Berman Bill Dead in the Water?

Masem writes "Last summer, Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced a bill that would legitimize computer attacks by copyright owners on those users that they believed were illegally trading copyright material; the bill recieved a fair amount of criticism for the potental viligante tactics it suggested. That session of Congress ended without resolution of the bill, though Rep. Berman promised to reintroduce it this session. However, the LA Times reports that support for the bill is nowhere as strong as before, and many believe that laws already exist that allow copyright owners to punish illegal traders; as a result, Berman appears to be unwilling to support the bill further. For example, while the MPAA supported the bill, some of the liabilities introduced into it to punish those copyright holders that went too far in their attacks were too much for the Hollywood group." Unfortunately, the LA Times site requires registration.

Comments

Why was this even considered?

[KiahZero]

In all I've read about the Berman bill, I've never completely understood why vigilantism was considered OK in this instance. For instance, I would not be allowed to shoot a man should he rape my girlfriend; nor would I be able to steal back my property from a robber. Why are copyright holders special? Why is copyright infringement so heinous?

Re:hrm

[Dr.Enormous]

Now now, I'm sure there's a clause buried in there somewhere to prevent the people of the US from enjoying the same right that corporations would have...

My Communications w/ My Congressman Over Berman

[aborchers]

I have exchanged numerous emails with my congressman (Rep Robert Wexler, 19th district FL) on this topic, as he is a cosigner of the bill. As recently as this weekend, I received another message from him indicating his ongoing support for the legislation. Perhaps if Berman drops it, this will be the end of the discussion. Nonetheless, /.ers may find this humorous:

I have repeatedly criticised the bill to him on the grounds that it is prima facie impossible for a P2P vigilante to launch an attack against a file trader without collateral damage to innocents on the same network who necessarily suffer loss of quality of service simply by virtue of having to share bandwidth with one more person (the vigilante). In spite of several attempts to put this idea into much simpler terms than presented here, the message never seemed to get through to him. He remains confident that by writing the law to explicitly forbid damages to nonparticipating networks or computers, that this will somehow make it so. It sort of reminds me of the legends of a proposal in the Indiana legislature (though this is probably just a Kentuckian joke) that pi should be exactly 22/7. It may be physically impossible, but goldurnit, we're gonna write the law anyway!

So, basically what they would do is pass a law that made it legal for copyright owners to disrupt P2P networks, but write it in such a way that it would be impossible for the vigilantes to exercise that right because they couldn't do so without engaging in prohibited activity: namely reduction in QoS for users who were not participating in the exchange. It's either a fantastic example of pure congressional ignorance of technological (heck, basic physical) reality, or evidence of a level of cynicism previously unimagined; that they would spend all this time tossing a bone to the *AAs with a rubber band attached.

If the MPAA sold artwork and had its way.

[anthonyh]

Suppose a piece of artwork in a gallery is copyrighted. You take a picture knowing that doing so is illegal. Perhaps you even do this covertly. You go home and you reproduce the photograph life-size and hang it on your livingroom wall or something. You may show it to a few friends, but you're the only one who has it.

One evening, armed burgulars hired by the gallery break into your house, and steal the photo from you. Well, maybe under the words of the bill, they might just take photos of the the photo hanging on your wall, but they still broke into your house. Imagine if that were legal. Quite scary.

Oh yeah, I forgot the part where you go to jail and reimburse the gallery for breaking into your house and pay them whatever damages they incurred from the photo that was hanging on your wall.

Re:Good

[Melantha_Bacchae]

Naive? Us? ;)

Seriously, you can't paint all of Slashdot with one brush. Nope, it takes several brushes, multiple coats, and you still miss a few highly mobile spots. After all, you've got youngsters still in school, college students, and old hands with a decade or two or more of experience from the US, Canada, and other parts of the world. Some are going to be a bit naive, but not all of us.

As for the rider idea, sorry, it's been tried already. A version of this bill was first attempted as a rider to the USA PATRIOT Act. Congress had enough wisdom to detach it before the act was passed. A great pity for the cause of liberty that the whole act was not tossed in the round file.

It flopped as both a rider and a bill. I doubt it has a ghost of a chance of passing now without intervention from on high. Disney would have to do some serious shrub worship, both in financial contributions and a movie about a heroic planting on fire with a courageous crusade to topple evildoers worldwide. ;)

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
George W. Bush, December 18, 2002

"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)