The Entertainment Industry Is Trying To Make Hacking Your Computer Legal!

Shaith

A left-field proposal by a California congressman would give the entertainment industry legal rights to hack your computer. Rep. Howard L. Berman, D-Calif., has formally proposed legislation that would give the industry the authority to hack into your computer or knock you offline completely if you were caught downloading copyrighted material.

"There is no excuse or justification for this piracy. Theft is theft, whether it is shoplifting a CD in a record store or illegally downloading a song," said Berman, the leading recipient in the House of campaign contributions from the television, music and movie industries.

Berman is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary subcommittee on courts, the Internet and intellectual property. Other sponsors of the measure include Reps. Howard Coble, R-N.C., Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and Robert Wexler, D-Fla. Coble has also received significant contributions from the entertainment industry. It's not surprising then that this legislation provides the entertainment industry with nearly unlimited powers akin to those once wielded by the KGB or the Gestapo.

Because the industry managed to shut down Napster, file traders have switched tactics, utilizing decentralized networks. This has prevented the industry from being able to sue to enforce copyrights. So now they must track down these downloaders individually and then harrass their providers into intervention, a risky measure for the provider since there is no way they can prove that the user isn't downloading a digital version of something they have indeed purchased and have fair-use rights to.

This new bill shows the entertainment industry's frustration with efforts by the computer industry to develop technological barriers to making electronic copies of songs and movies. Congressional leaders have stated in the past that they preferred to allow the industry to come up with technological solutions before considering new laws for copyright enforcement.

The head of the Recording Industry Association of America, Hilary Rosen, called the Berman bill an "innovative approach to combating the serious problem of Internet piracy."

"It makes sense to clarify existing laws to ensure that copyright owners ... are at least able to defend their works from mass piracy," Rosen said.

Berman said his bill would not allow industry to spread viruses across file-trading networks, destroy files or hack into a consumer's personal data, but experts said its language would permit intrusions into a consumer's audio and video files and attacks that would knock a computer off-line.

The most disturbing aspect of the proposal is that it would lift civil and criminal penalties against entertainment companies "disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting or otherwise impairing" the online trading of pirated songs and movies. If it were limited to currently available techniques such as bad file seeding, this would be completely acceptable and quite innovative. Instead what's being contemplated here is carte blanche authority to go snooping through a user's entire file system, searching for files that may or may not exist. And while wholesale attacks knocking an Internet user off-line would not be permitted "except as may be reasonably necessary" to prevent a copyright violation, it is the industry who determines that reasonable necessity. Copyright owners would be required to explain in advance to the Justice Department the methods they intend to use against pirates.

The Motion Picture Association of America praised Berman's efforts but cautioned in a statement that "there are aspects of the bill we believe need changing."

Under the bill, companies would not be required to warn users in advance of their actions, which would obviously hamper their efforts otherwise. However, the most ludicrous aspect of this legislation states that a user wrongly attacked could sue only if he suffered more than $250 in economic losses and obtained permission to file a lawsuit from the U.S. attorney general. This virtually guarantees that no user, regardless of how grievously harmed, would ever successfully seek compensation for the industry's intrusions.

Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation warned that the bill would allow zealous copyright owners to employ "all kinds of technical measures that will interfere with the functioning of the Internet."

Alan Davidson of the Center for Democracy and Technology said the legislation "provides a hunting license for copyright holders to seek out legitimate users of the Internet."

Records show Berman received at least $186,891 from the entertainment industry during the 2001-02 election cycle, including $31,000 from The Walt Disney Co. and $28,050 from AOL-Time Warner Inc.

Source: AP Newswire

ShadowFur

SUE THE FUCKERS!!! ITS VIOLATIN OF FIRST AMENDMENT!!! RIGHT TO PRIVACY!!!!

btw... sorry for the caps....

MikeDaMan

wont there be some kind of a firewall to block thier access to your computer? I'm sure once someone finds out how their getting in some kind of a "block" will be produced.

