Slashdot Mirror
Berman Retreats, But Only To Regroup
thefinite writes "It looks like the P2P vigilante bill sponsored by Berman is going to have to be rewritten even just to be considered. A ZDNet story talks about the likelihood that the bill will get anywhere as currently written. Hopefully, the second time around will make it clear that the idea is flawed, not just the text."
You can imagine the wording now "Terrorists could use a P2P network to share information, or to co-ordinate attacks."
Same shit different spin. I doubt they'll be watering it down, just making it more of a general threat than being specific on copyright.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
The problem with this type of thing, is that they get several tries at it. The first one is almost always outragous. They use that as a measuring stick. Then they start adjusting down and eventually they get a bill that passes.
It doesn't matter if the idea is flawed or not. What matters is that the congressman get's his way or not. There are egos involved, and big money, and the responsibilites to the citizens. (Guess which of the three is most important to the congressman).
Think about how slow the whole internet would get from this. Not only would the "good" hackers be using a ton of bandwidth but the "bad" hackers would be using even more trying to get even.
* Note the good and bad hacker referance are in the eyes of the bill writers.
I'd be interested where/how they figured this. A p2p network should disperse very little information about actual distribution of copyrighted works.
Alec French: Also, see Freenet
Saying kids are using illeagal fireworks so we are going to use flamethrowers on the kids to disable the fireworks.
The MPAA and RIAA are creating and marketing a bold, new superhero, The P2P Vigilante
Press relase: "We hope to educate the youth and public of America about the dangers of P2P file sharing- in the fine tradition of propaganda through the ages, the P2P Vigliante, a young, hip, midriff-baring female superhero will deal out justice and vengance to those who would use a P2P network for evil. Which is everyone who uses a P2P network. It's, like, evil and stuff. Anyway, it's on every Tuesday night at 8 (7 Central) on the WB! Excuse me, I have to go do a few lines of coke."
Since he admits that in its current form there is no way the bill would be passed, what would have to be changed to be passed?
The article hints that one of the problems might be lack of clearly defined techniques could be used to fight a p2p node.
Are there any "valid" techniques, at least valid as far as congress would be concerned to fight individual nodes, or the p2p networks themselves that could be used to fight against supposed violations of this bill.
Also, does this bill specify what proof if any has to exist before these attacks could take place? Could you sue someone excerising the powers give by this if it did get passed?
I think the real reason it isn't happening is because Berman learned from here that his Musical Car horn on his nice shiny Cadallic would be outlawed. The new law will probably be ...
"All devices which play digital copyrighted stuff must be regulated, except for my musical car horn."
Getting a bill even considered for voting is extremely difficult. A setback this earlier is probably a death sentence. If money is greasing the wheels it can only grease so much.
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
What's the difference? It's just me damaging someone else's property because I feel they are violating my rights. Having the government mediate in disputes is so inefficient.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Then again, it's not like he's really gonna have to worry about it. His #1 source of funding is TV/Movie/Music related, he's been in office since 1982, and while he's up for reelection he isn't facing any serious competition. How democratic.
Which of course isn't so much Hollywood as it is porn .... he's not really worried so much about the Lord of the Rings 4" as he is "Debbie does Dallas #76" ... which is probabloy much more likely to be on some p2p network anyway ....
""Unfortunately, theft of copyrighted works is the predominant use of peer-to-peer networks today," French said. "Peer-to-peer networks are primarily used today for the unauthorized public distribution and reproduction of copyrighted works."
If this legislation does go through imagine the potential impact on the open source movement...
It will be all to easy to apply the same logic to Open Source developers/providers adding another avenue of attack to corporations that feel threatened by open source...
This legislation served an important purpose in pointing some things out to those of us who go through our lives wearing pink-tinted glasses (I mean optimists, not gay people).
What it boils down to is that we anti-copyright crusaders have always maintained that digital "media" is just a bunch of 1's and 0's. A file is no more than a certain number, and how can one person or corporation own a number? To me, this has always been an extremely pursuasive argument. So now let's look at hacking over a network. What is it? Well, really it's just 1's and 0's being sent to your computer on the network. Some specific number, or series of numbers, is going to break your computer or make it impossible to use (DOS attack), but is the solution to outlaw that number altogether? In my opinion, the record industry shouldn't need this law, because all computer hacking should be legal.
How could this work, though? Well, first of all, TCP/IP has got to go. It doesn't have any authentication or security built in to it, and it's obvious that it's flawed. We need to redesign the Internet and the protocol it uses, not just to increase the address space as is being done in IP2, but to make hacking technically impossible. Then, legislation or no, we will finally all be safe.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
"Not doing something bad" is not the same as "doing something good".
