RIAA & MPAA Seek Authority To Pretext

msblack writes "The RIAA and MPAA are lobbying California legislators for an exemption to proposed legislation that would outlaw pretexting. Pretexting is the practice of pretending to be someone else in order to obtain personal information on a person, such as telephone or banking records. According to an article in the LA Times, the RIAA and MPAA sometimes need to lie in their pursuit of bootleggers. They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting. An interesting line from the article is, '[RIAA's Brad] Buckles said the recording industry had never, nor would it ever, assume someone's identity to access that person's phone or bank records.' Fortunately, Senator Corbert, the bill's author, is unlikely to accept these hostile changes."

Comments

Burden of Proof

[pipingguy]

Pretexting is the practice of pretending to be someone else in order to obtain personal information on a person

Is it appropriate for government to have a Department of Sock-Puppetism? This rings a lot of alarm bells and there's probably something about this in the constitution already.

Re:Burden of Proof

[Dun Malg]

Pretexting is the practice of pretending to be someone else in order to obtain personal information on a person

Is it appropriate for government to have a Department of Sock-Puppetism? This rings a lot of alarm bells and there's probably something about this in the constitution already. No, you don't seem to understand what the US constitution is. The constitution is an enumeration of the limited powers of the federal government, and nothing else. Pretexting is essentially a form of fraud, which is generally covered by state laws.

Re:Burden of Proof

[cultrhetor]

Senator Corbert, the bill's author, is unlikely to accept these hostile changes. What's the point of the story? If the bill's author won't accept these changes, they aren't likely to be included, and are even less likely to pass, especially in a state as protective of consumer privacy rights as California.

Re:Burden of Proof

[xigxag]

Pretexting is essentially a form of fraud, which is generally covered by state laws.

You mean, pretexting is essentially a form of wire fraud, which falls under interstate commerce, and therefore covered by Federal law.

Re:Burden of Proof

[aussie_a]

The fact the RIAA would ask for them is simply incredible.

Re:Burden of Proof

[dryeo]

The difference is that at least we're bloody honest (our constitution has the not withstanding clause) where as you guys run around as if you're fucking better then everyone else because a bunch of slavers got together and said that all men are equal. Perhaps if they had practiced what they preached they'd be more respected.
The USA is the most unfree first world country. You're elections, who knows if they are honest. The politicians write the election boundaries to their advantage. Free speech is considered who ever has the money can bribe ctrl-w finance the politicians (for favours). And you have millions of political prisoners (what else can you call drug users who other than dealing in the black market only hurt Mr Hearst)
If Americans were a little bit honest perhaps they would get some respect.

Re:Burden of Proof

[dryeo]

Funny thing is the one person I know who digs ditches for a living is a millionaire. There is good money in digging ditches though you need a million dollars in equipment to do it right.
Poor guy in school always felt weird when the teachers would say if you don't do better you'll end up digging ditches when his old man was totally raking it in digging ditches. (Actually drainage for farms)

Re:Burden of Proof

[ThePengwin]

Pretexting is the practice of pretending to be someone else in order to obtain personal information on a person

Really...

I call that fraud

Re:Burden of Proof

[rtb61]

The funniest is part is to allow anybody who holds copyright. Those RIAA smucks must be on the really bad drugs again, basically I could not imagine anybody on the planet who does not hold copyright on something they have created, from schools essays to family snap shots.

How stupid could you be, an addendum to a law that basically allows everybody to ignore it, oh my, only RIAA lawyers could have manage that one.

Re:Burden of Proof

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to be a foreman for a crew that, suprise suprise, dug ditches.

I used to make jokes about digging out pyramid stones to the 2 jews on my 5 man crew. That may have been callous, but they seems to genuinely find it funny.

Anyways, you're so full of shit, do us all a favor and take your Nazi ass outside and shoot yourself. I suggest doing it outside so that everyone can see you finally doing something useful for the community.

Re:Burden of Proof

[Checkmait]

you guys run around as if you're fucking better then everyone else because a bunch of slavers got together and said that all men are equal

I think you are being a little hard on the United States. To start, most of us do not run around thinking we are better than everyone else. The vast majority of Americans believe they are equal to anyone else, in Canada or any other nation. Plus, I'm sure Canada also has wild fanatics who "run around as if they're fucking better than anyone else." Second, what is a slaver? If you mean slave owner, please stop making such stupid and groundless accusations. It is true that many of the members of the Continental Congress which wrote the Declaration of Independence were slave owners, but recall that this was an accepted practice at the time. To boot, what is your problem with equality? And to answer your "practice what we preach" accusation, I ask you to look at the United States today, not 200 years ago. You know, when you attack the United States for what it did more than 100 years ago, you sound like some kind of loser because you have nothing better to criticize.

You're elections, who knows if they are honest

They are. In fact, they are some of the most fair elections in the world. I challenge you to find evidence of dishonesty in our elections. Sure, there have been isolated incidents. But I'm sure there have been incidents in Canadian elections too. When you make accusations, please also make sure you have evidence to support them.

The USA is the most unfree first world country

You have ventured from the area of simple ignorance to the area of random, far-fetched, absolutely groundless accusations. Please tell me how we are the least free first-world nation. We do not watch every street corner in our cities. We guarantee the rights enumerated in our Constitution (please read about it before replying... you will learn something). I know the United States is not a perfect nation--none are--but it is certainly not the worst (even of the first world nations).

The politicians write the election boundaries to their advantage. Free speech is considered who ever has the money can bribe ctrl-w finance the politicians (for favours)

What you are attacking is not clear. It sounds like a SCO accusation to me. But to rebut the things I see here: politicians do not interfere with elections, period. It just does not happen. Also, free speech is respected and is not a pay-for thing. Before you wildly attack the United States' policies, please make sure you are attacking something worthwhile and that you have evidence to support you.

And you have millions of political prisoners

Where did you get that piece of shit? I ask you to prove it or offer credible evidence to that effect. So you think drug users are political prisoners. Remember, regardless of your opinion on the legalization of drugs, it is still against the law in the United States to be in possession of a controlled substance, and therefore we have every right to arrest drug users/dealers. Plus, what do you mean, they "only hurt Mr. Hearst"? If you mean they attacked politicians or the current administration, then what you are saying is just wrong. While it may be popular where you live to think that Bush arrests dissenters, it is simply not true (and the fact that I am posting is evidence).

If Americans were a little bit honest perhaps they would get some respect

The thing is that the vast majority are honest. Completely honest. I think that right here it is you not being honest. Seriously, since when have all Americans (or even most of them) been liars? Or perhaps are you using members of the current administration as a stereotype for all Americans? Let me tell you right now, flat out, that the American people appreciate

Re:Burden of Proof

[dryeo]

First I should apologize for posting when drinking and coming across harsher then I meant. Individually the Americans I have known have been nice people and though I have never lived in the US I have spent most of my life close enough to be heavily influenced by it.
Still I stand by most of what I said.
You're bill of rights seems to be broken all the time.
Free speech being limited to free speech zones doesn't sound very free.
You are right that I should of said slave owners but the point stands that it is very hypocritical for someone to own another person while preaching freedom.
In the present there is American government spying on its own citizens, talking about torture like it is fine. The enemy combatant thing, and a basic disrespect for Non Americans even though much of your Bill of Rights references people, not just citizens.
Not to mention that you haven't even given women the same rights as men. Compare the difference between a mans shirt falling of during the Superbowl compared to a woman. Equality includes some things that some people find distasteful.
Also remember that I was replying to an AC who did seem to think they are better then everyone else.

About the elections. Whether your elections are honest or not is unknown as your voting system now consists of a black box. Push button, get result. Hopefully they are honest but its not like you can watch the whole process as I can when voting here.
The huge amounts of money needed to run for office in the States creates the need for large campaign contributions which creates a large conflict of interest in your politicians about whether to serve their constituents or their financiers.
As for the politicians writing the election districts for their advantage, may I suggest checking out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Hemp after being renamed Marijuana (no one would of stood for illegalized one of the most useful crops) was illegalized due to the fact that a machine had been invented that allowed breaking the stalks to extract the fiber without back breaking labour. This opened up all kinds of possibilities like cheap good paper. At this time Hearst was just starting to push pulp paper after investing heavily in the process. To stop the competition he manipulated the government to start on the road to illegalizing hemp.
Laws were passed with very little notice. The American Medical Association just managed to show up to argue against the criminalization and the hemp farmers didn't even get a chance to show up. There were other factors at the time such as a large branch of the government not having anything to do due to alcohol now being legal. A puritan push to make anything illegal that people enjoyed. The fact that minorities used various drugs and of course DuPont pushing nylon for rope.
So you have laws being passed just to allow one industry to not have to compete. This is political and crimes created by this process are political crimes. Its not like hemp hurt anyone, at least not as much as lets say coffee or Aspirin which kills thousands of Americans a year.
And of course a political crime is still a crime on the books and just like China has the right to bust people for belonging to the wrong religion as it is against the law there so do you.
Your country does have an amazing percentage of its population in jail, of which a good number, though maybe slightly less then a million, are there rather directly or indirectly from the war on drugs. Indirectly including the problems caused by the artificial scarcity caused by the war on drugs.
Another thing about the drug laws down there is they totally ignore due process. You can get arrested for dealing drugs, the government can take all your belongings then they can drop the charges. A citizen is out of there house etc without any due process and now lots of police forces depend upon that money so it is politically expedient to keep certain laws on the books.

The dishonesty th

Re:Burden of Proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you get that piece of shit? I ask you to prove it or offer credible evidence to that effect. So you think drug users are political prisoners. Remember, regardless of your opinion on the legalization of drugs, it is still against the law in the United States to be in possession of a controlled substance, and therefore we have every right to arrest drug users/dealers. Really? That's the best you can come up with? What county isn't free, by that logic?

Re:Burden of Proof

[Checkmait]

OK, I think I'll apologize for being so harsh on you. I was replying directly to your ideas and not considering the above comment.

Our bill of rights is actually not broken quite as often as you think because much of the language is more reserved than the modern interpretation in the courts (privacy for example only references no search and seizure but today is construed to mean that the government cannot tap phones without a warrant, etc. (I agree b/c the Constitution should be flexible and adapt). Now on the topic of foreign prisoners and torture you have a point. I despise Bush as much as you do for that. But as for free speech, you were influenced too much by the Free Speech Zones article. It's not that restrictive here. Free speech zones are only employed for very large events where top security is paramount (like the inauguration of the President or a national political convention).

As for equality, remember that slavery ended about 140 years ago and exists in the United States to the same extent as it does in Canada (i.e. traffickers). As for men and women being unequal, that is bullshit. At least as far as I have seen, men and women are treated equally. The incident at the Superbowl simply has to do with a millenia-old tradition of clothing. It doesn't cause an uproar anywhere (in the first world) if men expose their upper body but it is at least looked down upon if women go around with an exposed upper body anywhere. It's just not done. What's different between the United States and Canada in that type of situation is not the ideals or the country, but the media reaction. Television ran that one for months, it was all we heard about on the radio for weeks. But little happened from a governmental point of view.

OK, on to the political issues. While the elections are a "black box" as you put it, this was done intentionally because in the early 20th century, big industrial bosses would send deputies to the elections to ensure their employees voted their way. Those who didn't were fired. Old-fashioned, perhaps, but the secret ballot is necessary to ensure fair elections. Also, I know about gerrymandering, but it's not as frequent as Wikipedia perhaps puts it. It does occur, but efforts are made to stop it and even when these fail, usually the congressman or congresswoman is put under scrutiny. As for politicians supporting financial backers and such, there is a law which prohibits any entity (corporation or private citizen) from contributing more than $50,000 to a candidate for any purpose. Believe me, this law is more than enforced by the legions of lawyers on either side of the fence ready to heap legal shame on the other side. Plus, even if ten directors of a megabucks company contribute $50,000 apiece, remember that they only get one vote each, and therefore ten total. The politician could care less about money (he/she cannot use it after the campaign) but instead about being elected. So in general, politicians will support their electorate, not their biggest backers.

As for marijuana, I will for the sake of argument accept your story (it seems a little far-fetched but I guess some of my ideas are too). However, despite the injustice of the law, it is still a law. And until it is not a law, it must be enforced. Otherwise the entire system of rule of law on which all democracies are based breaks down. I will also point out that hemp/marijuana/whatever you want to call it is dangerous and has hurt many people. It also has good uses, I accept that, but is also (too) easily abused. I will also have to disagree that it was a political law which banned hemp/marijuana... according to your story it was economic.

It is true that our country has a large portion of its population in jail but I do not know what to make of this. Many are drug offenders, but as explained above, we must enforce the law against hemp/marijuana while it is a law. As for police taking property away from drug offenders, I have never heard of that happening... could you provide an example of even one case

Re:Burden of Proof

[Checkmait]

China for starters... it has millions of people imprisoned for dissent or related crimes. The United States does not do this. The U.S. arrests drug users because there is a very clear law which bans drugs such as marijuana or cocaine. The difference I suppose between a law in China and a law here is that the legal process is transparent and also there is the rule of law.

Re:Burden of Proof

[dryeo]

I think your Bill of Rights is about as effective as ours. The government creates exceptions and work arounds of which the free speech zones are one example. Here hate speech is another example. What gets me is certain Americans who rant and rave about the first amendment like it is perfect with no exceptions.
Also you are right about problems from the fact that it is a 200 yr old document compared to ours being about 25 yrs old.
Still our supreme court has interpreted parts much wider than written, eg the search and seizure provision being a general right to privacy to the point where it is illegal to out source certain programs to the USA as your corporations are not held to the same standards, things like selling info on customers.
Just get mad when certain Americans act like your Bill of Rights is perfect and the government follows it without exception.

As for topless women, in the summer it is not that rare to actually see one around here walking down the road or riding her bike though it is still rare enough to get mentioned. More common on the beach of course. I also understand that in some states women have the same freedom. NY being one IIRC.
To show the culture differences between Canada and the USA the CRTC (Canadian FCC) got quite a few complaints about that Superbowl halftime. Not one was about Janet's boob, instead it was a beer commercial that some people considered racist.

As for the political issues, what I meant by black box was not the secret ballot which I think is needed for democracy to function but the mysterious voting machines which act like a black box. One never really knows if they are counting votes honestly or not and it is that not knowing that I find questionable. Here I can show up at the polling station in the morning, watch the empty ballot boxes being unloaded and verify they are empty. Stand around all day watching the voting procedure and also watch the counting procedure and every major political party does have representatives watching. Even though minor cheating is most likely still possible by eg getting on the voting list more than once generally there is no question about the elections. Also generally we only vote on one thing at a time so the people are more likely to be informed compared to you where the ballot can easily be multi page with everyone from the President down to the dog catcher being decided at once.
Also $50000 is quite a bit of money to me and $49000 more then is legal here. It seems quite a few laws are passed in the States where it seems to benefit some corporation more then the populace.

As for Marijuana I think we should agree to agree to disagree about harm that it causes. Still I don't see how you could argue that hemp that is very low in THC should be treated the same as Marijuana yet try buying some hemp product down there. Blue jeans being one example.
As for the seizure of assets, it does seem to be getting better down there but here are a couple of examples, though about money more than homes.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drug s/special/forfeiture.html
http://www.the-dispatch.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20060927/NEWS/609270339/1005/news
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-ameri ca.html
and of course a google search shows many more though as I said it seems to of gotten better since the '90s.
The history of prohibition is quite interesting. A couple of points. The constitution had to be amended to prohibit alcohol so under that reasoning any other Federal prohibition laws would also need constitutional amendments to be legal.
Chocolate came very close to also being prohibited around the turn of the last century. Chocolate has also been being bred for

Re:Burden of Proof

[Checkmait]

While there are occasionally violations of the 1st Amendment, free speech zones are not one. The First Amendment says nothing about where but only says that the government may not limit when, how, or what provided that the content does not advocate such things as the violent overthrow of the United States government (overthrow is acceptable but not violent overthrow). Plus, as I stressed earlier, free speech zones are only used for truly major events. Regular demonstrations on Pennsylvania Ave or in other major cities are not contained in this manner unless there is a major event going on where hecklers might be a security issue (when it might threaten an important official's personal safety). As for the Bill of Rights being perfect, I say that imperfection is one of the founding principles of democracy. Utopian systems like communism or socialism don't work very well in most cases (exception: Sweden has done all right as a socialist nation) but democracy, by ensuring that at least a majority are contented, will be inherently imperfect. Therefore, its governing documents are imperfect. I agree with you that the fanatics who proclaim that America or the Constitution is perfect should get a life, but I would defend the point of view that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are a good start and are not fundamentally flawed.

I'll pass on the nudity issue--I think we should agree to disagree just as on the drugs.

The elections are somewhat of a black box, but as in Canada, party representatives are allowed to be there to watch. Also, if you can look at it this way, imagine, for the sake of argument, that in one precinct/district, the voting machines were incorrectly registering all Democratic votes as Republican votes. Chances are that similar errors are occurring elsewhere (though this is no substitute). But in the end things should balance, and chances are that errors are not much more common than anywhere else. Also, as a rule, national elections are for one thing at a time as well here and the only time we have multiple votes being cast at once is each year in November when local issues are decided (like tax referendums for example).

About the maximum campaign donation, if it could be reduced to $10000 or $5000 that would be wonderful, though I think $1000 is a little extreme. But even with a $50000 cap, candidates do not simply follow the wishes of their financiers. The laws which benefit businesses versus people are not motivated by money but instead by party lines. As a rule (though this is not 100% true) the Republican Party favors business over individuals because they believe that it is businesses which drive the economy. The Democrats, on the other hand, believe that consumers drive the economy. That is where you get the pro-business (or pro-consumer) laws from.

I read those articles on forfeitures and I am shocked. I did not know about those previously... time to do some research! But I agree fully that any seizures before someone has been convicted (in criminal cases) or found responsible (in civil cases) is a violation of the Fourth Amendment which prohibits unwarranted search and seizure.

On to drugs and alcohol. I'll only say that the reason the Constitution was amended for alcohol was that any federal law banning alcohol would be unconstitutional because the federal government has no right granted in the Constitution to ban alcohol. However, for drugs, I think the difference is that practically no one smoked marijuana (in present form or quantity) but instead smoked tobacco so there was little true resistance to a ban on marijuana. These days, that ban is heavily challenged in the courts and now California has a law which legalizes marijuana for medical purposes (of course unconstitutional but it is symbolic).

I say that only the Bush administration violates the principle because while we did indeed intervene in Latin America (not something to be proud of), in those days, anyone fighting a communist was fighting for "freedom." I accept that in 20/20 hi

Anyone who owns a copyright?

[nietsch]

Copyright is by default AFAIK, so anyone who has ever written some original text is exempt from this proposed law? So actually they wish to neuter this law?

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[snarkh]

Perhaps you can read the article?

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably mean a registered copyright for a published work. So you publish a PHP script, register the copyright and are then immune from prosecution for using fraudulent credentials to gain information relating to suspected use of the script by the MAFIAA. Endless fun to be had using social engineering to gain wide ranging information on the MAFIAA, their employees and contractors... or anyone else for that matter.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[tomhudson]

FTFA"

The trade group asked that any owner of a copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret be able to use "pretexting or other investigative techniques to obtain personal information about a customer or employee" when seeking to enforce intellectual property rights.

So they DO want everyone who's a copyright owner (which includes anyone who's ever written anything original) to be exempt. If this passes, you can pretext them on the "pretext" that you're looking for any evidence of them infringing, say, your copyright on your slashdot posts.

Also:

Basically, we want criminals to feel comfortable that who they're dealing with is probably some other criminal and let us in on what's going on," said Brad Buckles, the RIAA's executive vice president for anti-piracy.

Can't argue with the RIAA calling themselves a bunch of criminals ... its truth in advertising.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Give me your name and address and I'll send you a free information booklet on this fascinating legal subject.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

"They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting." Actually that was just an error by the lawyers. They really only want to have the right for pretexting given solely to them. As you can see in this flowchart, it fits in the area where they want to lobby Congress for stronger laws (read stronger laws and additional government enforced corporate privileges like the DMCA). This helps prevent them from having to pray for someone to cave from an extortion letter when they could easily make something up with their extra privileges and sue them outright (not that they don't do that anyways).

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[blackcoot]

it's not so much pretexting as government sanctioned fraud as far as i can tell.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

Virtually every american citizen holds a copyright. Did your 2 year old draw a smiley face with a crayon? BAM, it's copyrighted.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[Dun Malg]

Well, exactly. For a mere $45, you too can receive a License to Pretext.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[lessthanjakejohn]

Why would you need to register? Isn't anything that gets written down or produced already protected under copyright laws?

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[value_added]

Can't argue with the RIAA calling themselves a bunch of criminals ... its truth in advertising.

Our chief weapon is suprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... and pretexting?

I'll come in again.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[HiThere]

Wouldn't breaking and entering come under "other investigation techniques"?

That seems to give anyone who has ever written something a rather extensive blank check. It's not just pretexting.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

1. It shouldn't be, and the sooner we can get back to the traditional system, the better.
2. Even now, the protection is pretty poor if you don't register. This is a good thing: if an author doesn't care enough about his own work to register, why should we care enough about it to give it full, or any, protection? The author is the best judge of whether the work should be protected.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[zotz]

Bingo! That's what I was here to post.

Unless they propose to limit it to only those with registered copyrights. So for about thirty dollars (I think that is the last amount I read) you can get yourself exempted from this law? That is what is wanted?

all the best,

drew

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[epee1221]

This is a good thing: if an author doesn't care enough about his own work to register, why should we care enough about it to give it full, or any, protection?

I'm fine with this as long as the fee stays low.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[dryeo]

[sarcasm] Thats right. Shouldn't I have the right to break in to your house and seize your computer (don't worry, you'll get it back in 10 or perhaps 12 years) to examine your swap file to make sure you didn't infringe on my copyright on this post. Who knows, you might of quoted it in a reply
[/sarcasm]

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

to obtain personal information about a customer or employee Since they are claiming to go after people stealing music, why do they need this hole in the law information about customers or employees?

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

Yes, it basically just needs to be a token indicating an interest by the author. The Copyright Office, like the Patent and Trademark Office, should not be self-supporting. Promoting the progress of science and the useful arts is not hindered by drawing upon the government's general fund, but can be hindered if there is too great a bar for authors and inventors, rather than just enough of one. (I suppose the Trademark Division of the PTO could be self-supporting; they don't promote anything, but are simply engaged in commercial regulation. But I don't see that they absolutely must be, either.)

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[tomhudson]

Employees: This way, they can't be sued for criminal trespass or running afoul of PATRIOT when they access corporate computers.

Customers: The standard defense is that you own a CD of the music or downloaded it legitimately - so you're a "customer", so they now claim the right to snoop in your private life.

Sort of like SCO - "contracts are what you use against your partners."

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[snarkh]

> Can't argue with the RIAA calling themselves a bunch of criminals ... its truth in advertising.

Indeed ;)

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. It shouldn't be, and the sooner we can get back to the traditional system, the better.

What "traditional system"? You're not suggesting that copies of every draft of every document and every element of every creative work be deposited at a modern day equivalent of the stationers office? That's a totally insane opinion, even for an IP extremist like yourself. There was a recent proposal by the British library that all UK web sites be archived. It may have been well intended but was nonetheless laughed out of technology and publishing circles - with good reason.

2. Even now, the protection is pretty poor if you don't register. This is a good thing: if an author doesn't care enough about his own work to register, why should we care enough about it to give it full, or any, protection? The author is the best judge of whether the work should be protected.

In the US it's common to register a copyright prior to commencing legal proceedings. There's no actual requirement to do so, there should not be and in any case; a central registry would be so unworkable as to undermine copyright law.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright?

