There is a bill going before congress sponsered by Rep. Howard Berman, D- Calif. that gives the MPAA and RIAA the legal right to hack your computer to look for copyrighted materal and to disable any file sharing programs they find in the process plus conduct denial of service attacks against people using file sharing programs to knock them offline.
I personaly think this is a very very bad idea as it creates a privileged class for whom the law of the land (D.M.C.A.) does not apply.
So What Do The Teaming Millions Think About This Proposed Law?
Maybe I’ve seen too many movies, but wouldn’t this lead to every 31337 HAX0R who wants their yummy pirated bits killing every on-line appliance connected to the RIAA and MPAA from toasters on upwards?
I’m into a lot of music that isn’t very “mainstream.” It’s nothing you would ever hear on the radio or see on MTV. Since most of the guys in the bands I’m into are scrapping for every fan they can get, I like to support them by buying their CD. I then copy it onto my computer, adding it to my 1800-some-odd other MP3s, and letting Windows Media Player play them at random.
Do I have some songs on my computer for which I do not own the CD? Definately. Usually these are bands where I can not find a CD to buy, or I was just checking them out and decided that I didn’t like them enough to drop $15.00 on them. Either way, I wouldn’t buy the CD, so it’s not costing anyone any money.
I understand from reading the posts in the OP that MPAA and RIAA would not be able to delete files from my hard drive. However, I wonder how they would be able to tell whether or not I actually own the music on CD.
PS - If anyone would like to post a link to an online petition against this, please do so. It probably won’t do much, but at least we can try to tell the rest of Congress that we don’t care for them to make it legal for these people to hack our machines.
Never let it be said that I only take the easy ones…
(I have not read the actual proposed bill, just the articles linked to above)
First, start with the premise that ‘online music trading’ is nothing more then IP theft on a grand scale. Nobody has a ‘right’ to download copyrighted material without meeting the conditions placed by the copyright holders.
Napster was easy, from a technical perspective, to put an end to. Gnutella-based server/clients, however, are an order of magnitude more difficult to deal with on a technical level, hence the need for some legal assistance. (Freenet, even more so.)
The bill would require the copyright holders to present a course of action to the Justice Dept. before any action is taken, which should ease concerns about civil-rights infractions. (It is already legal to ‘hack’ systems under certain conditions, this bill would simply add a few more conditions.)
The DOS portion of the bill really shouldn’t be neccesary, if only ISP’s were more cooperative in working with the authorities in the first place.
This bill, while perhaps imperfect, is an obvious backlash against the widespread IP theft of the past few years. Labels didn’t really mind audio cassette swapping and dubbing, since quality was low and would degrade over time. But with this new media, the quality of the clone is studio-perfect, removing any motivation for a person to pay for right to listen to a particular peice of music.
Because of the nature of the theft, IP rather then physical property, many people seem to wink at the theft. Were it BMW’s or gold watches being stolen on such a scale, I guess we’d be hearing a different cry from the masses.
But in the end, theft is theft. This bill would not be needed if the theft was not so widespread. And, if I understand the bill correctly, only people on the various p2p networks trading ill-gotten goods need worry.
This bill is not a blanket authorization for IP holders to hack into our computers (try hax0ring my Ultra 30! Hahahahah!), this is authorization for IP holders to defend their ‘property’, taking into account the new venue of theft and nature of the property itself.
I don’t neccesarily believe this myself, but someone has to try to defend this poor bastards!
Well, yes and no. I’m roughly a Libertarian, and as such I’m a strong defender of property rights. And that most assuredly includes intellectual property rights.
HOWEVER. First, the RIAA and the MPAA do not play fair. Many of hte ‘intellectual rights’ they hold were gotten through backroom deals with politicians, and were never part of the original intent of copyright laws. Copyrights have been extended, works have been legally changed to ‘for hire’ so that the copyright goes to the record company rather than the artist, etc.
In addition, the artists are often getting screwed through shady accounting, which limits their resources to produce their own music. And they are often forced into long, multi-album contracts that prevents them from leaving the record labels and producing independent music.
Then there are the deals the RIAA has cut with other governments and agencies to force them to pay exhorbitant royalties. I believe 5.1 cents is taxed on every blank CD in Canada, with said tax going to the record industry. This is an abomination. I go through hundreds of blank CD’s for backups, moving files around, etc. Why am I forced to give money to the record company? It’s insane.
The record companies are also guilty of restraint of trade, IMO. They prop up distribution channels that are in their pocket (i.e. commercial radio, which doesn’t have to pay performance royalties) and use the government to force other distribution channels out of the market (i.e. internet radio, which just got hit with royalties so high it will put almost all the IR companies out of business).
Then there is the ‘fair use’ argument. If I purchase a CD or a video, I have a right to ‘fair use’ of it, which means copyying short excerpts for some reasons (i.e. movie reviews), making personal copies for backup and/or listening in the car or at work, etc. These fair use rights greatly enhance the value to society of copywritten works, which is why they were written into original copyright law. The record labels and movie industry are trying to use the smokescreen of technological issues to remove those rights. That’s as much ‘theft’ as copying the music in the first place.
I absolutly agree with your points, Sam Stone, but they do not justify theft. Unfair, or even illegal behavior by one party does not give the go-ahead to another party to engage in similiarly illegal bahavior.
Ah. So, the illegal posession and distribution of copyrighted material does not give the RIAA and MPAA the right to hack into private systems or take down servers with DDOS attacks, both of which activities are specifically prohibited by the DMCA, right?
Which is why the RIAA/MPAA cannot conceivably have any right to access my intellectual property (to wit, various files that I have created, own, license, or possess an unhindered right to make use of), or my physical property (to wit, my computer) just because I fit the profile of persons that they think might possibly be stealing music.
Which I am not, BTW, just in case that’s not clear.
The DMCA doesn’t seem to specifically (or at all) address the issue of DOS attacks or intrusions, but you tell me. .
Regardless, as much as you may dislike the RIAA/MPAA, they are going about this the legal way: Try to get a law passed.
Doing something that is currently not legal is…illegal! So rather then start hacking into your home systems now, they are going to the representitives in their districts (at least one of the bills’ sponsors is from CA), to pass a law that they feel would better protect their rights.
Some Guy, there is a requirement in the bill which stipulates that the IP holders must submit a plan to the Justice Dept. before engaging in their activities. I assume that the requirements are more then ‘fits the profile’, and that the JD will ensure that.
Remember: However much you may hate the RIAA/Etc, however sleazy or blatantly illegal they may act, you do not have a right to steal IP.
Side note: Given that IP theft is occurring, what would you folks do to combat that theft?
Easy. Stop calling it theft, because it’s copyright infringement, not theft.
Copyright law is all about balance. Balance between the creators of works and the public domain. Things are out of balance, and we need a shift back towards the middle, and that means reducing the rights of copyright holders, not extending them.
I feel like we’re at a point in time now with regards to copyright that we were with the drug war in the early 70’s. We can go down that same road and waste billions of dollars and ruin the lives of millions of people and have basically nothing to show for it, or we can be sensible and reform copyright law.
File sharing should be legalized, and only those who sell bootlegged physical media should be prosecuted. It worked with the VCR and it will work with MP3. Because realistically, people don’t feel bad about file sharing and they’re not going to stop.
As for this law, it’s nonsense. First, the RIAA/MPAA have many claims but no proof and a terrible track record. They say file sharing is hurting them, but each new report dealing with the subject contradicts the last one. Then there’s the fact that every time a new technology arrives, the RIAA/MPAA run around like Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. Home taping. VCRs. Both things the RIAA/MPAA said would doom their industry but in fact helped them tremendously. They have zero credibility here… we should all save ourselves a lot of hassle and just ignore them this time.
Second, the RIAA/MPAA have long histories of unethical behavior, particularly towards artists and lately towards their customers. You would have to be insane to trust them with the power this bill would grant them. They’ll abuse it, guaranteed. I’d sooner trust the Mafia to enforce narcotics laws.
Granted, i can’t imagine this law passing, but if it does, I can’t imagine it being constitutional. RIAA/MPAA thinks they can just buy their way into my privacy. What’s next, shower cams to make sure we don’t sing copywrited songs in the shower???
Semantics. The NET (No Electronic Theft) Act covers ‘copyright infringement’ of music as a felony offense, even if it was not done for profit. If I am in prison for ‘theft’ or ‘infringement’, it will matter little to me.
What rights of copyright holders should be reduced, and by how much? It seems to me that IP holders have as much a right to protect their ‘goods’ as anyone.
Unfortunately, because their ‘goods’ are not tangible, physical items, people do not take theft of them as seriously. If you spent several million dollars producing, promoting, and peddling a new album, you would want the comparable legal protection to someone who spent that same money making widgets.
Giving in to peoples’ desire to steal (infringe, whatever), a particular product or class of products does not strike me as sensible, and would not represent positive reform.
Many, many criminal acts are very difficult to guard against (witness the high murder rate in America). That does not mean that the state should cave and simply condone the act that was once criminal. Some activities are simply ‘wrong’, and should be treated as such by the law, regardless of how many people may commit those acts.
Ah, we get to heart of the matter! You want to be able to get your music for free. Now that’s the sort of freedom that America is founded on!
I consider myself fairly aware of technology, but I was unaware that VCR’s allowed millions of people to send pirated movies to one and other, with no cost (above that of the presumably existing ISP and computer) to the sender or reciever.
People don’t ‘feel bad’ about a wide variety of criminal and civil infractions. Making the illegal activities legal will not solve the problem.
It doesn’t matter if filesharing hits them in the checkbook or not. They have as much right to legally protected IP as you would.
The difference between VCR’s and filesharing is legion. VCR’s do not allow you to download movies, free of charge. Apart from the cost of a PC and a internet connection, there is no cost (to the ‘sharer’) for taking music via filesharing.
Also, assuming a decent internet connection, in a given night, you could download hundreds of MP3’s or several movies. A VCR could do neither. It just sits there and either plays movies that you have rented/purchased (cost to you) or it records what is on television (generaly deemed legal, so long as the tape is strictly for personal use)
What unethical behavior do you accuse the RIAA/MPAA of? No need for exact cites, though they would be nice. I was unaware that these groups were bad, wicked, and naughty. (At least, any more so then any group of people.)
Brutua, its one thing for people to have defenses against illegal copying. Its a wholly different matter for them to abruptly have the legal right to commit crimes to do so. If I think you stole a watch of mine, should I be legally alowed to break into your house, trash it, and smash any watches I find?