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
In one sense, every communication between two systems is peer-to-peer, including everything from getting email to browsing the web. Unless you want to call one of the systems a "server", and then I guess it's okay.
It seems to me that a peer-to-peer network exists whenever one system talks to another. Are VOIP telephones part of a p2p net? Do I own a peer-to-peer network when I print to my printer? What if I print to the parallel port?
So, when my computer sync's my calendar with my PDA, I guess I'm doing something bad?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
When I first read the headline I thought it said "Batman Retreats, But Only To Regroup"
Then I realized that it couldn't be true 'cause Batman never retreats.
Okay now that that's over it's time for me to actually read the article. Check for intelligent post later
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
NO fair use is piracy, that's why it's called FAIR use! The two are mutually exclusive...either you're breaking the law, or you aren't. This is not a good sign. If assistant Secretary of Commerce doesn't understand this, what hope do we have for the general public?
I may be wrong, but isn't this some form of "unreasonable search and seizure"? I don't think that any music company should be allowed to practice vigilante justice, no matter how many of their copyrighted works are in jeopardy - especially if it violates my fourth amendment rights.
It's about time Berman gets taken to task. Trek has been awful for years under his reign.
Am I the only who read
Batman Retreats, But Only To Regroup?
"Holy low self-esteem batman! I'm a side kick in my own fantasy!"
... that whenever someone brings one of these types of articles up regarding fair use that you never hear anyone on the other side of the debate?
No one. I can't find it, unless they are modded down to oblivion.
Maybe no one really likes it and the big corporate types don't visit Slashdot.
(ponder)
This space for rent.
would say the best technique would be poisining the p2p with what looks like legit files
This actually happens quite often, works fairly effectively too I would think. I stopped bothering to download newer movies for awhile as I got tired of the fake crap. However, I also stopped buying the DVD's once they came out because I didn't get to preview whether it was crap or not.
Guess we both lose out. Hmm, image that.
A Wild West aproach to internet justice would be great.
Instead of throwing lawsuits around just bring in the programmers and attack the networks with technology. This way if you want to create a network all you need is a few great ideas and some determination... As it is p2p programmers must compete against corporations based on how much they can pay a lawyer.
Unfortunately, I suspect doubt p2p programmers will not be allowed to automate counter attacks against attackers...
So basically the idea is crap until that gets changed.
PS. One idea that's related to this is that we could solve minor disagreements between parties by giant robot battles. This would save millions in tax payer dollars.
I'm confused. I'm not big on corporations or industry groupings, but even from pro-corporate types, this calls into some fundamental questions on the fairness within a marketplace.
From the aticle:
'Striking a middle-of-the-road tone, Mehlman urged Hollywood and Silicon Valley "to cooperate" over finding technological solutions to protect copyrighted content without additional government intervention. "All fair use is not piracy, but neither is all piracy fair use," Mehlman said.'
This hints at a threat, however small. DRM or else.
How did one industry's problem become the other? CDs are inherently hackable. They are released by the copyright/media trade associations. Some of them are protected under trade secrets or licensed. DVDs were released with flaws that were cracked by teenagers (not that teenagers are not brilliant, just that they were not privy to industry secrets when they did this).
Normally, if you put out a flawed product, that's the originator's problem and liability to handle.
The technology companies did not release these flaws products. So why is it their responsibility to bear the weight, both financial and legal, to fix the flaws or find solutions to get around flaws that another group introduced (some knowingly)?
While I understand laws like these is the nature of politics, but this is utterly fucked up. If the law passes, marketplace accountability goes out the door (again). One industry gets hammered by another bigger industry.
ERISA was to protect employee benefits yet yielded a nasty turn with HMOs. Luxury taxes wanted to stick it to the rich yet destroyed the yachting industry, which the US has never recovered. Isn't this another law of unintended consequences which is going to really benefit no one? (even the RIAA, because people just won't want music anymore if they can't play it on what they want to; I don't use P2P networks, but I haven't bought a CD for like nearly 2 years because I'm watching them fight over this crap)
Am I the only one who sees the similarity to the modern Anti-Terrorism Plan and the old Salem Witch Hunts? Now they have hotlines and numbers to call in if you suspect some one is involved in Terrorist Activities, or other likewise mischief. So, how are we, the supposed great nation, going to fall back to the Witch Hunts by fingering somebody a Terrorist.... Hey!, I saw that guy wearing a white robe, he's a terrorist.. I saw that lady acting suspicous,, she's an Al-Qaida member.... We were all tought of the attrocities in Salem and other locations for supposed Witches, and now we are doing the same thing again.. How many innocent people have been killed by Terrorism this year, last year, all years?.. How many innocents will be killed, or imprisoned for life because of Anti-Terrorism?? Hopefully our elected officials will be wise enough to see what's going on, and to stop accusing everything of being a "Terrorist" network or activitiy.
