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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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?

[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?

[Dun Malg]

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

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?

[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.

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!

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?

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?

[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?

[dangitman]

Pretexting? What's that?

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

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?

[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.

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?

[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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

[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 /.

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...

[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.

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

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?

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.

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

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:Almost everyone owns copyrights

[El Torico]

Proposed amendment
Allows them to trick others
Merely pretexting

© 2007 El Torico

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?

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.

[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.

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?"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Feinstin will probably support it.

[hedora]

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

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!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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.

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...