__________________
DFI Lanpart UT 250GB motherboard. 1GB 2X512 Crucial Ballistix PC 3200. AMD Athlon 64 3400+. Retail ATI Radeon X850XT PE AGP

Allistar

No offense, but this news headline reminded me of something Slashdot would post. Slanted / misleading headlines and such...

I wouldn't expect such stuff here, on a respected forum. When you say "The Entertainment Industry is trying to hack computer", that's a present tense. But as you later clarify, it's a senator wanting to enact a piece of legislature that would make this legal. (Which, of course, has no chance in congress.)

I dunno, I just found it kind of discomforting to start seeing such misleading headlines here of all places..

--Alli


EDIT CYBORG: I updated the title, as I thought you had a point about the tense.

ivan300

he he then why not make "hacking" leagal for everyone then we'll see who will be hacked

Shaith

You have the right and prerogative to disagree, and I vigorously defend your right to do so. However, I also have the right to a differing opinion. And without intent of insult, I must say you are deluding yourself if you honestly think these things aren't actually going on. You aren't worried enough yet.

But you should be.

The mere fact that they have legislation introduced should give you some idea that they're already working on ways to pull it off. Do you honestly think they will wait to see if it passes to find out if they can do what the bill will allow them to do in the first place? A feasibility study would already be in the works, if for no other reason than simply to prove that they could get in, find the files, and get out. They're already loading the 'Net with junk files, a fact they readily admit. I wouldn't be at all surprised if certain P2P applications replete with distributed computing capabilities weren't turned INWARD at some point, just to show they could be. Next could be a "new file sharing service" that quietly compiled a list of users and the files they were sharing to be used as a guide once legislation passed.

The major problem with these tactics and this particular legislation is that clearly the 4th amendment is completely and utterly forsaken for even those law-abiding members of society who have properly purchased all of their movies, music, etc. It also sets a dangerous precedent, allowing software companies the same rights under the law to perform ACTIVE searches of your computer looking for illegally registered software. Would you like to see them wipe out a shareware program you used daily because it hit the 31st day after you installed it and you hadn't had the chance to register it yet? Technically, you'd violated the license agreement, and thus it was now "pirateware" according to copyright law.

You say the title was slanted and misleading, but I disagree. Put yourself in the development rooms of the Hollywood establishment. Are you actually waiting for permission to test your developed tools, or are you already trying them on a limited basis? Do you think an industry with that much clout and power in the state of California couldn't handle a user crying foul because their MP3 collection got wiped out? This assumes the user figures out what happened in the first place, which isn't likely. And what user is going to go to the authorities screaming that their entire MP3 collection was surreptitiously wiped out, including the stuff they'd neglected to pay for? That's akin to the stupidity exhibited by the criminal (now serving time) who called 9-1-1 because someone "stole his weed".

And the people of the state of California should immediately and without hesitation begin proceedings to remove this Congressman for violating his oath of office, in which he swore to defend the Constitution of the United States.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We can only hope that in the unlikely event that this bill actually manages to PASS that it is IMMEDIATELY challenged and found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. Otherwise, it sets a dangerous and far-reaching precedent, with ramifications that would make "Big Brother" pale by comparison.

//.\\//.\\

They call that media, A cd-R...........we should have time to backup

__________________
Don't pretend i'm MAD (//.\\//.\\ ) when in fact i'm MAB!

craig5320

Well I agree we Shaith, and I don't think his chosen title was anything to object too. It's a widely accepted journalism technique, no doubt you read it and clicked it immediately. and for once I gotta say I'm glad I'm in England.

__________________

ethikz

even if they did make it legal they would still have to "hack" your system.. last time i checked there were ways to set up your system to make this nearly imposible to do.. the only people the law would work on is the unskilled in computer security.. if such a law did pass and they had people "legaly" hacking systems in the name of big biz i know of hundreds of hacking groups that would reack havok on the internet and companies involved, in the name of our rights.. on one last note the article said aol/time warner and disney both paid a lot towards the guys campaine.. if you look close enuff they are pretty much both owned by the same people along with several other huge name companies in the u.s...

