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."

Comments

This is logical.

[Pegasus Team]

This is a logical step for them. After all, they want to villify the program - since capturing the hearts and minds is the only strategy that'll effectively work for them, because less people = less sharing = less effective. Same strategy as the lawsuits they're mounting against Kazaa users. They know they can't sue everyone, so they're trying to make the service unusable. Your local P2P network's only as good as the users who use it. Write your local congressperson and denounce this strongly.

Re:This is logical.

[I(rispee_I(reme]

Actually, I wonder how many people will read the NYT article and think, "Wow! Easy access to porn! I gotta download that now!
Wouldn't be the first time the RIAA has shot itself in the foot...

Nope, only music

[jrockway]

I think that this is hillarious. Porn seems to be the one thing in our society that everyone hates (in public anyway). They say it's bad, immoral, etc. So the RIAA is trying to associate file sharing with child porn. Now, if you use filesharing clients, you're a pornographer. Great.

Unfortunately for them, a search for a common song rarely turns up porn. Not a lot of porn around with MP3 headers. So rather than implementing a list of all subscribers, file sharing services could filter out all non-music files. Just like the RIAA made Napster do with certain songs.

So with only music on the P2P network, the RIAA could only object to "their" "copyright" being infringed upon. And nobody would care.

fp?

Re:Nope, only music

[kien]

And this from the article:

And on Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to look into the connection between file-swapping services and pornography, called by its chairman, Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican of Utah.

This Orrin Hatch?

Something sure smells rotten in Washington DC.

--K.

Re:Nope, only music

[tarnin]

"Unfortunately for them, a search for a common song rarely turns up porn. Not a lot of porn around with MP3 headers."

This is an intresting statement. While true, for how long? We know that the RIAA (or an oursourced company) is interjecting junk mp3's into the system now, whats to stop them from retagging porn with mp3 headers to make their point?

Ya ya it would probably be illegal but looking at their track record they are toeing the line now as it is by sending out mass supinias (sp?) with little to no evidence. Isn't stoping them one bit though is it?

This whole idea scares the crap out of me to put it bluntly. A massive collection of lawyers who are more underhanded then most. We know that they pull every underhanded and questionably legal stunt they can to get what they want. Now I'm wondering if the cops are going to be knocking on my door because I use DC or bittorent and claim im part of some child porn ring.

Another thing, this is beyond coat tailing a law, this is pretty much blatenly lying or stateing the overly obvious to get their way. One has to think that the public or atleast congress will see that not only is this NOT any of their business (since when did the RIAA care about porn or even kids?) but is nothing more than a thinly vailed attack against totally legal programs.

Of course, the DMCA passed and is still a law.

Wow, not only is the RIAA kicking and screaming all the way down, but now they are calling in imaginary pink elephants to help!

Their best move yet?

[I'm a racist.]

Could this be the most effective attempt on their part, so far? It's hard to argue against them, without being labelled as a supporter of kiddie-porn. It doesn't matter how legitimate your claims against this bill, you'll still have to put up with the obnoxious cries of, "think of the children!"

This is really slick, on their part, because they can try to humiliate their opponents, reglardless of the validity of their arguments. How can people easily claim that this is just profiteering and securing a closed market in which to play?

Obviously, I don't want to see this go through, and it likely won't (not on the first try, anyway). But, it is an interesting tactic.

What's a "beacon"?

[AEton]

The story doesn't explain what the bill sets out a 'beacon' to be, but basically the intent is to (within a year of the bill's passage) develop a US standard for a magical 'beacon' one can set on a computer that will prevent people from installing P2P software on it. While it's a great idea IF YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS (hey, parents can keep kids from using evil Kazaa! and workplaces can prevent employees, too!) it's a stupid act. Stupid act. Anyone who votes for this act should it ever come up in Congress should be publically ridiculed in every venue available.

I see it's time to start the letter-to-Congress process...

wow, this is really ironic..

[eshefer]

"warning this contains explicite..."

interesting. since the RIAA's members are promoting so much smut this days which is passed as "art" by them - eminem anyone?

This strategy seems bizzar to me. the RIAA should know what those "warning - explicite lyrics" stickers did for rap and hip hop..

Best quote

[lonesome phreak]

KaZaA is just like Joe Camel," she said referring to the cartoon logo that had been used by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings to promote its Camel cigarette brand. "KaZaA has done an incredible job of attracting young people to their site, and as a result they have been really able to attack children."

I don't think I've ever heard Kazaa or such being associated with a product image specifically created to get kids to damage their health. She (Laura A. Ahearn, the director of Parents for Megan's Law) makes it sound like Kazaa is luring "kids" and then just giving them child porn.

I wonder how much she is getting paid to say stupid crap like that.

America really got a problem with sex

[Bazouel]

It's about the only country in the world where showing a little sex is worse than showing a lot of violence. Why would you rather have your children see a murdered woman than a naked woman ?

Such biased puritanism is contemptuous and says a lot about mentality of a nation.

Come on!

[vDave420]

"KaZaA has done an incredible job of attracting young people to their site, and as a result they have been really able to attack children."(emphasis mine)

Give me a break...
I had to laugh when i read this though.

It examined 157 files downloaded in response to three search terms of interest to children -- Britney, Pokemon and Olsen twins. It classified 49 percent of those files as pornographic.

2 things.

1) Britney... No kiddin. Look to MTV for the reasons there! I believe that many outraged people (who wrote piles of letters to newspapers) would consider the 2-second kiss to be of that nature.

2) So, the lessons to be learned here are:

a) Files can have misleading search information associated with them, and
b) Some people will use "common" search terms to attract attention to specific files that have no association with them.

A study in March by the General Accounting Office found that KaZaA would be effective for someone looking for child pornography. The agency searched for 12 terms associated with child pornography, such as "incest" and "underage." It did not actually download the files it found, but it determined that 42 percent of them had titles or descriptions associated with pornographic images of children. (emphasis mine)

Well of course they say they didn't download them, admitting they did if they did would be a crime.

But wait, didn't we learn from 2a & 2b above that often people use search terms to attract attention to files that don't necessarily have any association, just to generate interest?

Non sequitur and propaganda, plain and simple.
So which US slashgeeks are going to run for office and replace these incompetent people?

Toss the two named terms in google and find dozens of "legitimate" sites seeking the same type of attention.

This is sad.

-dave-

Looking for YOUR peer-to-porn engine? Get it here!