into your house. Fix that first, then this.
If you can't see this, click here to enable sigs.
In order to prevent the massive graft and fraud perpitrated by our elected officials, today the "Sane Legislation Protection Act" was proposed in the House, it allows voters who participated in the last election to take a baseball bat to the body of their elected officials, when and if they vote in a manner inconsistant with the platform on which they ran.
In order to ensure that this does not lead to massive abuse, citizen voters will need to file notice with their municipality prior to any thrashing. No evidence is required as it is assumed that a full confession will be produced as a matter of course. Additionally, any damage to property not directly on the body of the elected official, under a $250 threshold, is specifically protected as part of the cost of ensuring freedom to the citizens of this great land.
Without a corporate sponser it is assumed this legislation is dead on arrival.
Legal notice: the following statements represent my opinion, and is not to be taken as a statment of fact. Now, with that libel safe harbor in place :-)
Your a f***ing liar Berman! Plain and simple. That article is almost entirely bullshit. I can't believe an elected representative would stand up and put their name on bald faced lies which are easily discovered. Where to start:
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. For instance, if her actions have some other effect - such as knocking a corporate network offline, or wiping out files - she will remain liable under whatever previous theory was available.
This is a lie. The law provides a clear exemption for copyright owners who disrupt the distribution of other files on a p2p network. From the bills list of things which cause a copyright owner to lose the protection of the bill:
"(A) impairs the availability within a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network of a computer file or data that does not contain a work, or portion thereof, in which the copyright owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106, except as may be reasonably necessary to impair the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of such a work, or portion thereof, in violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under section 106;" (emphasis added)
You could drive a truck thru that loophole, which Berman doesn't mention. If fact, his statment A copyright owner who does more will still be liable. is simply a lie.
Moving on in his article, we find this little gem:
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.
This qualification is no where in the bill. The entire list of actions which constitute a copyright holder overstepping their bounds is listed on page three. And There are only three of them. The first is (A) listed above. The second is (B)causes economic loss to any person other than affected file traders
But the third is the real killer.
(C) causes economic loss of more than $50.00 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader, other than economic loss involving computer files or data made available through a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network that contain works in which the owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106; or (emphasis added)
So if they can't delete the infringing files, why are the infriging files exempted for the amount of the "economic loss"? How could those files possibly involve any economic loss if the copyright owner can't "delete or alter" the files? Jesus, I can't believe a lie that blanant.
Another non-existant protection:
The safe harbor is also lost if the anti-piracy action causes more than de minimis loss to the property of the P2P pirate. This limitation represents a recognition that even pirates should not be seriously harmed by copyright owners.
Once again, this is nowhere in the list of actions which cause a copyright owner to lose their "safe harbor". Nowhere. To claim otherwise is quite simply a lie. Once again.
Finally, the safe harbor is lost if the copyright owner fails to notify the Attorney General of the anti-piracy technologies she plans to use, or if she fails to identify herself to an inquiring file-trader. These notification provisions ensure that copyright owners who choose to employ self-help measures will operate in the light of day.
Fails to identify themselves to an inquiring file-trader? The requirements in the bill force the affected party to determine the copyright owner who took the action thru their own means and contact them. After the fact. So when I get up in the morning and a bunch of files are missing, how am I supposed to know what happened to them? Or why they're gone? Or who did it? Write a letter to every single RIAA member asking if they did it? Oh yeah, that's really the "light of day". More bullshit if you ask me.
An aggrieved party - perhaps a P2P user or an ISP - can sue the copyright owner for any remedy available under current law. For instance, the aggrieved party might be able to bring a civil action under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or a state denial of service statute.
Sure, but there's just one hoop to jump thru. You have to get permission from the Attorney General first! And if the AG doesn't like your claim, too bad. Game over. No process for appealing such a decision is granted. Since when am I required to obtain the AG's permission to file a civil lawsuit? The only reason for such a clause is to provide a way to reduce the number of lawsuits RIAA members would be subjected to under this bill. After all, why let the courts decide civil suits when a political appointee like the AG can do it!
Gah, I'm so mad I could spit. You're a liar Berman. Liar liar, pants on fire. Anybody who votes for this guy next fall is a moron in my opinion.
The fact of the matter is that the **AA, the copyright cartels, have not proved that their incomes, or the artists which they rip o.. er, represent, have been damaged by Kazaa et al.
Their shrieks and cries of doom, and destruction, on the contrary, echo their histrionic historical wailings, about every new media development under the sun, decimating their livelihoods.
None of that has come to pass.
Let a few truly independent investigations be run, on the claim that the copyright cartels have suffered loss that warrants such draconian laws, and then maybe, we can talk to them, and treat them as deserving of our "concern" (for want of a better term.)
At the moment, all we have is a bunch melodramatic control freaks, in a behaviour-loop, with no proven basis for their "concerns."
As such, people who know their track record (no pun intended) choose to treat them with the contempt they deserve, and will continue to deserve, until they stop lying, distorting, dissembling and duping, and come up with some independently verified, hard facts that merit that anything is done.
In my humble opinion.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
One of the issues not addressed by Berman in the article or the bill itself is this: the mere presence of an item on a p2p network does not prove infringement. How are the copyright holders supposed to prove that someone is infringing on their copyright?
Most of the time, determination that a violation of law has taken place is done by the court system. Berman's bill has no provision for determining whether a given copyright is actually being infringed, nor does it specify a process that a copyright holder would go through to determine that a copyright is being infringed.
This and this alone should be enough to cause problems. By allowing private entities to determine and prosecute violations of law, the bill essentially places police power in the hands of private entities.
Write your congressman to complain! Most of them are lawyers, so should understand reasonable arguments. One plus is the bill is relatively short, so should be easy to comprehend.
Only you can prevent Bad Law!
once we are all required to have a fritz chip and MSFT palladium software (and yes this bill is out there and being pushed thanks to the right good gentleman from NC) this will all be irrelevant. it will happen automatically. all your files will be compared to a central DB to determine if you own them. by Gen 2, your own microprocessor will do this. no new software will run unless it does. if you don't own the rights, it will be deleted by your own system. any software, anywhere can be instantly revoked in this manner if your PC is on a network. give this some thought. now imagine a new breed of virus. picture the whole US getting a format c:. then go vote.
mudweasel "and i wudda gotten away with it too if it hadn'ta been for you meddling kids."
Forgot to log in! (damn)
Other post with same subject can either be ignored, or read, your choice. It is reproduced below.
I do not fit this mold.
I actually *want* to pay to download music. The labels made a big mistake when they rejected the Napster proposal.
Downloading software I don't own used to be a big deal, but only because I wanted to learn about it before wasting my money. I have never made a dime off of software I did not own. Today, getting demo copies of things is a lot easier. This also makes OSS tools attractive to me because I don'e have to worry so much about the license.
I want unencumbered computers because:
I believe I have the right to do what I wish with the hardware I own. Same for media. This has been true my whole life and people made lots of money, why can't this continue?
I want Peer to Peer because it is a great technology that we have not yet fully explored. It has a lot of potential for those who want to explore distribution methods that are *not* beholden to the corporations. I pay for hardware, in some cases software, and bandwidth, why is it wrong to use the two to benefit me?
As for old business models, yep, they are old. I was taught that in this society, you either adapt or die. If you are not improving your business process, then be sure your competetors are. The media industries are not adapting, they are litigating...
So, I agree that something needs to be done because, in the case of music right now, things are clearly wrong, but I am not greedy, just wary of losing my rights.
Rights are funny things in that they are very hard to obtain, but very easy to give away.
Remember, not everyone here believes everything said.
Blogging because I can...
I'll feed the troll
He's not a troll. His words may be painful, but they sound pretty honest to me.
Do you relish the fact that you can't hit fast forward to skip the advertisements and copyright warnings on DVDs which you've rightfully purchased
I make a product, I can design it to work however I want. If I build the thing to play advertisements, and you still want to buy the thing, that's my decision.
Do you think that the RIAA has the right to impose the cumbersome, fragile CD format on everyone, by attempting to restrict more advanced, convenient means of media storage and playback
Yeah, they've just got a gun to your head and are forcing you to give up said music storage devices. Uh, huh. You can record your own music, or purchase music that isn't owned by them, and put it on your devices however you want. If they want to make a semi-broken "protected" CD, that's their choice, their product, and I don't see where you have any grounds for complaining. No one is forcing you to buy their products.
Do you enjoy being forced to watch commercials on your $50/mo cable TV service
(a) No one is forcing to watch commercials, or for that matter, even purchase TV service from said media companies. I have no interest in TV myself, and would happily not pay for TV service. (b) Would you rather watch TV that costs $50/mo to make? Trust me, it would suck. The commercials may not be entertaining, but unless you're willing to pay with greenbacks instead of being advertised to, the dollars to make the shows have to come from somewhere. It *could* be product placement throughout shows...
Would you prefer that your computer be artifically restricted in what it can and can't do, as opposed to being a general-purpose device whose capability is limited only by the imagination of software engineers?
TCPA/Palladium does *not* do this, dammit. You can use Linux and do whatever you want to with it. No one is forcing you to use Windows, and no one will ever force you to use Windows.
Would you like the federal government to pass laws which restrict you from loaning your favorite book to a friend?
I fail to see how this is relevant. You can load CDs to friends all you want. You just can't make copies of them. You said "loan" the book, not "mass-fucking Xerox" it.
May we never see th
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.