[cpt kangarooski]

What "traditional system"?

Some means of registration has been standard for copyright law ever since the very first copyright law, the Statute of Anne, from England in 1710. The first federal copyright law enacted by the then-new United States under the then-new Constitution, was the 1790 Copyright Act, and it granted nationwide copyrights from the date of registration; if you didn't or couldn't register, then you didn't get a US copyright. And that's been how the United States worked until the disastrous 1976 Copyright Act, which is still in force today.

So I'd say the traditional system of which I speak is the entirety of US copyright law for nearly two centuries, with strong influences going back another 80 years.

You're not suggesting that copies of every draft of every document and every element of every creative work be deposited at a modern day equivalent of the stationers office?

No, of course not; that would be nice from an archival point of view, but ultimately silly.

I am suggesting that for every copyrightable creative work for which a copyright is sought, a registration would have to be made, along with a deposit of the entire work. I think that the final form of the work, that is, the form in which it is published or otherwise made publicly known, would be sufficient. In some cases, supplemental information would be required in order that the work would materially and meaningfully be available to the public, particularly looking forward to its entry into the public domain. For example, for a compiled computer program, reasonably well-commented source and notes on the compilers and platforms used would be required so that 1) people could study the source, just as they can study a book, to glean the unprotected ideas from it, and 2) people could reasonably easily alter the program when it entered the public domain (or before if an applicable exception applied).

While it would be nice to get the drafts that were used to create the published work, I think that it would be best to let the drafts fall under the copyright for the published work, without needing to deposit them as well, so long as they were unpublished. If they were published, it would be important to get a deposit and probably a supplemental registration. I don't think that it would be appropriate to extend the term, or to grant a whole new term to the drafts as if they were a separate work, but I don't have strong feelings on that, and I'd be glad to discuss it.

That's a totally insane opinion, even for an IP extremist like yourself.

I have only two things to say to that. First, not only is it not insane, but mandatory registration and deposit were central to US copyright law for a very long time, and to some degree even survived the craptastic 1976 Act for a while. Second, I'm not an "IP extremist." I would describe myself as a moderate. I am interested only in reform to the extent that that reform would maximally serve the public interest. I have no desire to tear anything down just for the hell of it. But I also have no tolerance for abuses of the public, which are sadly commonplace today.

There was a recent proposal by the British library that all UK web sites be archived. It may have been well intended but was nonetheless laughed out of technology and publishing circles - with good reason.

There is no good reason whatsoever, and I support the proposal. A website is no different from anything else. Newspapers that printed two, and sometimes three editions a day had no difficulties with registration and deposit if they wanted a copyright. Website authors would have no difficulty either. If they were unwilling to bother, then we should be unwilling to grant them a copyright. Copyright is, after all, a quid pro quo system. It's not as though it would be particularly difficult for the site authors, and I would strongly support the creation by the Copyright Office of automated methods of submitting the updated sites, paperwork, billing, etc.

I

Anyone who owns a copyright?

[jakosc]

So I since I own the copyright to this post, I should be free of restrictions against pretexting?

"They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting."

From www.copyright.gov Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

As a representitive of all the people of the US...

[SaidinUnleashed]

...let me be the first to say, "Umm, no."

Let us call it what it IS

[zoomshorts]

FRAUD.

Re:Let us call it what it IS

[Artifakt]

Exactly!

To all you peple who have been argueing that copyright violation is theft, and saying all those 'clever' things about how the people who oppose the RIAA really merely want to steal copies, etc. - By your own logic, the RIAA is now obviously and openly a criminal organization, that wants to commit FRAUD with impunity, and so ALL of you who support it are also Liars, Cheats, Con-artists, Carney Shills, and most of all, FELONS. No-good, Criminal, Scum! You cons all deserve the chair, if we can figure out how to get your high horses in there under you.
Let's call it waht it IS! Let's call ALL the criminals what they ARE!

Re:Let us call it what it IS

[pipingguy]

You cons all deserve the chair

Clever use of language in this forum. Did you really mean, "fry" though?

Re:Let us call it what it IS

[DeadChobi]

...let me get this straight; you want everyone who isn't as nitpicky as you are to die? You're putting a lot of words in our mouths with your first statement.

Also I'm having trouble understanding you what with all the ranting.

Almost everyone owns copyrights

[saterdaies]

I own tonnes of copyrights myself. In fact, any creative, original work is automatically copyrighted by the author. So, even this comment here could qualify as a copyright that I own. Never mind the many web sites that I've created for myself (personal, non-commercial stuff, but it's still a copyright).

The biggest problem with this proposed exemption (other than giving evil organizations an out) is that it is an exemption that EVERYONE can take advantage of. Any scammer who wanted to pretext could simply pen a short haiku and then be considered a copyright owner.

Re:Almost everyone owns copyrights

[El Torico]

Proposed amendment
Allows them to trick others
Merely pretexting

© 2007 El Torico

Re:Almost everyone owns copyrights

[Jarn_Firebrand]

Haikus can be fun
But sometimes they don't make sense
Refrigerator

trade secret

[Speare]

Any case involving "Copyright, Patent, Trademark or Trade Secret"?

Wasn't the whole HP thing about the leaking of trade secrets? Wasn't the whole HP thing the inspiration for this long-overdue-but-should-never-have-been-necessary legislation in the first place?

Re:trade secret

[Anonymous Coward]

ding ding ding- where's the +1000, everyone must read this moderation?

Re:trade secret

[BobSutan]

If it was, it doesn't have much bite. Dunn and her cohorts got off without so much as a trial. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Patricia+Dunn %2C+no+jail+time

Re:trade secret

[prelelat]

I haven't read too much into the case, but do you think that might have something to do with the fact the bill that the RIAA and MPAA are trying to influence deals with this and at the time Dunn and her cohorts were caught pretexing it wasn't finished?

This bill could stand to make future people like Dunn face more penatlies than they did. The RIAA and MPAA want to get past that, but then where do you draw the line? Groups outside of government agencies should not have this kind of power. It seems more and more that the RIAA and MPAA want to become a branch of the government so that they can do what they want to find the evil pirates. It seems pretty lame when you look at it as a whole. I copied that floppy now I'm being chased through the streets, taken to court, sued, having my privacy violated, and being entraped, while billy just stole a piece of bubble gum and is getting a lecture from the store owner and his parents. That seems fair.

I.e. Make the legislation worthless

[dghcasp]

... They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting.

Since copyright is attached at the moment of creation, anyone who has ever written a letter, blog post, or even a comment on slashdot owns a copyright.

In other words, "everyone should be exempt from this legislation, except possibly pets."

Re:I.e. Make the legislation worthless

[denmarkw00t]

except possibly pets

Actually, my dog's shit coils in a very artistic way - he must have 60 copyrights for whats in the back yard

Re:I.e. Make the legislation worthless

[JordanL]

I don't know, I'm pretty sure my pet has left some copyrighted material on par with RIAA's in the back yard from time to time...

Pretexting?

[OpenGLFan]

Pretexting? What's that?
Pretexting is the practice of pretending to be someone else in order to obtain personal information on a person, such as telephone or banking records.
Ohh. You mean wire fraud .

Nope. We'll keep that illegal, thanks.

Re:Pretexting?

[jovetoo]

The wikipedia article says:

... any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, ...

IANAL, but that does not seem to include personal information.

Re:Pretexting?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get to make that decision. Thank you for your input.

Signed,
Your Public Servants

Re:Pretexting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Ohh. You mean wire fraud.

Uh, no.

From your own link, wire-fraud necessarily includes, "to defraud, or for obtaining money or property." The MAFIAA do not claim to want to do any of those, only to get the information so as to further their actions in court.

Re:Pretexting?

[OakLEE]

No, wire fraud requires as one of its elements, that the perpetrator be using deception to "obtain[] money or property." Pretexting, while related to wire fraud, encompasses the broader act of obtaining information through deception. I understand your sentiments, but do not call this something it is not.

Re:Pretexting?

[pipingguy]

In order to confuse the maximum amount of unsophisticated people, use acronyms as much as possible. Is that good to go?

Re:Pretexting?

[LordNimon]

I believe that my personal information should be my property.

Re:Pretexting?

[TheSkyIsPurple]

But these are the folks that argue for intellectual property. My information could easily fall under "intellectual property".

Re:Pretexting?

[Wordplay]

And why does someone sue in court for copyright infringement? To obtain money or property.

I agree with the OP's interpretation.

Re:Pretexting?

[Rob the Bold]

From your own link, wire-fraud necessarily includes, "to defraud, or for obtaining money or property."

Note the 'or' in the phrase. They could be seeking just to defraud. And "defraud", according to the dictionary, is "to deprive of a right, money, or property by fraud". So the losses could be rights, such as protection from self incrimination, or the security of ones papers and effects, that were being deprived by fraud.

Re:Pretexting?

[pallmall1]

From your own link, wire-fraud necessarily includes, "to defraud, or for obtaining money or property." The MAFIAA do not claim to want to do any of those, only to get the information so as to further their actions in court.

Oh, you mean those RIAA letters aren't asking for real money?

Re:Pretexting?

[Eudial]

Uh, no.

From your own link, wire-fraud necessarily includes, "to defraud, or for obtaining money or property." The MAFIAA do not claim to want to do any of those, only to get the information so as to further their actions in court.

Maybe not directly, but if you look at the bigger picture:

1. Obtain evidence against copyright violators through "pretexting"
2. Sue copyright violators
(2½. ???)
3. Profit!

Re:Pretexting?

[xigxag]

The MAFIAA do not claim to want to do any of those, only to get the information so as to further their actions in court.

True, but at least arguably, "information" is a form of property. At least, that's what the RIAA & MPAA have been trying to get us to accept for years, so if it's true for their "intellectual property", it ought to be true for mine. And in the alternative, then vice-versa. :P

Here's a scholarly article on the subject

Re:Pretexting?

[dangitman]

Pretexting? What's that?

Pretexting is what happens when pre-pubescent pre-teens use mobile phones.

Re:Pretexting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So the losses could be rights, such as protection from self incrimination, or the security of ones papers and effects, that were being deprived by fraud.

Get real, the term "rights" when used in conjunction with fraud has a very narrow definition, neither of your examples fit it.

The defrauding of rights is know as extrinsic fraud which is specificly:

n. fraudulent acts which keep a person from obtaining information about his/her rights to enforce a contract or getting evidence to defend against a lawsuit. This could include destroying evidence or misleading an ignorant person about the right to sue. Extrinsic fraud is distinguished from "intrinsic fraud," which is the fraud that is the subject of a lawsuit.

Re:Pretexting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

But these are the folks that argue for intellectual property. My information could easily fall under "intellectual property".

Not in the USA. Because if it did, we would have already had tens of thousands of successful lawsuits over it.
Until there is at least some precedent for it, that argument won't fly.

Re:Pretexting?

[cpt kangarooski]

There won't be. Feist is a Supreme Court case which pretty strongly holds that facts (such as a person's name, address, phone number, and other personal information) are never copyrightable, because they fail to meet the Constitutional requirements for copyrightability.

Re:Pretexting?

[rohan972]

... any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, ...

IANAL, but that does not seem to include personal information.

If personal information gets sold, does that not make it property?

Re:Pretexting?

[Znork]

"Until there is at least some precedent for it, that argument won't fly."

Best argument would probably come from the defrauded party, ie, the phone carrier or ISP. Their customer records certainly hold value and tricking their employees into inappropriately divulging sensitive information and violating privacy policies can certainly be considered harm.

Re:Pretexting?

[ultranova]

From your own link, wire-fraud necessarily includes, "to defraud, or for obtaining money or property." The MAFIAA do not claim to want to do any of those, only to get the information so as to further their actions in court.

And what is the purpose of these actions ? To obtain money, either directly from the case at hand or by making an example of the poor bastard being accused and therefore helping with the MAFIAA's extortion efforts on out-of-court settlements of innocent people.

But anyway, it is unquestionably lying, so let's just use that word from now on.

Re:Pretexting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And what is the purpose of these actions ? To obtain money, either directly from the case at hand or by making an example of the poor bastard being accused and therefore helping with the MAFIAA's extortion efforts on out-of-court settlements of innocent people.

All of which are LEGAL activities.

But anyway, it is unquestionably lying, so let's just use that word from now on.

And lying is a perfectly legal activity when it is not done to further a crime.

Re:Pretexting?

[SillyNickName4me]

If personal information gets sold, does that not make it property?

No, it is information. That it has a certain value to certain people or organisations doesn't change that at all.

That you should be in control of this information is something I can agree with. Its why in the EU there are rather strict rules on recording and using personal information, something which especially (but not exclusively) companies from the USA run into quite often, they are not allowed to do the same collect and then use-sell for any purpose tactics on personal information that they seem used to.

(and no, laws don't prevent this problem completely, btu they do reduce it and give people a chance to cause serious disadvantage for any company trying this)

Re:Pretexting?

[SillyNickName4me]

All of which are LEGAL activities.

And so is me transfering money to another person. It might however become a legal issue still depending on why I transfered that money, whom I transfered it to, and what they are going to use it for.

And lying is a perfectly legal activity when it is not done to further a crime.

Try that one when giving a testimony under oath. Even if what you lied about has no relevance to the case at hand, does not further any crimes or anything, it is still punishable. There are many more cases where lying has been made explicitly illegal.

The fact that lying in general isn't illegal is because usually it is too small an issue to deal with it by law, and most cases of lying are better dealt with by parents or employers or such.

Arguing that lying in itself is not illegal is fine from a technical point of view, but you may want to think about the consequences of allowing lying EXPLICITLY by law.

Re:Pretexting?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And so is me transfering money to another person. It might however become a legal issue still depending on why I transfered that money, whom I transfered it to, and what they are going to use it for.

Are you trying to misunderstand the nature of what is going on here? Assuming there is no fraud in court, anything of the results that occur there are by definition legal. Giving someone money without any other oversight ain't even in the same ballpark.

Try that one when giving a testimony under oath.

That's called perjury and is already a crime - see my point about furtherance of a crime.

The fact that lying in general isn't illegal is because usually it is too small an issue to deal with it by law

Read what you wrote, then think about it long and hard. The reason lying is not a crime has nothing to do with it being "too small of an issue" it is because we live in a free society where anything not prohibited is permitted. You write from the point of view that anything not permitted is prohibited.

Arguing that lying in itself is not illegal is fine from a technical point of view, but you may want to think about the consequences of allowing lying EXPLICITLY by law.

That is not what is going on here. There is a law being debated that would outlaw specific sorts of lying. It isn't about creating a specific right, it is about taking that right away from all but a select group.

Re:Pretexting?

[SillyNickName4me]

Are you trying to misunderstand the nature of what is going on here? Assuming there is no fraud in court, anything of the results that occur there are by definition legal. Giving someone money without any other oversight ain't even in the same ballpark.

No, I am not misunderstandign what you were saying, but I am pointing out the seemingly unwelcome fact that you can do completely legal things for a not very legal purpose. The legality of your actions is not the only factor that is important, the context and consequences are as important.

That's called perjury and is already a crime - see my point about furtherance of a crime.

It is a crime, no doubt about that. It is also a specific case of lying being a crime.

Read what you wrote, then think about it long and hard. The reason lying is not a crime has nothing to do with it being "too small of an issue" it is because we live in a free society where anything not prohibited is permitted. You write from the point of view that anything not permitted is prohibited.

No, I write from the point of view that there are few if any societies on this planet that consider lying to be a decent and acceptable thing to do. It is however not such a big issue usually that we need laws to deal with it in most cases, unlike for example murder.

You however seem to be reasoning like a lawyer wanting the letter of the law implemented regardless of why that law exists.

That is not what is going on here. There is a law being debated that would outlaw specific sorts of lying. It isn't about creating a specific right, it is about taking that right away from all but a select group.

Are you being dense on purpose here?

Creating a law that forbids a specific kind of lying except for this and that specific case IS explicitly allowing lying in those specific cases.

That may be an unwelcome way of looking at it, but it is definitely a valid way of lookign at it, if you want to try to invalidate it, come up with an argument as to why it is not valid.

You make a nice theoretical argument from the "everything is permitted unless it is forbidden by law" point of view, but you seem to completely ignore the reasons for laws existing, as well as the actual consequences of this proposed law.

The law is the law for a reason. If the reason turns out to be bogus or no longer valid, then that removes the validity of the law.

Re:Pretexting?

[rohan972]

No, it is information. That it has a certain value to certain people or organisations doesn't change that at all.

good answer

If it walks like a duck...

[MollyB]

From TFA:
"Basically, we want criminals to feel comfortable that who they're dealing with is probably some other criminal and let us in on what's going on," said Brad Buckles, the RIAA's executive vice president for anti-piracy.

I think the word "other" in the preceding should have been given the emphasis. What these clowns want to do is play a criminal in real life, but not be accountable for it. Disgusting, IMO.

Don't they already do it?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I mean, sure they don't get names and addresses directly, but when the **AAs put files up on P2P called "madonna.mp3" or "dirty_dancing.avi", let people download them (often dud files but hey, it's the name that counts), log IPs of people who downloaded them and pressure ISPs to disclose whose computers these IPs were at the time of the d/l, isn't this baiting people? IANAL, but I would think it's just as crass and illegal as outright pretexting.

Re:Don't they already do it?

[Lumpy]

you know what though, they even suck at that. Most people that are big into the "scene" can spot the crap quite easily. the big release guys have a specific pattern to their file names and setup and the RIAA/MPAA shills that try and poison the files are not smart enough to see the patterns.

It really easy to spot their crap and avoid it. The ony ones that get caught are the kiddies that download everything in sight and dont have the IQ to clean up their shared folder (most dont even know that they have a shared folder) coupled with guys that compile lists of ip address blocks to blacklist and they are going to do nothing but lose. They will never catch the big time guys as they know what to look for and how to deal with it. Hell the biggest trend right now is to have the files rar packed just to screw with them. I've seen 7z packing showing up as well to throw off the sniffers.

These companies are simply lobbying to have the right to commit wire fraud. And if it passes this sill be complete and irrefutable proof that the US government is completely and utterly corrupt.

Re:Don't they already do it?

[HomelessInLaJolla]

We already have complete and irrefutable proof that the federal government is completely and utterly corrupt, less so but still applicable to state level governments.

More fuel for the fire is always welcome.

Re:Don't they already do it?

[sumdumass]

Could I use the defense that the fucking RIAA put the files there, why was I supposed to know I couldn't do it?

I wonder if this would pan out in court.

Judge: how do you plead in the charges of illegaly downloading and distributing copyrighted materials.

ME: no guilty your honor.

Judge: would the prosecution like to present their evidence.

RIAA: we put these files on a program designed to share songs videos and other files and this program automatically re-shares the files when you down load them. We noticed this person downloaded these files and we logged the information necessary to track him down

Me: Your honor, if they placed the stuff in a program that they understand to operate in this fasion, doesn't that imply they gave consent to download and redistribute?

Judge: Umm.. case dismissed.

If only it were true..lol

Re:Don't they already do it?

[kimvette]

Actually, in that case, the legal copyright holder or an authorised agent is offering the song for free download. They have no ethical nor moral basis to sue people for downloading the files that they are offering for free. You can countersue them, and possibly charge them with fraud.

Better option? Ignore the RIAA entirely. Look to other avenues for your entertainment.

Re:Don't they already do it?

[vux984]

They actually invariably sue you for distributing the files back INTO the network, arguing not that you infringed on their work by downloading a copy, but rather that you infringed on their work by distributing it.

P2P "Leeches" are actually relatively safe from prosecution at this point in time. The RIAA is generally focussed on people re-distributing. (If they can kill distribution the leeches die off... if only leeches are left there is no content to leech.)

Thus its a more effective strategy.

Plus it dodges the issue of people who might actually already have the CD. Downloading a song you own on CD is *probably* legal -- but distributing a song *isn't* regardless of whether or not you bought the CD or not.

Re:Don't they already do it?

[Checkmait]

Well, if they do indeed put up these files on P2P, then they ought to be paying fines to artists for improper use of name (as in madonna.mp3) and they should be sued by whomever for using P2P software. After all, they are the proponents of the theory that having a BitTorrent client means that you illegally download music/videos, so clearly by posting....

I don't know why they bother with fancy names. It's kind of like former East Germany... it was the German Democratic Republic but everyone knew there was no inkling of republic or democracy about it. They should just ask for permission to falsify, lie, cheat, steal, and so on.

This post is copyright

[earthforce_1]

Therefore I claim an exemption under the law to pretext whenever I damned well feel like it.

HP and this law

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason why this bill was created from the fall out of the HP board issue. Where the PIs used pretexting to figure out which board memory was leaking information. Now isn't that the same as what RIAA & MPAA want to do? I think so. Guess RIAA/MPAA, HP style of pretexting to be legal.

Deep cover investigations continue

[LiquidCoooled]

Deep cover investigations continue for the relevant people

ie the police.

If they want to start playing private detective treating some cookie stealing as a hangable offence then I hope they get caught and sentenced for the fraudulent methods they use.

Re:Deep cover investigations continue

[ultranova]

If they want to start playing private detective treating some cookie stealing as a hangable offence then I hope they get caught and sentenced for the fraudulent methods they use.

Since they only screw people poorer than themselves I'd say that they're quite safe from any retaliation. They are, after all, the modern aristocracy; what could the peasants possibly do against them ?

Re:Deep cover investigations continue

[SillyNickName4me]

France, 1798 or thereabout..

The Would Have Exempted HP

[Benedick]

Remember the big stink about the HP board hiring people who used pretexting to investigate board leaks? Wanna bet HP might have a couple of copyrights and patents? This little exemption the RIAA wants would mean HP was exempt from fraud for that.

One step further: Probably all large corporations hold copyrights and patents. Does this mean they should all be exempt from fraud charges? Oh, wow, is this a bad, bad idea! I sure hope congress is smarter than this.

Re:The Would Have Exempted HP

[pipingguy]

When will I finally be able to buy a new HP-11c calculator? Millions of RPN-loving engineers also ask the same question.

Law on the Fritz...

[Speare]

This reminds me of Senator Fritz "representing Hollywood from afar" Hollings, and his attempt at legalizing vigilante destruction of alleged infringers' machines. Wouldn't it be nice if the representatives represented people, not industries? Bah, what am I saying... the check(books) and (account) balances of Democracy will fix that.

Re:Law on the Fritz...

[ScrewMaster]

Orrin Hatch made similar commentary, that it should be legal to destroy the computers of copyright infringers. If I were from his home state that one comment would have lost him my vote.

Re:Law on the Fritz...

[pallmall1]

Orrin Hatch made similar commentary, that it should be legal to destroy the computers of copyright infringers.

Orrin's son Brent is an attorney for the infamous SCO, which would mean that if Orrin and Brent got their way, all computers running linux could be legally destroyed.

What??!? This is way too slipperly slope

[Servo]

1)

"Pretexting" aka social engineering aka phishing aka identify theft. RIAA/MPAA should be treated like the criminals they are.

2)

Wouldn't it make it easier for anyone to legally commit "pretexting" by simply filing a copyright or patent? Seems like a legal loophole like this would give too much leeway to would-be professional identity thieves who already out there today.

Actually, no I can't

[nietsch]

Somehow firefox on my Ubuntu laptop keeps crashing on that page, Xorg is claiming gecko did something illegal. Maybe it's in fact firefox pretextting to be gecko?

(yes I know the rendering engine Gecko is part of firefox...)

I love lawyers and their doublespeak

[Anonymous Coward]

pretext is when a company or a private investigator or police commits fraud to gain information.

Sorry, it needs to be called what it really is. the MPAA and RIAA are looking for the government to give them the right to commit fraud.

this pretext bullshit is proof that lawyers are complete and utter scumbags.

