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
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.
FRAUD.
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?
[
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."
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.
So now the RIAA and the MPAA want to actually pose as me and download music and movies, so that they can sue me?
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?
The moment they add on a rider making it legal to hunt and stuff lawyers.
I don't read AC A human right
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.
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.
"[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.
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
Proposed amendment
Allows them to trick others
Merely pretexting
© 2007 El Torico
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen