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."
... does that mean that they're continually exposing themselves to child pornography at will? Wouldn't that make them party to the crime of spreading child porn?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Please remember the DMCA
So many people ignored it, simply because it was unconstitutional didn't stop it from becoming a law.
"...force P2P apps to include warning labels that users may be exposed to pornography"
They should put those labels on all web browsers too then.
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.
Go on, prove me wrong. Destroy the fabric of the universe. See if I care. ~Terry Pratchett
They also use email, ftp, http, nntp... shall we outlaw those applications? (I know some of them are protocols, smeg off.) Doesn't make any sense. I must once again call for viruses which install freenet and make people freenet nodes, sharing all media files on someone's computer.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"As a guy in the record industry and as a parent, I am shocked that these services are being used to lure children to stuff that is really ugly," said Andrew Lack, the chief executive of Sony Music Entertainment.
Has this guy even seen Kazaa? Doesn't he know you have to type in what you are looking for?
Or you can log on to nytimes.com with the username noreg and password noreg. It's nice :)
My other car is first.
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...
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
What are the most effective methods of protest (short of a suicide bombing).
Stop giving them your money.
No, really.
Stop giving them your money.
I know it's hard. (Although it's a hell of a lot easier than blowing yourself up, I suppose.)
But that's the only way we can get through to them.
Stop giving them your money.
I think they have the wrong target. They should go for banning (photo)camera's. And let's not forget pens, brushes, paper and paint. They can be used to CREATE child porn. You always have to fight the root of the problem. O by the way, children can make very sounds that make people that are susceptible to such a thing very horny. Ever listened to a children's record? Here in Holland we have Kinderen voor Kinderen (children for children). Every year or so a new record with children's songs sung by childern appears in the shops. Who knows what can happen when people listen to that stuff... I say we ban the whole recording industry altogether. It's gone far enough.
-- Cheers!
"Oh my god, that guy's completely naked under his clothes! What a pervert!"
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Portraying the intent of P2P app developers in this manner is beneath contempt. Hiding behind his "shock" and "parenthood" while making them is cowardice. Coming from the upper eschelons of Sony, a company which has released more than its share of violent, sexual content in the form of movies and games, is pure hypocrisy. 'Lack' is truly an apt name for such an individual.
This Orrin Hatch?
Something sure smells rotten in Washington DC.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
"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!
No group has done more to sexualize children for profit than the music industry. Go to amazon and pull up a photo of britney spears' first album -- she's wearing a school girl uniform. They have a lot of nerve talking about this now.
MTV actually did a promotional show for the snoop dogg girls gone wild video, the way they'd promote a hollywood movie. Not only is MTV's audience primiarly made up of kids, but the producers of those videos are probably going to go to jail for using minors in their tapes. Not one or two who slipped through -- several dozen young girls.
Don't get me wrong -- I believe in free speech, and I will defend their rights to promote music that sexualizes children, glorifies cop killing, rape, and drug use, and all of the rest of the stuff they promote. I don't like it, but I'll defend their right to do it.
But the sheer disingenuous of these sorts of statements is hard to take. I don't know where they find guys with the chutzpah to make them.
Perhaps the police should look on some of the RIAA's computers...so they can try to use the infamous Pete Townsend defense "we were just doing research".
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
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
This is nothing but a pre-emptive strike at FreeNet (and the anonymously routed, stenographically encrypted networks to follow.)
.gov ... (When an irresistable force hits an immovable object, etc.)
The RIAA knows that once that happens, their ability to stop piracy will be absolutely NIL. So their only hope is to criminalize P2P software before it gets to that point. If they can make it illegal to distribute (and eventually own) file sharing software, then FreeNet ceases to become an issue.
And you know where those "beacons" are headed, don't you? Think mandatory on every new computer, automatically contact your ISP if you so much as ATTEMPT to run P2P software.
I always wondered how the next generation of P2P was going to mix with the
Microsoft's Palladium (and its ilk) is going to be the champion platform for this, because the users can't control what is going on. The government can mandate anything they want, Microsoft complies, and the users don't get a choice.
Expect Palladium type controls to become mandatory within 3 years as well. They're just going to turn the internet into a passive entertainment medium like they've always wanted it to be. Just with more advertising.
That sounds appropriate.
Insert multi-subject RIAA rant here
Cheers, Ed.
If you don't like the seedy side of town, why do you go there?
Of course, this analogy falls flat, because some people are forced by economics to live a place they would rather not. Nobody is forced to use P2P apps. If you don't want your kids to use P2P apps, here's a hint: Don't let them. If you are unable to stop them, then you should think about your parenting skills before you shout "there should be a law..."
I forget what 8 was for.
With P2P you really don't know what you're getting. You may think you're downloading The Lion King but you may end up with Debbie Does Dallas.
Let's be serious. How often does this happen. I've been downloading contents from peer to peer networks since the advent of scour.net, and have had no gross misrepresentations of content such as you imply happen. The worst I've ever seen is badly labelled pornography (which was still clearly labelled as pornography). I maintain that this kind of misrepresentation happens on such an infrequent basis as to assume it to be insignificant.
P2P has NO SUCH MECHANISM to warn users about what they may actually be getting. Since the sharers have NO MEANS AVAILABLE to warn users what they're sharing then it's reasonable that the app itself must.
