Slashdot Mirror


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."

11 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. trade secret by Speare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  2. Pretexting? by OpenGLFan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Pretexting? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  3. Oh that's good logic. by Tokerat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  4. Re:Anyone who owns a copyright? by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. geez... by um...+Lucas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Criminally insane. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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

  7. Re:Let us call it what it IS by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  8. Re:Burden of Proof by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Re:The real source of this. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.