That's not corruption or ego or anything else.
Him: I'll sell you this car for $1000000
Me: That's outrageous! I'll take it for $1
Him: That's nuts!
Me: Maybe we should find a middle ground.
For the current topic:
Their congressman: If we think someone is pirating, we get to burn down their house and roast their children over the embers!
Our congressman: You're loopy. Anyone can copy, modify, distribute and profit from anything anywhere anytime for any reason and needs no permission whatsoever from anyone.
Their congressman: Gak! Anarchist!
Our congressman: Maybe we should find a middle ground.
If it becomes a passable defense that distributing a prime number can not be illegal
The parser would likely be an application (not being done manually), and then made illegal instead.
In general, I'd have to say we've got a fairly cool system of government. The constitution is really clever in many ways, and the ideas that the US were founded on were definitely revolutionary. But, like any complex-but-good idea, there are problems in the first few drafts. One of those is this:
The Constitution of the United States of America is, by its own declaration, the supreme law of the land. It defines, among other things, the Supreme Court to be the highest court in the land. So one would suspect that if a person were to be found by the highest court in the land to have violated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with willful premeditation, that supreme law of the land, that the punishment they would be sentenced to would be severe in the extreme.
One would be wrong.
Take, as an excellent example, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, often referred to as the Bill of Rights. They are powerfully and clearly worded. They say such things as "Congress shall make no law which..." and "The Right of the People [...] shall not be infringed." But what if congress does make such a law? What if the rights of the people are infringed? It happens all too often. There are laws passed by congress that clearly and blatantly ignore these amendments. In many ways, it's much like civil disobedience, but somewhat different. I shall call it federal disobedience. Sometimes these violations are so obvious that they are seen to be so not only by me and every other citizen, but by the Supreme Court itself. And the people who originally perpetrated this crime, the senators and congressmen who proposed, supported, amended, and ultimately voted to accept these laws are not held accountable. They are not fined. They are not imprisoned. They are not prevented in any way from committing the same crime again. They are left in the position that they started in, with the full means, motive, and opportunity to become repeat offenders. If I were to break a local parking ordinance, I might have to pay $50 or so. If, on the other hand, I get myself elected to public office, and once in that public office, if I blatantly disobey the supreme law of the land, the fine that I face is exactly nothing. That is horribly, horribly wrong.
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
Berman works for his employers (the entertainment industry), who have him stationed in Washington, almost like a consultant/outsourcing kind of deal.
His job is to push custom-designed legislation, as designated by his employer. He may realize it's dead-on-arrival. He scores brownie points for making the sales pitch, even if he can't "close the deal".
Think of your job. Haven't we all been involved in some sort of management-led initiative that we were less-than-thrilled about? I can think of a handful of instances, and I shed no tears when such things crash and burn.
Berman, Fritz, and others are paid to push these "suicide bomber" initiatives, in search of a "compromise" that is pretty much the real target to begin with.
Personally, I can't wait for the first wave of P2P vigilantes. The reprisals ought to be spectacular. The whole concept of a technologically-challenged industry battling against the world's top hackers is like Saddam Hussein sending the Iraqi navy to invade New York City. The RIAA battleship will be on the ocean floor, US law regarding the Internet will be as meaningless as a UN resolution, the net result being freedom through anarchy.
We, in the UK, will be celebrating that on 5 Nov 1605 Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament ... a failure that we still, occasionally, regret :-)
Imagine a hacker posts on a newsgroup or web page something about RIAA and includes many notices that this document may not be stored or used by RIAA. RIAA reads it.
Hacker attempts to retrieve his copyrighted material by disrupting communications to/fro RIAA computers using a DDOS. If he's caught, he uses this as a defense.
In fact, after a few hours in the sun, that might be the medium of attack itself. Spoiled Mayonnaise: The Ultimate Weapon(tm)
If you were to put all the crap you make on a webpage likeo rs/cantreverseenginner.htm
:www.mysecretpage.com/supersecreturl/DMCAviolat
you could basically assume that some one had 'broken your security' and start searching p2p networks for anything called: index.html, picture.gif, song.mp3, ect.
Then D0S everyone you see. They all *could* have your files.
Yes, this is stupid. But that's what they want. Of course, it will be changed to 'Real' copyright owners (read XXAA) and exclude you, but hey, thats how Corporate Congress works.
Why should they be allowed to make justice themself?
Am I allowed to burn your house if you've stolen something from me?
Even if you kill my wife & kids & parents I'm not allowed to do anything against you!
I thought that the great justice system exist exactly for that.
So some peoples are stealing their property? Sue them! Bring them to court! But please don't start shooting at them!
If they can have the right to make their own justice, I want that right too!
