Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Parses 'P2P' As 'Peer 2 Porn'
watchful.babbler writes "Having largely failed to galvanize public and political action against P2P systems, the RIAA has mounted a campaign to link P2P systems with child pornography (NYT, reg. required). The result is H. R. 2885 (available via Thomas), which has the remarkably clear and honest intent 'To prohibit the distribution of peer-to-peer file trading software in interstate commerce.' Amongst other things, the proposed law will require the creation of 'do-not-install beacon products' (do-not-ask, you really don't want to know), force P2P apps to include warning labels that users may be exposed to pornography, and require P2P developers and distributors to obtain and store users' personal information -- ostensibly for age verification, but one can think of other reasons that the RIAA might be interested in that info. Worse yet, even given the 'operation exemption' (Sec. (4)(b)(1)(C) in the bill), applications such as AIM and iChat appear to fall under these provisions."
Here is the google news link, no NYT registration required. Aiming at Pornography to Hit Music Piracy
/usr/games/fortune
Before. http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,60318,00 .html
From the bill:
"(4) Approximately 40 percent of users of peer-to-peer systems are juveniles." - And whose ass exactly did they pull that stat from?
"Peer-to-peer systems also pose serious security and privacy threats to users." - As if this bill doesn't pose 100x more of a threat.
"Among other things, peer-to-peer software often gives others access to all the files that are stored on a user's hard drive, and many users, including juvenile users and their parents, do not even know of these threats." - Only if it has bug (which any program could, most noticebly WINDOWS), or you ignore everything it tells you and you set it up completely wrong, which is your own fault.
"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
The bill defines P2P as ...software that enables the transmission of computer files or data over the Internet or any other public network of computers and that has as its primary function the capability to do all of the following--
(A) enable a computer on which such software is used to transmit files or data to another such computer;
(B) enable the user of one such computer to request the transmission of files or data from another such computer; and
(C) enable the user of one such computer to designate files or data available for transmission to another such computer, but which definition excludes, to the extent otherwise included, software products legitimately marketed and distributed primarily for the operation of business and home networks, the networks of Internet access providers, or the Internet itself
So...
1. It is illegal to transfer files between two FTP-servers or HTTP-servers.
2. But if you use it for business, you are allowed to operate software like gnutella or kazaa.
H.R.2885
Check the cosponsor list, your congressperson might be one!
For more info: Bill Summary & Status
I cannot express how much outrage this article has caused me. I would like to say something more interesting, but I'm busy losing hope in America and everything it "supposedly" stood for.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
I think I've found a couple of link's you'll find interesting...
The nice congressmen that introduced this bill have public contact info:
For Joseph R. Pitts (anyone)
For Christopher John (only ppl in his district)
Please be polite, because that's the only way they'll take you seriously. If they don't realize that some hardcore republicans (such as myself) will vote for the other guy if they keep proposing crap like this.
Let's drop Pitts a good old-fashioned mail-bomb, letting him know how the public feels. Also, you can find your way to this place and contact your representative, telling them that ratifying this might be a 'bad thing'
Even better... let's see who supported/introduced this "Protecting the Children from Peer to Peer Pornography Act of 2003" .. Shall we?
Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. JOHN, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. PENCE, and Mr. DEMINT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Pitts, Joseph R. - REPUBLICAN
Pence, Mike - REPUBLICAN
DeMint, Jim - REPUBLICAN
John, Christopher - DEMOCRAT
Sullivan, John - REPUBLICAN
So, it seems this is a bi-partisan bill, with primarily GOP support. I expect you to join the democratic party today. And since when do religious zealots not pass laws? Remember the Defense of Marriage Act? A law was just introduced the other day to make it "not unconstitutional" (never mind the obvious stupidity of a law stating such a thing.... either amend the constitution or shut the fuck up) to display the 10 commandments on gov't property. And sine we've become a rule by majority country (screw the minority; it's not protected anymore b/c it doesn't speak for the majority!) it will pass.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
You can find the PDF version of the GAO report at the following link: "File Sharing Programs: Child Pornography is Readily Accesible Over Peer-to-Peer Networks."
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
Not to mention the early videos were shot by porn director Greg Dark. He has also shot videos for Mandy Moore and was profiled in Esquire. The hypocracy runs deeper than you think.
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
I am a resident of Pennsylvania, and felt that it is my duty to at least make my displeasure known. I do not however live in this congressman's district, so my message may never be read. If I get a response, I will post it here.
Congressman Pitts,
This message is a response to H. R. 2885, which has been recently introduced. First of all, let me say that I despise the amount of pornography that can be found on the internet. I applaud Pennsylvania's recent stand against child pornography, where several hundred child pornography sites were banned from Pennsylvania. The result of those actions were good, and made the internet a better place. H. R. 2885 promises to not yield similar results. The only parties that will benefit from this act will be the corporations that have backed it.
I've used p2p(pier to pier) software for several years. I use it for legitimate purposes, sharing poetry, or short stories with other novice writers. I have never once come across any child pornography that was misrepresented as anything else. I fear that the restrictions that may be put in place will do more harm to the civil liberties of the users and authors of software. I believe that I have a right to my own privacy as I share my works with others who also have a right to their own privacy.
The issue here is not pornography on p2p networks. The issue is the sagging music industry. The music industry has every right to ensure that their works are not stolen or pirated, but I do not believe that they have a right to influence how I access the p2p network. The legal uses of p2p networks are being threatened by the short sighted executives in charge of a relatively small industry.
Also, if the RIAA can get the identities of the persons who are sharing their copyrighted works, then why can law enforcement agencies simply get the identities of those that are sharing child pornography as well? The act of having the chile pornography should be enough evidence to warrant a legal search/siezure of their computer hardware. I agree that those that break the law should be punished for their crimes, but those who do not break the law, should not be punished for the crimes of others.
At the end of the day, we are all still living in America, the greatest country on earth. We take our civil liberties very seriously, as many people have fought and died to protect them. I fear that soon our civil liberties will all but dissapear. Please think twice about H. R. 2885, and what it means for the legitimate file sharers. Please realize that we can identify those that are breaking the law, and those that are not, and also that action can be taken against those that break the law without affecting those that do not.
Thank you for your time, God Bless.
Yes, in retrospect I realize that the issue is child pornography and not chile pornogrophy. Please leave my spelling alone, there was no spell checker on his site, and I'm a programmer so I can't spell worth dick.
Ah screw it, you're not paying attention anyway.
That isn't BBC. That's Channel 4, a commercial station (BBC isn't commercial) that is basically the UK equivalent of Fox - i.e. sleeze-merchant. Unlike the BBC, they get paid by how many people watch, and aren't above showing kiddie porn if that's what it takes to get ratings.
Registration is free, and you can tell them not to spam you. Go and register, and spare us all the noise.
The have NEVER spammed the account I gave them, infact I have NEVER received spam on the account I gave them and I GAVE THEM MY PRIMARY EMAIL ACOUNT.
Hello? The RIAA are the media. AOL/Time-Warner is one of the world's largest music publishers. Disney owns five record companies. Those media outlets that don't own record companies, solidly back the RIAA on copyright issues.