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."
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?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
FRAUD.
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.
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.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
That they're asking for permission to do it... because they've already done it?
I do.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?).
:) 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.
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.
butter the donkey
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.
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.
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...