What does ...God...need with a starship?
I ...Am ...KIROK!!!!
Khan!!!
Khannnnnn!!!
Khannnnnnnnnn!!!
Enforce the fireworks laws and reduce overpopulation in one fell swoop! I like it!
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
How is this "informative"? It gives absolutely no information as to how legislation against peer-to-peer networking would impact Open Source developers or providers. Seriously, did RedHat start using Kazaa to distribute its ISOs while I wasn't paying attention?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Maybe that's how Berman got elected in the first place. . . people just misread his name on the ballot. This is Hollywood we're talking about, after all. . .
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Then a Slashdot poster happened by and said, "Dude, you're eating cake that someone dropped on the ground. What the hell is wrong with you people?!"
The problem is that one side of the debate isn't trying to get something completely unreasonable passed alongside the other unreasonable thing. What happens in reality is that one side asks for something unreasonable, and the other side says no. They then try something slightly-less unreasonable, and that works, because it's "good politics" to compromise (even if it isn't a compromise at all). Just because your first crazy offer wasn't accepted doesn't mean the result is a "creative win-win solution" or "watered down".
You do realize that the DMCA is a watered-down version of what the media and technology companies really wanted, right? That the PATRIOT act is a watered-down version of what the Executive branch actually wanted, right? Are these your "watered down compromises"? This is the results of this "feature"?
It is in fact a standard practice to ask for more than you want. Each time you come back with a slightly modified proposal, the more pressure you put on your opponent to accept it. It doesn't matter if each revision does nothing to make it more palatable -- eventually the politics mandate capitulation.
And yes, that's life. But that doesn't mean it's good.
The enemies of Democracy are
The bill does not specify what techniques--such as viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks, or domain name hijacking--would be permissible.
1. Locate IP/Device in meatspace.
2. Cruise Missile.
Since this solution would use armaments supplied by United Defense, Bush would definately approve this solution. (His daddy would see to it)
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Berman (and his brother) have been very influential forces in the Democratic party here in California for years. He represents an urban area which is generally considered liberal. Since his district is tailor-made for generally liberal Democrats, his only opponents are sacrificial Republicans and persons from other parties who cannot get elected because they are from marginal parties and marginal parties are virtually ignored by fundraisers and media outlets. (It's a Catch-22, it isn't right, but that's the way it is.) His constituents, a small percentage of whom work for media companies, are not going to turn this into a make or break issue. While Green or Peace and Freedom or Libertarian candidates may have a different take on DRM than Berman, a standard Republican candidate is going to side with DRM given the current political constellation. (Pardon yet more glibness, but Republicans hear and are very excited by the property part of IP.) I suspect that if fellow generally liberal Democrats (I guess I'd be one) write him to say that giving such unchecked power to big corporations is perhaps against the ideals of genrally liberal Democrats -- well, this may have more impact than saying blindly vote for the opponent. Well, maybe.
I'm going to be voting for Hernandez only because I have met with him, he seems like a decent enough bloke, he's a "McCain Republican" who also cut his political teeth with Cesar Chavez, and he's also against the Berman Bill. But I do not hold much hope out for him to have any effect. Just look at the tale of the tape, courtesy of Opensecrets.Org. Hernandez has exactly zero in his war chest, Berman has almost $1 Million left. And guess where most of that comes from? Well take a wild flying guess, folks. Viacom and Walt Disney are his two biggest contributors.
No matter what we do at this late date, Berman will be back, just like the freakin' Terminator, next Congress. And after the election, he won't be as kindly bent to take outside input on his precious P2P hax0r bill.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I think all of us could support it then!
I came to this article from a headline syndicated to Freshmeat. 'Berman retreats, only to regroup.'
Great, I thought!
As long as Piller goes with him, we might have the chance of a Trek sequel sometime in the next ten years that isn't clogged with mushy sentimentality and hackneyed plots. (This after watching the Berman/Piller scripted Insurrection on TV the other night.) Although that threat of regrouping is worrying... what dastardly new series does he plan? Will we see the same process with, say, Seinfeld: The Next Generation? So I clicked on the story to find out the bad news.
Imagine my relief when it just turned out to be some politician with his snout in the trough.
Imagine my relief when it
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
"His Libertarian opponent, Kelley Ross, doesn't stand a chance."
Probably because people like you assume that they can't win, because no one will vote for them. If no one votes for them, they can't win. It's a terrible cycle caused by the US two party system. Break out of it by voting 3rd party.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Ever notice how when you buy blank recording media, the RIAA gets a cut of the price, even though they do not manufacture, distribute, or own patents on the product in question?
I say that every time I buy media where I "pay the artists" (so to speak), I buy myself another copy of a song at a lower price, because that's the middle ground that seems to have been legistlated on me.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.