Re:I love lawyers and their doublespeak

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

this pretext bullshit is proof that lawyers are complete and utter scumbags.

No, it's worse: the very fact that scumbag lawyers are even trying to get this exemption proves that they feel they have a chance to get it, which says a lot about the incompetence and/or corruption of the legislators. That alone is sad and worrying.

This should be proof enough

[zappepcs]

for anyone to see that the **AA are purely criminal in nature. What they can't get away with in the courts they are now asking for permission to break the law, or be exempt from it.

Since it would be illegal, never mind impractical, killing off the **AA is not an option. I wish it was easy enough to simply boycott them out of existence. Perhaps this kind of move by the **AA will lead to a boycott that does really hurt them. I hope so.

Re:This should be proof enough

[pak9rabid]

Maybe if enough of us come together (with money), we could get the real mafia to 'take care' of them for us =D

Re:This should be proof enough

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

The RIAA is asking to be exempt from the law. The legislators haven't finished writing that bill...

So now...

[Anonymous Coward]

So now the RIAA and the MPAA want to actually pose as me and download music and movies, so that they can sue me?

In other news...

[CharonX]

The RIAA and MPAA have been lobbying for a bill that would allow them to shoot people, whom they suspect of being so-called pirates, on sight.
They promise they would never shoot innocent people, and in fact, added that being shot by a RIMPAA anti-piracy squad is actually proof that the target was a pirate.

Re:In other news...

[zCyl]

They promise they would never shoot innocent people, and in fact, added that being shot by a RIMPAA anti-piracy squad is actually proof that the target was a pirate.

It's not like they would shoot people without warning. I'm sure they would first give people an offer they can't refuse.

WTB Worthless Legislation?

[neverpsyked]

They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting.

IANAL, but wouldn't this pretty much make the bill in question completely worthless? I'm thinking that companies like HP, Microsoft, etc. would be exempt if the **AA gets what they're asking for here.

Fascist mentality and methods

[A beautiful mind]

This is what the RIAA has and demands. It is one thing to harass people with lawsuits and it is other to demand special powers for themselves to enforce their own interests. This is akin to the difference between a rich individual saying very stupid things and using the law to his own advantage and this.

Oh that's good logic.

[Tokerat]

When it comes to capturing murderers, rapists, druglords, and pedophiles, the government has decided that this method has too much potential for misuse, even in cases of good intent. ...but the RIAA feels it's ok to use it for something as minor as copyright infringement? A prefect example of what is wrong with this world. Rampant fucking greed.

Re:Oh that's good logic.

[sconeu]

When it comes to capturing murderers, rapists, druglords, and pedophiles,

<SARCASM>
Hey, only people are hurt by them. When it comes to [alleged] copyright infringement, *CORPORATION* might be losing money! Get your priorities straight!!!!
</SARCASM>

Re:Oh that's good logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to capturing murderers, rapists, druglords, and pedophiles, the government has decided that this method has too much potential for misuse, even in cases of good intent. Um, the idea is to make unsanctioned pretexting illegal. This doesn't impact the ability of law enforcement to exercise warrants, subpoenas, etc etc.

Re:Oh that's good logic.

[DavidTC]

The point is pretexting is illegal for the police in investigating, say, a rape. And the police have lots of oversight, both internal and external.

I'm not actually sure pretexting should be illegal for the police as part of an actual investigation. I can see arguments for and against it. Here's a fun question. The police legally get a warrant for your computer, and install the keylogger. They learn your password, and decrypt your files. When they decrypted them, did they not 'pretend' to be you? If they were to log into your webmail, are they not representing themselves to a third party as you? That is, in fact, legal, assuming a warrant to search your email. How does lying via a computer differ from lying via phone?

I'd be okay with pretexting if we required judicial authorization, and only used it against places unlikely to comply with a legally issued warrant. (For example, banks in certain countries.) I.e., treat it like a warrant, but instead of handing it to someone and demanding the information, we trick the information out of them and then hand them the warrant. With basically the same sort of oversight.

However, this process does not exist, and the RIAA has no oversight at all.

The RIAA wants to use this method to investigate copyright infringement. The RIAA, who's already had quite a lot of cases thrown out of court and rather obviously is abusing its already existing power, wants the legal right to do something police cannot do. And I mean 'cannot', as in, cannot currently even get a court order to do.

This is so clearly idiotic I can't even explain it. It's one thing to let individuals temporarily, in certain situations, do actions that are normally illegal to anyone but the police to prevent a crime, like citizen's arrest or killing self-defense. It's quite another to ask for powers the police don't even have to investigate crimes, or, in this case, civil infractions.

Re:Oh that's good logic.

[theCoder]

Why would the police need to use pretexting (i.e., fraud) during the course of an official investigation? If they want to see someone's phone records, and have a legitimate reason to do so, they just get a subpoena and get the records officially. There is already judicial oversight in that process. Why on Earth would the police need to lie to get at records, unless they themselves were doing something illegal? If they don't even have enough evidence against someone to get a subpoena, then they're just harassing (presumably) innocent people and wasting everyone's time.

The only reason the MAFIAA want the ability to lie to get the records is because they cannot easily subpoena for them. And I agree that it's completely ridiculous. Of course, they're so used to lying all the time, I'm not that surprised.

Re:Oh that's good logic.

[DavidTC]

They need pretexting for people who refuse to cooperate with warrants and subpoenas. Like I said, foreign banks are the only example I can think off.

United Corporate Police States of America

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry RIAA and MPAA you are not a law enforcement agency no matter how you are trying to behave like one.
By the way, with this logic, anyone can register a corporation, create copyright content and trademark something and be exempt from restrictions against pretexting. Why don't we just amend the constitution and change the name of the country to United Corporate Police States of America?

Enough is enough

[mattr]

It is time for people to ask the PR departments of each of the companies behind these front organizations why their company thinks they can ethically do, even through a proxy, what HP did or worse?

The word pretexting itself does not express the sheer anger at the wire fraud that Sony and their coinvestors are attempting to buy with the grubby con-men they have on salary at the RIAA and MPAA.

Re:Enough is enough

[Dunbal]

why their company thinks they can ethically do, even through a proxy, what HP did or worse?

      Because HP got away with it?

Sure, I'll support this bill...

[Firethorn]

The moment they add on a rider making it legal to hunt and stuff lawyers.

Re:Sure, I'll support this bill...

[ScrewMaster]

The moment they add on a rider making it legal to hunt and stuff lawyers.

They probably wouldn't mind, so long as you stuffed them with money.

Re:Sure, I'll support this bill...

[Dunbal]

They probably wouldn't mind, so long as you stuffed them with money.

      Oh I think they would, since it's their own money I intend to stuff them with...

Re:Sure, I'll support this bill...

[ScrewMaster]

Ah. Good point.

Re:Sure, I'll support this bill...

[deacon]

The correct term is "mount" not stuff.
So you should have said

"The moment they add on a rider making it legal to hunt and mount lawyers."

There, that's better.

Re:Sure, I'll support this bill...

[Khaed]

Yeah but the mental image of mounting David Boies is just too gross, even for /.

Re:Sure, I'll support this bill...

[Firethorn]

Why do you think I said stuff? I thought 'hunt and mount' at first, but then, this is /., bound to be trouble.

Re:Sure, I'll support this bill...

[Anonymous Coward]

ps, for anyone unaware, David Boies is a lawyer cursed by Microsoft's Voodoo Priestess for representing the Justice Dept. in US v. MS. He then went on to represent Gore (failure), Napster (failure), Andrew Fastow of Enron (failure) and SCO (which will eventually fail).

Where's the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"Basically, we want criminals to feel comfortable that who they're dealing with is probably some other criminal and let us in on what's going on," said Brad Buckles, the RIAA's executive vice president for anti-piracy.

So where's the difficulty there? Isn't that how you get your cut from the cartel^w labels extorting artists?

Another thing, Brad Buckles is a fucking stupid name for anybody who is not a kids cartoon character. Come back Captain Copyright, all is forgiven.

Re:Where's the problem

[ScrewMaster]

His real name is Brass Knuckles, but the PR department felt that was too harsh.

Yeah, right.

[ScrewMaster]

[RIAA's Brad] Buckles said the recording industry had never, nor would it ever, assume someone's identity to access that person's phone or bank records.

Why should we believe anything any RIAA mouthpiece says? I might believe that they haven't done this yet, but if they aren't intending to then why are they lobbying for this exemption? What is with these people?

Re:Yeah, right.

[zappepcs]

I think you missed the point. They have been doing this, but can't use it in court yet as they don't yet have permission to use it.

By getting an ok on this, they will be able to use most of the information that they have collected fraudulently.

I'm trying to lobby for a drunk driving exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

...but I promise I won't run into people.

geez...

[um... Lucas]

it seems like everyone's missing the point of this. or else i'm seeing it as being something else.

they're not trying to legallize "pretexting" so that that can pretend to be any one in particular, or in general. I THINK (key word) that they're trying for this so that they can legally run P2P client/servers and then use the resulting log files as a way of gathering evidence.

Currently, if they did so, the easiest case someone could make would be to say "well, THEY made those files available on a P2P network, they should have known someone would download them" or it could go so far as "that was entrapment".

If this goes through for them, then they can set up servers that do nothing but send files to P2P clients, log the IP addresses and forward requests for information about those addresses to DSL and cable companies.

Re:geez...

[Stumbles]

then they can set up servers that do nothing but send files to P2P clients

There is nothing to stop them from doing that now.

For them to seek this kind of exemption, or in other words to allow themselves to be placed above the law shows just how hard these idiots have fallen off their rocker.

Re:geez...

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, however afaik the definition of entrapment in a legal sense is this.

(from dictionary.com)

entrapment /ntræpmnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[en-trap-muhnt] -noun
1. the luring by a law-enforcement agent of a person into committing a crime.

Re:geez...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Honor,
My client is accused of illegal downloading the content of so-called "Britney_Spearts.avi" file. Even plaintiff agrees that this file actualy does not comprise any meaningfull content whatsoever. As no self-regarding person would touch that, this clearly means that my cllient was just pretexting to download it (and pretexting is legal in this state), therefore I call for dismmissal of the case.

Re:geez...

[darth_linux]

so they should be able to gather evidence by getting people to admit guilt before the *AA actually starts litigation.

Re:geez...

[Dun Malg]

Currently, if they did so, the easiest case someone could make would be to say "well, THEY made those files available on a P2P network, they should have known someone would download them" or it could go so far as "that was entrapment" Entrapment only applies to law enforcement.

Re:geez...

[Loconut1389]

Maybe I'm nuts, but you got me thinking- what if they just send ICMP packets with a copyrighted payload to everyone under the sun and then get the ISP to note that copyrighted material is indeed coming into that machine- and since that machine is sending ACK's, it then by definition is acknowledging receipt of the copyrighted material.

You and I both know that that is a ludicrous proposition, but the RIAA has enough clout and the lawmakers understand so little of technology, it wouldn't surprise me if this worked.

Re:geez...

[RegularFry]

They'd be up for inducement, though. It's (almost) as illegal to induce someone to infringe copyright as it is to actually infringe copyright, as far as I'm aware.

Re:geez...

[SillyNickName4me]

Entrapment only applies to law enforcement.

I believe that actively encouraging someone to commit a crime is bound to give you a bit of a legal problem, and actively participating in said crime definitely makes you guilty.

No entrapment laws needed for this, but the existance of those laws indicates tat even fighting crime is not an excuse or a way to get around this.

Heads will roll

[Quzak]

I personally would love to see this happen just to see how long it takes to kill the assholes.

Call it what it is.

[jcr]

"Pretexting", my ass. What they're asking for is a license to commit fraud.

-jcr

Does anyone else get the feeling....

[The Living Fractal]

That they're asking for permission to do it... because they've already done it?

I do.

TLF

Re:Does anyone else get the feeling....

[ScrewMaster]

As in, "Holy fuck, guys, look what happened to Hewlett Packard!"

Re:Does anyone else get the feeling....

[pak9rabid]

Probably. And even scarier is this: What if they're sitting on a mountain of evidence that, at present would be considered illegal evidence, but with this exemption, wala....tons of now-legal evidence to "legitimately" screw people over with. A snake in the grass indeed.

Re:Does anyone else get the feeling....

[dangitman]

wala....

This is not the word you were looking for. You want "viola."

Re:Does anyone else get the feeling....

[whoever57]

wala....

This is not the word you were looking for. You want "viola."

What have musical instruments got to do with this? Or do you mean "voila"?

Whoever modded up your post is truly clueless.

Re:Does anyone else get the feeling....

[Tatisimo]

Better to ask for forgiveness than permission, they say.

Re:Does anyone else get the feeling....

[cpt kangarooski]

You want "viola."

Viola seems to've met her end a-sea
All I can offer is Cesario

Why stop there?

[erroneus]

What they are asking for is a license to defraud.

But why stop there? Why not go all the way and ask for a license to kill?

Re:Why stop there?

[Pitr]

But why stop there? Why not go all the way and ask for a license to kill? Maybe they've finally learned you can't get money from dead people?

Re:Why stop there?

[Xenographic]

> But why stop there? Why not go all the way and ask for a license to kill?

My only guess would be that they don't think there's enough money in it.

And even if I was wrong about that, I sure wouldn't want to correct them, ...

Warning, warning, bullshit overload...

[The Master Control P]

"[RIAA's Brad] Buckles said the recording industry had never, nor would it ever, assume someone's identity to access that person's phone or bank records."

Oh, that's right, you can trust us. Because the MAFIAA has a long history of adhering to the highest standards of ethics and professional conduct in all of it's affairs, and would never engage in douchebaggery or outright lying to get what it wants. It would never bully innocent people or harass schools, because that's immoral. But you can trust us, we'd never lie about our identity to access your personal information. How's that quote about obvious abuses, denial of intent, and intent to do exactly that ASAP go?

Fuck the MPAA, Fuck the RIAA, Fuck the suits behind the BSA, and fuck them all for the DMCA!! The Recording Industry: Sometimes, the Two Minute's Hate is justified.

Re:Warning, warning, bullshit overload...

[wellingj]

This should get some more informative points!
Who knew I would enjoy groovn to futuristic sex robotz....

Criminally insane. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

I just watched, "The Corporation" again.

The RIAA and MPAA are obviously psychotic. (The basic premise of the film is that corporations, which are considered 'people' under the law, are psychotic in nature. Real people have moral boundaries and consciences. Corporations, by comparison, don't have these handy little programs running in the background.)

My question is that if corporations are considered people under law, then shouldn't they also be subject to the same kinds of provisions set aside for the criminally insane?

--That is, shouldn't they have their citizen's rights limited so that they cannot do harm?

-FL

Re:Criminally insane. . .

[pipingguy]

"The Corporation" is insightful as a movie but it is also one-sided. Having written the previous sentence my assumption is that many people feel that corporations are evil incarnate.

It is stock market-traded companies that tend to be evil.

Re:Criminally insane. . .

[FFFish]

I am absolutely confident that RIAA is an offshoot of the old-school Mafia. Everything about them screams racketeering and extortion. The old Mafia realized long ago that it needed to start dipping its beak into legitimate, legal ventures so as to (a) avoid prosecution and (b) gain political powers in a socially-acceptable manner.

I think they accomplished their goal quite well.

Re:Criminally insane. . .

[lysse]

There's a much more egregious issue with considering corporations as people.

The thing is, people cannot be enslaved. I believe there was even a war about it. All people are free agents, able to determine their own fates and work towards their own ends, unless they are either incapable of making those judgements (insane or children) or have demonstrated an inability to make the right choices (criminals).

However, corporations are not free agents, and have no such right of self-determination; they are owned by their shareholders, and legally required to work for the benefit of their owners. As defined by those owners. All other duties - to obey the laws of the land, to act in a responsible manner, even to ensure the long-term survival of the business - are irrelevant if the shareholders decide it's not in their interests.

What is particularly ironic about this is that the piece of legislation used to define them as individuals was introduced as an anti-slavery measure. Perhaps the same legal doctrine could be used one day to bring an end to the doctrine of corporate purpose, on the grounds that it is merely another form of slavery?

Re:Criminally insane. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. I understand not everyone has studied psychology, so let's go over this again:

Psychosis: a break or loss of contact with reality. This does not indicate anything about how an individual will interact with what they perceive to be their reality, or how they will act in the actual shared reality. Examples: seeing giant rabbits chasing you when you leave your house.

Psycopathy: the inability to empathize with others or to fear punishment to oneself.

Now, while the fooAA may be argued to be somewhat out of touch with reality, hopefully it should be obvious which condition you meant.

Pretexing

[p3net]

So now I can pretext to gather information? I'll need to try that out at the bar... Oh, wait, they meant only themselves. Damn. Selfish bastards...

Anyone that owns a patent or copyright?

[Trojan35]

Isn't that almost every single corporation in america, but virtually no citizens?

Brilliant!

Re:Anyone that owns a patent or copyright?

[Cid Highwind]

Scroll down a bit.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2007 OSTG.

Congratulations, after posting that comment you now own a copyright. Enjoy your "pretexting"* rights in California.

*a practice formerly knows as "fraud"

Re:Anyone that owns a patent or copyright?

[geekoid]

Have you ever written something down? you own copyright on it.
This exception, as summerized in the post, would apply to all people.

Re:Anyone that owns a patent or copyright?

[level_headed_midwest]

Congratulations, after posting that comment you now own a copyright. Enjoy your "pretexting"* rights in California.

Don't mind if I do: I'm Chuck Norris and I'm going to kick your ass unless you give me your bank account number! I'm waiting...

Re:Anyone that owns a patent or copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a better one....

I'm the president of the RIAA and I hereby give official written consent for all persons who are holders of slashdot.org accounts on or before April 8th, 2007 to legally copy and distribute all works that are intellectual property of the Recording Industry Artist's Association. All persons with user numbers of six (6) or less digits are automatically included in this article of consent, all persons with user number greater than six (6) digits in length must submit to a review period of no more than two (2) weeks.

We apologize for the inconvenience we have caused you and would appreciate any cooperation you could offer in making this declaration widely available knowledge.

Cops and criminals...what's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

  Basically, we want criminals to feel comfortable that who they're dealing with is probably some other criminal and let us in on what's going on

But the RIAA are criminals already! So they really shouldn't need to lobby this...

Senator Corbert?

[faraway]

Did anyone else read that as Senator Colbert?

Re:Senator Corbert?

[someone1234]

Actually it is Corbett, at least in TFA.

Re:Senator Corbert?

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator Colbert! Colbert Nation 4TW!

Who needs pretexting...

[Anonymous Coward]

... when so much information is available for the taking?

Objections? Write to Bradley Alan Buckles (ssn 520-56-9306, dob 10/14/1949) at:

4326 ROSEDALE AVE
BETHESDA, MD 20814-4751
MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Let me ask a stupid question...

[baboo_jackal]

So, if piracy is a crime, then why are the *AAs worried about their own ability to investigate? Shouldn't investigation and evidence collecting be up to a piece of government that we, the people (at least on paper) control?

People are worried about governmental intrusions into privacy (i.e., Patriot Act-type stuff). Why on earth should it *ever* be OK to allow another organization, one that's even *less* accountable to the public, the ability to fraudulently obtain information from us with the intent of prosecution?

No one is above the law

[Comatose51]

Since when have private individual have an explicit exception to the law? The members of the RIAA and MPAA are corporations, thus making them individual under the law. Fine, if they get an exception like that, I want an exception for me to the tax laws and all the criminal codes. Just me though because I'm that special.

The real source of this.

[tji]

I don't like attributing these things to the lobbying organizations, MPAA and RIAA. That helps them hide the real source of this behavior. The companies who think they are above the law, and fund those organizations to use tactics like this. Why no give full credit where it is due:

RIAA is primarily: EMI, Sony/BMG, Universal, and Warner

MPAA is primarily: Disney, Sony, Paramount/Viacom, Fox, Universal, and Warner

So, we're not talking about some evil rogue organization that wants to legalize their fraudulent activities.. We're talking about large, well known companies, which would think twice about their means if they started to get bad press.

** I'm not supporting piracy here. They have the right to protect their property, and should crack down on those pirating it. But, they should do it within the law, and without subverting our political system to buy congressmen and legislation to change the rules.

Re:The real source of this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your list. None of these legal entities - no matter how large and well known they are - are in the business of law enforcement.
They are in the business of selling entertainment. It would be amusing if I could hand out tickets for everyone who cuts me off on the highway, punish all speeding drivers, especially if I could get a cut from the revenue I generate. But I have to realise that this is not Disneyland and not all mickeymouse on the road is a cop.

Re:The real source of this.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

We're talking about large, well known companies, which would think twice about their means if they started to get bad press.

We're talking about large, well known companies which hack people's computers and sue little kids. "Bad press" is pretty obviously not a deterrent.

Re:The real source of this.

[Dun Malg]

RIAA is primarily: EMI, Sony/BMG, Universal, and Warner

MPAA is primarily: Disney, Sony, Paramount/Viacom, Fox, Universal, and Warner

So, we're not talking about some evil rogue organization that wants to legalize their fraudulent activities.. We're talking about large, well known companies, which would think twice about their means if they started to get bad press. I think we all know who the members of the RIAA/MPAA are. When's the last time you heard anyone say anything nice about any of those guys?

** I'm not supporting piracy here. They have the right to protect their property Copyright is not a property right. They do not own those songs/books/records/movies, we do, all of us. Those things are artifacts of our common culture. We have granted them a limited monopoly on copying, and nothing more. At some point, their lobbying to extend this limited monopoly into perpetuity ought to call into question their right to exercise this monopoly at all. I leave at as an exercise to the reader whether that point has been reached yet.

Re:The real source of this.

[Teancum]

Who is to say that these companies don't already get a huge amount of bad press, by suing grandmothers and 4-month olds. So what else here is new?

The definition of fraud for some companies this size is mainly what is allowed by the law, not what people think should or should not be legal.

And I too do not support piracy here either... my own income depends on copyright and activities related to that law. So why again should the RIAA get an exception that I don't get? Shouldn't I also get this same sort of protection to stop people copying my "intellectual property"?

Also, I would suggest that if the RIAA and MPAA were doing more to stop large scale piracy (as strangely the BSA - Business Software Alliance - does) I might support some of their activities. If they were really shutting down these major large scale duplication operations, why aren't they in the news like drug busts? Neither of these organizations really even try.

Re:The real source of this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your list. None of these legal entities - no matter how large and well known they are - are in the business of law enforcement.
They are in the business of selling entertainment. It would be amusing if I could hand out tickets for everyone who cuts me off on the highway, punish all speeding drivers, especially if I could get a cut from the revenue I generate. But I have to realise that this is not Disneyland and not all mickeymouse on the road is a cop

Quite a dream! The courts and law enforcement, and the rest of the government as well, are so bent that there's no hope of getting racketeering persecution against *AA, anymore than there's any hope of getting racketeering persecution going against the Bush family or the federal agencies they've disabled.

Perhaps it's best to use somthing similar to their own methods against them. Maybe, get legislation requiring all *AA executives, directors, employees and contractors to wear identifying badges and to place large identifying stickers on all their vehicles. That way, when you see them broke down on the highway, drive on by without wasting a moment more. Encounter a mugging in progress? Wait, it's one of "them" taking the hits, thumbs up and walk on. Spot a *AA car in the woods? Bears would shit on it, too.

Re:The real source of this.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't take their work and claim it as your own and you can't make copies and sell them for a profit - that is copyright.

Re:The real source of this.