Christ, I know when I was a kid, that warning mechanism did nothing other than to encourage me to enter the site.
"Oh wow, you mean there's naked people on this site? Sweet!"
Seriously, though, the name of the file being downloaded is usually enough. Very few people have anything to gain from misrepresenting their content in such a large manner, and the few who do are just sick. Thankfully, some networks (such as KaZaA) have rating mechanisms for content. If it's being misrepresented, it's almost always marked as poor quality.
Ultimately, kids who want to view pornography are going to, much like kids who want to drink and kids who want to smoke. Prominently labelling content as being pornographic will only cause it to gain attention. Kids won't see the warning--their attention will only be brought to the fact that it's pornography. And as any good marketer knows, having attention brought to your product is the most important thing. Whether or not it's seen in a bad light or good light is secondary.
I also maintain that if such a mechanism is wanted by a sufficient number of people, someone will implement it without being under threat of law--and, even better, it will probably be implemented in a technologically sound way. If Sharman Networks wants to increase its subscriber base, it will add features that its clientele want. If they want this feature, it will be added.
Even better than all this, though, is that parents already have mechanisms for blocking kids from doing things that might be deemed inappropriate by the parents. Parents can restrict their children's user's rights, and they can actually parent their kids, watching them while they're on untrusted networks. Just as you wouldn't leave your kid alone on the streets of New York, you shouldn't leave your kid alone while he or she is surfing the internet. Sure, many parents don't have the desire nor time to do these things. However, are these same parents likely to put forth the time and effort to implement a mechanism for blocking access to peer to peer networks? How can parents even trust these mechanisms, in times like these where children often know more about the operation of computers than their parents?
No comment.
Would their definition not include server's too? Lets take Apache for example:
(A) enable a computer on which such software is used to transmit files or data to another such computer;
This is Apache's main purpose.
(B) enable the user of one such computer to request the transmission of files or data from another such computer; and
HTTP is a two way thing, not broadcast. The "client" needs to be able to send data to a server to request files. If not GET, the POST directive meets this. I'm using it to send this post.
(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;
Okay, this part is kind of vague. Designation of the files is program specific, but but Apache and most P2P software do something along the lines of "you put the files in a shared dir". The excluded part is REALLY vague. P2P software IS legitimately marketed and distributed. It only fails to meet that part is it is already illegal by this bill.
The actual exclusions seem to be written by someone who has no clue about networking. Lets see... Home(non-business) and business networks are excluded. Government networks are about the only thing that isn't excluded. ISP networks, which are yet another business network, are then specifically excluded.
Of course, if that isn't enough, the internet itself is excluded. WTF do they think "the Internet itself" is??? Some palpable item? The internet is formed OF the other types of networks(most of which were excluded). They either include the application layer in these exclusions, or they don't. P2P is excluded if the other servers are excluded. For that matter, it's possible to use Apache FOR P2P type things. P2P is just another service on the internet.
Or is there something I'm missing and I need to RTFA better next time?
The NYTimes has become more of a shill for the RIAA and conservatives in the government. In the article they actually printed this as credible information:
They go on to present the opposing side of the issue, but it doesn't really refute the meme of massive amounts of child porn on the net:By even lending any credence to a study that did not actually download the files the NYTimes is showing how easily they can be used.
A little clue here folks, these descriptions are what's commonly referred to as false advertising. 99% of that "42 percent" will not contain child porn. At most you'll get some badly dubbed European movie from the 80's where some 30 year old woman is wearing pony tails and trying to act coy. Those sorts of mile-long filenames with every sex search term you could think of are leftovers from files that have been passed around for years on services like Hotline where you either pay or upload other files in trade to download pirated porn or software.
These file names are just like the stupid search engine spamming where porn sites used to put as many porn words in their meta tags and white-on-white body text to get to the top of the results. Someone sharing on Hotline wanted to generate as much traffic as possible to their server. Then in order to download this forbidden fruit, you had to upload more warez or pr0n or pay them, thus increasing the size of the server owners collection and/or wallet.
Later in the article they (correctly) pick up on another reality of P2P porn: a lot of it is now just advertising for pay sites. Now let's see... do you think that the porn site operators name the files that they share in a way that clearly shows that you're going to download an ad? Well, no they also use the same sorts of filenames with every graphic description that you could imagine - which often doesn't have much to do with the actual contents.
If the RIAA members had half a brain, they'd stop pouring money into getting songs on the radio and MTV and just load up all the good singles and videos onto KaZaA. Then they'd all take a few clues from Apple and UMG and make it easier and cheaper to get the albums electronically or on CD. Oh, but wait, they've stopped making good albums.
Maybe this is a bad example, but I really can't comprehend the school of thought in journalism where you just report the statements of opposing sides of an issue with equal weight and little personal analysis. In this particular case it would be very dangerous for a reporter themselves to download potential child porn. If they actually found some they would be committing a serious crime.
The real problem here is that I read far to many articles by journalists who are generalists. They are taught that there is this universal approach to researching and writing stories and they can apply it to any subject - which is complete bullshit. Sure you can start learning from a general standpoint, but journalism should be about trying to present the facts as they are. That requires an understanding of the subject matter, which requires some expertise and experience.
Unless this particular article was completely watered down and edited to death, I get the impression that the reporter has never actually downloaded porn through a P2P service.