Rep. Berman: up yours.

Read about it over here. The link requires registration, but it’s free.

If this fucknut has his way, people will legally be breaking into your computer and going through your files. Of course, they can’t “spread viruses, destroy files or hack into a consumer’s personal data,” but really, is there anyone we can trust with this sort of power? I think not.

I also know that I will do whatever it takes to make sure that they can’t get into my computer. If I have to be the best goddamn hacker this side of whatever the hell you choose to use a demarcation line for anything you want, then that’s what I’ll do. I will not let anyone get away with this shit, legally or not.

Okay, I’m gonna have to start reading the NYTimes again (I quit over a distribution issue, it’s a long story). My hometown paper described the bill, but completely left out the part about hacking and * DNS ATTCKS!?* What kind of moral idiocy informs this guy’s decisions? We think you have stolen from us, so we can break into your house and look for it? You stole from us, so we can do something that is completely wrong?

Doesn’t the Fourth Amendment apply here? Oh wait, in John Ashcroft’s America, anything goes.

On a related note, did you know that if you installed the latest security patch for Microsoft’s Media Player (A vital patch, incidentally), that you already agreed to what this guy is proposing?

Granted, this is the Register, and they’re known for being paranoid and going completely off the wall, but still, it’s frightening as hell.

That’s why, for better or worse, I run my own firewall (ZoneAlarm, available free here).

a few questions:

1: about half of the music i download is stuff that over the years I have lost, had stolen, or has been damaged beyond use (melted tapes, scratched CDs etc.) so when i go to a filesharer and download these songs, I already have the right to own them, and to listen to them, If the govt goes ahead with this bullshit, can i sue any record label that refeuse to give me access to music which i rightfully have permission to posess? Do i need reciepts?

2: in my line of work, i download tons of music for use in live performance, which is protected by blanket contracts between the producers for whom i work and ASCAP/BMI. they pay a regular fee, and have the right to public broadcast any covered songs. If they kill file sharing, does that mean i have to go out and buy some crap-ass album for 20 bucks just to get a physical copy of a song I HAVE PERMISSION TO USE ANYWAY?

thats it. just really pissed. those f*&kers just don’t quit ignoring the real problems with the recording industry, do they?

Gates is not a total lapdog to the music distribution industry. He knows that they are bad news. After all, the distribution industry is trying to cripple him by trying to mandate that new technologies get crippled. Gates’ gets the money when people buy new tech with Microsoft inside. People getting so disgusted that they won’t buy the new tech, less money he makes. That’s why on WMP, there are off switches to DRM and unique ID and other so-called piracy protection.

I think the MS EULA thing is a separate issue, but is equally chilling. Register predilections aside, there can be no denying the fact that the EULA for this patch allows MS to automatically and without your knowledge install DRM mechanisms on your PC. Presumably these will contain their arbitration on what constitutes fair use. When one considers that the market for this sort of software is not the consumer but the recording industry, it seems highly unlikely that said “fair use” will be in any way fair. No, Gates is not a recording industry lapdog but he knows where the money is.

You think DRM will cripple Windows? Not in the slightest; on the contrary, if it becomes mandatory Gates will be in a magnificent position to try and corner the market with Windows Media Audio. He can build the rights management in to the OS, presumably taking a licence fee each time a distributor releases a recording on his format. It’s very important to realise that the customer here is not Joe buying a CD, but the companies releasing the music.

As I say, this all depends what legislation the various Hollywood/RIAA sock puppets in the senate/congress manage to push through. If nothing gets legislated then sure, no fool is going to buy a DRM PC when they can get something else. If DRM is made compulsory however, it’s a recording industry/MS free-for-all to decide what we’re permitted to do with our PCs.

Of course, Berman’s a fairly partisan Democrat, so I’m not real sure what that has to do with John Ashcroft, but don’t let that stop your ravings.



Big Kahuna Burger:

The Fourth Amendment prohibits government actors from effecting unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not have anything to do with private individuals.

The bill discussed in the OP would remove any civil and criminal penalties that might otherwise affect music industry efforts to stop the trading of pirated material.

It has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment.

If I were a bit meaner, I might end this with some speculation along the lines of how ignorance of basic civics is the rule in Big Kahuna’s America… but I won’t, because I would never sully a thread, even in the Pit, with that sort of irrelevant slur.

This is an approach you might keep in mind the next time you feel the need to slam Mr. Ashcroft.

  • Rick

It would be amusing if the bill passed, however. Every network and system admin from here to Iwo Jima would blacklist the MPAA and RIAA’s servers. Just try to hack us, fellas, when none of your ISP’s can ever get out to the rest of the world…

Would that just be federal laws, or would this somehow overrule state laws as well (presumably via the Interstate Commerce Clause)?

Because presumably, when someone mucks around in my computer without my permission, they’re guilty of trespass.

I’m also wondering how they will be able to distinguish between “trading of pirated material” and downloading of copies of stuff I already own the rights to, whether via a vinyl disc under the living room stereo, or via an arrangement such as Bad Hat describes.

Because if they go wiping stuff off someone’s hard drive that they actually own the rights to, then they’d presumably be guilty of criminal trespass, under most state laws.

“But, it’s to fight the war or terrorism”

<Everyone votes for it to avoid getting dirty looks from their neighbors>

I guess if you have a big enough lobby, you can legalise whatever vigalante action you want.

Fuckers. They have a right to protect their copyrights, but shouldn’t they have to follow standard law enforcement practices like the rest of us? I almost had sympathy for the RIAA before this thing, but whatever whisper of pity I felt is LONG gone. Their’s is a doomed business model, and good fucking riddance to stinking garbage.

Fenris, Bricker :smack: to the infinite power. I shouldn’t have been posting in the pit while under PKs for wisdom tooth surgery. An awful post worthy of a newbie. My humblest apologies.

Of course, if they hit the hackers, the hackers will strike back. RIAA’s servers will be down permanently.

This bill is the internet equivalent to the legendary “pi=3” bill, IMO.

re pi=3.


For crying out loud…next thing you know, I’ll have to pay for that stereo I’m lugging out of K-Mart, or that set of tools from Sears, or that sofa from Furniture World.
When, oh when, will this trend of actually having to pay for things we own stop???

How does suspicion of pirating music equate to acknowledge theft of stereo equipment?
Should a goddamned corporation have the RIGHT to peruse my personal files and folders to make sure I don’t have anything on there that’s a no-no?