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 It was that Circuit City has an outdated business model!"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.
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....
RIAA Sues Radio Stations For Giving Away Free Music
ARE YOU A PHP DEVELOPER? WORK WITH ME ANE MAKE MILLIONS!
Web Developer II
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
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.
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.
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.
From the TV/Movies/Music industry.
..
Yeah baby, our boy has sucked on the Entertainment tit for
Ready for this?
$1 9 4 , 6 4 1
He is going to lie at every chance possible because like ALL politicians, Republican or Democrat, he walks whatever line pays him money.
There are no exceptions, Berman is quite literally full of shit and acting only in the best interest of his masters.
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
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.
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
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.
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...
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.