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 It was that Circuit City has an outdated business model!"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.
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
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!
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.