[cpt kangarooski]

You can't take their work and claim it as your own

Actually that traditionally has not been part of copyright in the US, it barely is now (it hardly ever applies, it's so limited), and it's a bad idea. This sort of behavior either falls under fraud, defamation, or is not worth making illegal. Generally, the latter. I've never heard of an artist that refused to create and publish works for such an inane reason, with the possible exception of times when an artist has himself to blame for making bad deals with others. Since copyright is simply meant to get them to create and publish at the least cost to the public (where the burden of copyright itself is the main cost), there's simply no reason to give them anything extra, whether they want it or not.

and you can't make copies and sell them for a profit

Selling them at a profit is irrelevant. Copyright applies to the making of copies, whatever you do with them, even if you do nothing at all with them. It also applies to what you do with copies. And to performances and displays of works, which aren't copies. And to the making of new derivative works. Whether or not it should deal with some or all of these things is an interesting issue, but copyright is not what you seem to imagine it to be.

Re:The real source of this.

[mr_mischief]

Who's going to publish the bad press? Where do most people get their news from? That's right: Fox, Universal, Viacom, Disney, and Warner.

Don't think Al Capone here. Think 1984. They have the support of the government, and they control the media most people see. They're not scared of anything but the internet, because they don't have a handle on how to control it yet.

Re:The real source of this.

[tji]

> We're talking about large, well known companies which hack people's computers and sue little kids. "Bad press" is pretty obviously not a deterrent.

Yeah, but that's the point. That behavior is attributed to the RIAA and MPAA, which obscures the fact that the real villains here are the big record labels and movie companies. Those acronyms are thrown around in the articles, as if they are independant entities.

When Sony got the bad press for their "root kit", they went into damage control mode, got a lot of ill will form the general public, and even had the opportunistic congressmen flaming them. They DO react to bad press, which is why I think removing the middle-man and making it very clear to the general public who the responsible parties are.

Re:The real source of this.

[neomunk]

Hard to get bad press when you own the major media outlets, no?

nope

[nietsch]

Copyright applies by default. You have to take extra steps to i.e. place your works in th epublic domain. Things change when you get paid to write/sing/fsck/act, but most people are able to do that even when not being paid. Copyright even applies to a letter you write to your mother.
So everyone would be eempt form this proposed law if this amendment were included.

RIAA's new tactic

[JustNiz]

Hi, I'm:

a) a friend of a friend
b) in your church
c) in your class at school

but you've never heard of or seen me before. Can you let me copy your music downloads please?

What's next...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we all just cut off our cocks and balls, and mail it to them in a package along with a hundred dollar bill.

jeez.

Perhaps not

[Rob the Bold]

Perhaps you can, but bugmenot isn't finding a good login for the latimes.com.

In Other News...

[Nom du Keyboard]

They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting.

RIAA and MPAA lobby to be exempt from jail and fines for anything they do. Spokesman quoted saying, "Hey, diplomats have this already, so it's hardly unprecedented."

And...

Applications for copyrights, patents, trademarks, and claimed Trade Secrets rise to an all-time high, especially in California. U.S. government spokesman reports, "If this continues, soon every American and illegal immigrant will have laid claim to some piece of intellectual property. I wonder why they'd all want to do this now?"

The next step in the RIAA/MPAA Process

[Monsterdog]

This is what it's all about (and trust me, because I'm an expert, just like the RIAA's expert witness from MediaSentry, in that I have no certification and next to no knowledge on a broad range of subjects)...it's all about the Benjamins. It's always about the Benjamins when it comes to the RIAA. Hundreds of millions of people in this country have them, and the RIAA wants them.

So the plan now is this: while still suing ten year old girls, disabled people who haven't been able to actually move for years, sick grandmothers, people without computers, poor students, dead people and so, the RIAA and MPAA will branch out into a new line, where they set up Internet accounts in the names of a long list of people (purchased from data farms, telemarketers, phishers, botnet owners, and the like), which they will then set up to act as automated downloaders, probably using software built on the GPL (or, alternatively, KaaZaa or the like, because they're familiar with that.) When the downloaders download various parts of their list of MP3 files, the RIAA's crack squadron of attack lawyers will then, evidence of illegal activity in hand, sue the people whose names are those accounts, first offering them the extortion plan, and then, if they don't buy that, suing them for $1.3 trillion dollars as they did with allofmp3.com.

It's their greatest plan ever! Sue everybody in the United States and its protectorates, screw every soon to be former consumer of music for everything they have, and even pretend they're hornt fourteen eyar old chat room queens while they're doing it!

Pretexting = Fraud = Entrapment

[hitmanWilly1337]

What do these idiots think they're doing? Its not the place/job/right of a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION to go around playing Miami Vice on people. They seem to think they are a private police force or some such thing. I didn't think much of these folks before this, and this just confirms my suspicions. The RIAA/MPAA apparently have lost all touch with reality. They really are acting like the MAFIAA.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Mostly Correct

[pipingguy]

if the government hires a "private" police force

Bingo.

Re:By writing this comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in California, its a state law. :-)

Nice Try

[pak9rabid]

Nice try you fucking snakes, but I seriously doubt the State of California would grant this type of pardon to anyone outside of local and federal state agencies, and sure as hell not for filthy organizations such as the RIAA/MPAA, given their past history of abusing laws *cough DMCA cough cough*

It's California SB 328

[Animats]

Typical. Article about legislation without the bill number or a link to the bill text.

It's SB 328. Hearings on Tuesday in Sacramento.

It really might be time to

[gelfling]

Lynch of few of these motherfuckers. Seriously. If they are above the law then so am I. Let's kill a few of them and see where that goes.

The RIAA and MPAA are delusional

[SilverJets]

Last time I checked neither of them were law enforcement agencies. Lately they sure have been acting like they are. What's next the RIAA/MPAA legal system with courts and prisons?

What? No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling copyright violation "theft" is actually rather SIMILAR to calling pretexting "fraud," I would say. It's a gut moral judgment that ignores legal fine points to just "call a spade a spade."

Re:What? No.

[Znork]

Mmm, I'd disagree. Copyright violation is in essence breaking a government mandated monopoly and has nothing to do with 'theft'.

Pretexting on the other hand is just a fancier and slightly more specialized word for lying. Much like fraud.

While I agree that calling a spade a spade is usually a good thing, in this case the essence of the word is very similar (unlike in the monopoly/'theft' case). As the primary purpose of using 'pretexting' as a word is to justify lying or fraud without actually calling it such (due to the negative connotations inherent in those words), reverting its spelling to 'fraud' may actually be appropriate.

*anyone* who owns a copyright?

[nurb432]

Well, that pretty much covers anyone that has done anything in their life. Remember anything you write is technically copyrighted to you, unless you give that ownership away on the item in question.

And what the hell is this, they now want to have the right to commit fraud? These people need to be stopped. In many ways this is worse then them wanting to physically destroy people's equipment because they *suspected* there was a file on a pc they didnt like.

Feinstin will probably support it.

[hedora]

Feinstein (one of California's senators) is totally bought off by hollywood (dupe here) amongst others.

Re:Feinstin will probably support it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm Sen Feinstein is a Senator at the Federal level. This article is about the California State Senate.

Each States involvement

[WeeBit]

Let the RIAA & MPAA get passed the new pretexting law, and I bet you that 99% of the States pass their own laws to enforce the Federal pretexting law, and the RIAA & MPAA wont be exempt from it. There is no way that the States will allow any loopholes in this new law. Actually if there are loopholes then the States may have a obligation to their residents to close those loopholes. The States do favor this new law. Reasoning is because most know this is actually a good law to pass in the first place.

not to neuter the law

[nurb432]

No, i bet they want it like it used to be, where you had to PAY for the copyright, and submit it to the federal government for "protection".

Then they lobby get the Feds to raise the cost to be prohibitively high, so that a starving artist has to come groveling to the industry to get their work protected.

What a waste of time

[Karem Lore]

Anyone who know anything about copyright law knows that everytime you write a piece of original work onto paper it is automatically copyrighted to you, that is the point of copyright. Therefore, for the RIAA and MPAA to say:

"They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting."

Basically means that they would like everyone, you, I, them, to be exempt. Everyone owns at least one copyright, even those that think otherwise. Ergo, the law is a waste of time and if this request is even being thought about it would be a mockery and waste of good peoples tax money!

Karem

Hello

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a 10 year old girl, and 'cause mom and dad won't let me buy the latest Justin Timberlake CD, I thought: let's ask whether some nice nerd on Slashdot would be willing to help me out. Please reply with your e-mail address if you can provide me with an illegal copy.

Thanks,
Melissa

P.S.: I'm no FBI agent or MAFIAA guy.

Re:Hello

[SillyNickName4me]

Hey Melissa,

Please come back when you are of legal age. The risk of us helping you out being seen as trying to get you to do all kinds of naughty things is simply too big, even when you and I know no such thing happened.

Cuts Both Ways...

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Every digital photograph I take is copyrighted. Many of them are posted online in various places. I am concerned that various employees, directors, board officers, and others associated with the RIAA, MPIAA, and their member companies may have violated my copyrights and are sharing my intellectual property without compensating me. After all, these folks have a lot of computers. I assume that this would make my pretexting of these assumed criminals legal. I need to look at their phone records, email, bank records, and the like to make sure they aren't violating my property rights. After all. everyone knows these people aren't to be trusted.

Goose, Gander, Good

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> lobbying California legislators for an exemption to proposed legislation that would outlaw pretexting.

Well why not? These guys already write in the DRM and Copyright extension laws for Congress. Right now everyday they break into tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of people's computers(*) to snoop around in the hope they might find you've got something of theirs. If you or I did this, we'd be sitting in a jail cell that has 'Kevin' scratched into the wall.

(*) = Try this: Load PeerGuardian 2 from http://phoenixlabs.org/ and watch them come!

Hahahahaaaa. Loophole, meet bus.

[cprael]

"They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting. "

Like those goodies are hard to come by? Hell, I own a patent, and a couple TMs, and some trade secrets, too.

Hey, why not...

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Sure, let them pretext... But I want the same rights. I want to use pretexting with the banks and credit card companies. It's okay, I just want to pretext in order to catch the criminals inside their organizations.

While I'm at it, I want to catch criminal senior citizens, by tricking them into giving me their credit card numbers, and then seeing if they try to blackmail me for my pretexting (which they'll call "fraud", no doubt (those sneaky seniors!)). But my plans are perfectly fine since, similar to Mr. Buckles claim, I would never assume someone's identity to actually access their money.

Re:Mostly Correct

[Anonymous Coward]

And the tenth says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

This falls under a state's police powers.

Cool!

[ThePhilips]

They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright [...]

That's very nice. I own copyright for the comment - so I can practice pretext!!!

RIAA you are cool! Keep good job turning U.S. into true oligarchy!! Next please outlaw those free speech suckers!!! [/sarcasm]

Shenanigans

[fyoder]

I say fine, let them try, but only if we can call shenanigans on them when we catch them at it, then beat them to death with sticks.

Sweeeet!

[overshoot]

That exempts everybody!

Hmmm -- how, you ask? Well, you have a copyright on your flipping grocery lists. It's automatic under US law. Write just about anything and it's automatically copyrighted, you don't have to register it.

Under this proposal, you also instantly become above the law.

hell no

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm calling shenanigans!!!

nice try, jerks!

[straponego]

You're obviously not the real Anonymous Coward at all... RIAA!

Pretexting makes baby Jesus cry.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

ack... excuse me??

[deviceb]

don't make up nue words here... just fucking call it social engineering or lieing. loose that pretext word. so lame that people embrace it after that nonsense last summer. 0kp

Possible precedent?

[epee1221]

True, but at least arguably, "information" is a form of property.

What was Mitnick convicted for? Wire fraud.
What had Mitnick obtained? Information.

Are you sure?

[raehl]

Are your pet's creations steaming?

I own a trade secret

[FuzzyDaddy]

But I can't tell you what it is. Trade secrets are only valuable as long as they are kept secret, there is no registration or disclosure process, as there is for other forms of "intellectual property".

Not to mention that copyrights are trivially easy for anyone to get. So, pretty much, anyone could legally pretext.

Hehe, with this everybody is exempt!

[gweihir]

Just make one posting on /. and you own a copyright and are exempt!

How stupid are these people (besides being greedy and plain evil)?

RIAA and MPAA aren't above the law

[Anonymous Coward]

If California legislature decides to outlaw pretexting, the RIAA and MPAA don't have a right to exempt themselves, as well as any one else with a patent, trademark, trade secret, or copyright. With as many people and companies out there with dubious copyrights and patents, the exemption within the law could be exploited to catastrophic proportions of personal invasiveness. I mean, if even the traditional "birthday song" is copyrighted, then anytime anyone sings it, the copyright holders could go through the process of pretexting to get personal information out of them - and it wouldn't even have to be related to the copyright. Pretexting needs to be banned, and it cannot have any exceptions to the rule.

Exemptions for everyone?

[asninn]

They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting.

Is there *anyone* who does not "own" the copyright to anything? Anyone who's ever written a letter or an email certainly does, for example, so if this exception was to be granted, you could just as well throw out the entire bill, since *literally everyone* would suddenly be exempt from it.

(On a side note, I'm a bit troubled by the word "own", too, since that implies that copyrights, patents, trademarks and so on are property, which they're not, but I can't think of a better term. Does anyone have any ideas, especially for the case of copyrights?

Re:Exemptions for everyone?

[slothman32]

You must be my sockpuppet.
This is like the third time I've agreed with you.

I like calling it ISCP.
Well at least that is the best I came up with now.
It stands for "Intellectual so-called property".

Re:That's True

[asninn]

Just out of curiosity, how can states "hire out" law enforcement tasks etc., anyway - that is, what legal basis is there for that? The police has the right to do certain things like detain people and lock them up (under certain circumstances, anyway) etc. by virtue of being the police, but a private agency doesn't; a mall security guard, for example, might ask me to leave the mall (which is legal, since it's private property), but he couldn't arrest me - he'd have to call an actual cop for that (right?).

For me, the question of whether the limits on government power apply to private agencies doesn't seem to make much sense, since the ultimate limit is already in place: private agencies don't have the government's powers to do these things *at all*.

I'm not from the USA, of course, though, so it would be great if someone could explain this to me. :) But still, I just don't see why a state (or any government or government agency, no matter on which level) should be able to declare private entities/agencies/individuals to be above the law.

From the Dept of Redundancy Dept...

[funchords]

Wasn't this bill ignited by HP pretexting to get cell phone records on one of the members of their Board? And doesn't HP own patents and copyrights?

In other words, aren't we exempting enforcement on the very people that this bill was proposed to stop?

We get it: copyright infringement != stealing

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

It doesn't need to be stealing to still be harmful, selfish, and morally corrupt.

This post is redundant

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

But not as redundant as the parent.

We get it already! Enough!

That's a great idea!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

But I think the **AA would lobby against it. Oh well...

damn

[Tom]

I'm all for that law! See, I own a bunch of copyrights as well (almost everyone does, if you've ever written something, you own its copyright).

Interesting, but this would apply to everyone...

[FellowConspirator]

Under current US law, anything you create -- anything you write/type/doodle/paint/record is a work to which you have the copyright. If there is an exemption to a law that applies to copyright holders, and everyone is a copyright holder, then logically everyone is exempt.

Re:This should be proof ... - "take care of them"

[ancientt]

Maybe if enough of us come together (with money), we could get the real mafia to 'take care' of them for us =D

Shame! Suggesting something like that is horribly immoral and sinks you to even lower than they are. Plus you didn't say where to send the check or who to make it out to. (Hypothetically of course.)

How to get a balnket $37 exemption from this law:

[The Old One 666]

Ever try to get something copyrighted? It's the world's easiest thing: Fast, simple, and cheap. So if the RIAA gets their way, and you want to be exempt from the law, just copyright anything (your signature will do).

Let us spot a joke (off topic)

[TechnicalFool]

I think multiple moderation reasons could come in handy. "Insightful, Funny"?

Re:Let us spot a joke (off topic)

[DeadChobi]

If it was a joke, then it belongs with the birds, in the upper atmosphere far far above my head.

Re:That's True

[timmyf2371]

a mall security guard, for example, might ask me to leave the mall (which is legal, since it's private property), but he couldn't arrest me - he'd have to call an actual cop for that (right?).

Depends which country you're in and whether it has laws allowing "Citizen's Arrest"; I'm in the UK and we have laws which allow this, so if I was caught stealing for example, a mall security guard could detain me until such time the police arrived.

Isn't that infringing? :-)

[cheros]

I mean, that bill is an original work (in more ways than one), so for the proposals to be written they'd have to use parts of that bill..

(only jesting, but the idea was fun :-)

Then there's their definition of "criminals"...

[argent]

"Basically, we want criminals to feel comfortable that who they're dealing with is probably some other criminal and let us in on what's going on,"

When RIAA says "criminals" they mean "just about anybody".

Translating this:

"Basically, we want people to feel comfortable that who they're dealing with is probably some other actual human and let us in on what's going on,"

What part of Privacy don't they get?

[swalters1]

The state of California actually has a Privacy Act, a rarity in the states. It was actually this act that was used/is being used in the procesecution of HP, who was pre-texting board memebers to find a leak in their organization. The problem, for those who don't remember, isn't that they pre-texted their boardmemebers, but they actually used this technique to aquire personal records of individuals related the board members (and act that would have required a warrent, and probable cause if they were a law enforcement agency) The attempt to gather information on people NOT employed by the company violated the privacy of the individuals and since no contract with HP exists from those individuals (because they're not employees) HP broke the law. The "bill" in the state legislature just removes the argueing about what is and isn't pre-texting and what does and doesn't violate the states own privacy act, without everyone having to go through the process of hiring legal counsel and letting them make tons of money to fight over something the state already knows isn't allowed under it's existing laws, but needed clarifying. Unfortunatley for those whose privacy was violated by HP, this law will not aid their procescution of HP (ex post facto) So if you want the bill to pass, it's simple. Start pretending to be a Congressman, and start inquiring about their electric bills, phone bills, etc and watch how fast the law passes. The problem isn't the law, it's that the state representatives don't feel any urgency in passing it. The RIAA and MPAA need to get a clue. The concept that any individual who is now a lincesee or dually deputized by the state should be allowed to conduct search and seizure (And yes that's what gather information about an individual from organizations that are not public is) is the first step toward a Corptocracy. If the RIAA wants to pursue people, they need to report the crimes to the state, and have the state request a warrent, and then let the state pursue the criminals. They are not the police, and personally I'm getting tired of companies thinking it's okay for them to conduct activities without the supervision of the court, or the state law enforcement agency that any single individual would be charged with Wire Fraud, or Identity Theft for trying. Not to mention being open to tons of civil aciton for Privacy violations. So here's what I'd like to see someone do. Pre-text all the members of the legal counsel and the investigating tema of both the RIAA and the MPAA, and lets see how quickly they drop their objections. What's good for the goose...

QUICK !

[Anonymous Coward]

pretext now before it becomes illegal !

what ?? is it illegal already ??

make it legal again for us !

Re:That's True

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

These days, many mall security guards are actual cops. Policemen in America are allowed to work both for the government and for private security firms, at the same time.

yeah right

[ralph1]

Then anyone who wants to pretext will just get a copyright.

Legal activities

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Okay.
It is legal for the RIAA to get money from winning or settling a case against bootleggers. They're claiming to need the "pretexting" to catch those people who are actually printing fake CDs; lesser copyright infringers would simply end up as major collateral damage.
It is legal for the RIAA to make examples of people in court--ugly, but legal so far. Even prosecuting/persecuting innocent people works if the general public thinks those people are guilty.
The question is, should it be legal for the RIAA to run their own sting operations? We have feds pretending to be drug dealers or 13-year-olds on the 'Net and then arresting anyone who tries to take advantage of the not-quite-existent opportunity for drugs or extremely kinky whatever. Should it be legal for the RIAA to set up a Pirate-Bay-type site and then sue everyone who downloads from it?

Somewhat cyclic argument...

[nick_davison]

> > And lying is a perfectly legal activity when it is not done to further a crime.

Try that one when giving a testimony under oath. Even if what you lied about has no relevance to the case at hand, does not further any crimes or anything, it is still punishable. There are many more cases where lying has been made explicitly illegal. Except this specific case of lying, lying under oath is perjury: a crime. Thus, lying under oath is furthering a crime - its own crime of perjury.

Re:Somewhat cyclic argument...

[SillyNickName4me]

Except this specific case of lying, lying under oath is perjury: a crime. Thus, lying under oath is furthering a crime - its own crime of perjury.

Creative explanation, but matter of fact is that lying in that specific case is the crime. It doesn't further any other crime then the lying itself, and if that lying wasn't made criminal, there would not be a crime. Hence, it is a case where lying itself is a crime, and no furthering of any crime is required.

lying

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretexting is the practice of pretending to be someone else in order to obtain personal information on a person, such as telephone or banking records

So "lying."

Copyright? What's copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3ZQI0Xm29To
http://youtube.com/watch?v=S_-BoUE1rxI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BSlQMs0LseI

Do not want

[pmmaxwell]

I do not believe the RIAA and MPAA have any right to pretexting to find out information. The idea of the recording industry putting on a mask and pretending to be someone else to gain information about a person that might be committing a crime is ridiculous. I think pretexting should be reserved for the law enforcement picking up drug dealers and prostitutes. Not the recording industry.

'Pretexting'?

[jandersen]

They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting.

I wonder if they have thought this through. After all, anybody who has ever written anything is a 'copyright owner', so once I have sent this Copyrighted Material I could go and pretend I was somebody else and get their personal info, right? This is what happens when all you need to call yourself 'a deep thinker with high moral standards' is a load of money. I mean, it isn't the only case of somebody in a powerful position displaying the morals, insight and integrity of a drugdealer; America has lost its way - once the admired leader of the free world, but now?

An interesting line from the article is, '[RIAA's Brad] Buckles said the recording industry had never, nor would it ever, assume someone's identity to access that person's phone or bank records.'

But he spotted that one, didn't he? So he has thought about it. And even if one could actually have any confidence in what he has to say, he can only speak for himself - what about his colleagues or those that come after him? And judging from the way they bully young children and other defenceless individual, does it seem at all likely that they will 'never assume somebody's identity to access that person's phone or bank records'? They have already shown us all how little regard they have for common decency; they will lie effortlessly and with glee if it means more money in their pockets.

Wait a sec...!

[Checkmait]

The RIAA wants pirates to feel that when they are being trapped by the RIAA that they are dealing with other criminals.... but the RIAA doesn't need any special permission to do that.... they're a pack of criminals to start with!

Re:Wait a sec...!

[raininspain]

The RIAA is assuming the identity of other people to catch pirates. But what they are really doing is exploiting other users. It's like identity theft. It's not right for anyone to assume someone else's identity for any reason even if their mindset is "it takes one to know one". I'm not necessarily a fan of the RIAA but I'm more opposed to pirates. They're stealing. And, not to give any credit to the RIAA or MPAA, they are trying everything in their power (and some things out of their power) to catch the thieves. This all comes down to pirates ruining it for everyone.

Re:Wait a sec...!

[Checkmait]

You're right. I was just trying to be funny. lol I guess it didn't work. I agree with you fully, that this show was all started by the pirates, and now the MAFIAA are lashing out against everyone in an attempt to catch the pirates.

hmmm - may be interesting if this goes in...

[Anonymous Coward]

"They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting."

If they actually go for it and put that in, that means you, I or anyone else could suddenly have a right to pretext... After all any creation of any form of art automatically copyrights it under US law... Therefore, just make a jpg file in photoshop or hit the screen print button on your computer, or doodle something on a piece of paper, and you got a copyright. Since anyone who owns a copyright could pretext, you, I and John Doe could all pretext without fear of the law if this is in there... After all, we could say we were pretexting because, like the RIAA we were just trying to prove that the people we were pretexting was using our copyrighted stuff... sure.