Worthless Munkee

The thing that is cool for me is if i gets passed in the U.S. is that if the Music Industry looks into my computer, I can sue them and i would sue them hard. That is because i live in canada and the government of Canada is too chicken Sh*t to pass a law like that. So I want this to happen so i can sur the hell outta the music industry.

__________________
----<<<[And that is My opinion and I am sticking to it!]>>>----

Shaith

Wouldn't matter. If they were doing it from America, where it had become legal, you'd be unable to get a judge anywhere to take your side. Your government might make a little noise, have a few chats with the US State Department, but that's as far as it would get. I don't think Canada would last long in that argument, frankly.

For example, take a second and look at the satellite companies. They can't legally sell services in Canada because they don't have 50% of the programming in French, or so I understand. This makes it legal for people to run outlaw systems and get the programming for free. Hughes and other companies have been lobbying and suing and doing everything to bust people in Canada for running outlaw systems, and so far they haven't been successful for long. Eventually, though, the laws will pass, and it will no longer be legal to receive those signals without paying for them. And then the satellite companies will be free to resume their crusade, shutting down satellite parts dealers and arresting users who don't pay for their services.

Really care to take the risk?

franguinho

wtf

__________________
The Aliens mostly come out at night... mostly...

JAV

If you read the proposed text of the Senste Bill (I have) the article is inaccurate.

It is aimed at 'File Sharing Networks' & not private individuals. Notice 'must' be given to the AG & the intended 'target' a minimum of 1 week in advance & *only* files that are 'copyright protected' can be 'blocked' & only by the copyright holders or their agents.

There is no mention of 'Legal Notice' requirements (4th Amend) & it will fall flat on its face.

Bad Legislation that is very poorly written & has very little support in Congress, in the entertainment industry & w/the public. Jack Valenti (sp) head of MPAA has already spoken out against it in its present form.

Here's the actual text of the Bill: http://www.politechbot.com/docs/berm...nal.072502.pdf

HTH,

JAV
GBA!

Shaith

I have indeed read the proposed legislation in its final form. Let's discuss it, shall we?

First up:

(2) ‘peer-to-peer file trading network’ means two or more computers which are connected by computer software that
(A) is primarily designed to
(i) enable the connected computers to transmit files or data to other connected computers;
(ii) enable the connected computers to request the transmission of files or data from other connected computers; and
(iii) enable the designation of files or data on the connected computers as available for transmission; and
(B) does not permanently route all file or data inquiries or searches through a designated, central computer located in the United States;

Now, does this refer to networks like Gnutella, Kazaa, or does it include IRC? If people use search plugins for their IM clients, don't these also fall within these guidelines since the searches aren't being routed through a designated central computer within the United States? Certainly news servers would be unaffected as it would not pass the test provided by section (2)(B), but they are in the minority.

(3) a peer-to-peer file trading network is ‘publicly accessible’ if
(A) participation in the network is substantially open to the public; and
(B) the network enables the transmission of computer files or data over the Internet or any other public network of computers;

These guidelines are completely wide-open and without limitation. If it transmits data over ANY public network, it's included.

(4) the term ‘file trader’ means an individual who is utilizing a publicly accessible, peer-to-peer file trading network to transmit, make available for transmission, or download computer files or data, or the owner of a computer that is connected to a publicly accessible, peer-to-peer file trading network and is engaged in the transmission of computer files or data through the peer-to-peer file trading network;

This term is far too vague. It doesn't at all mention that the 'file trader' must be an individual who is allegedly transmitting copyrighted data in violation of the copyright - it simply states that a 'file trader' is someone who sends or receives data through a peer-to-peer network.

---------------

By more careful reading of these definitions, the vagueries become more stark. And the so-called remedies offered are paltry and are little more than swatting a fly. IF you experienced more than $250 in ACTUAL monetary losses, and IF you file a grievance with the OAG, and IF the OAG determines that your claim is valid, THEN you will be entitled to the amount of the loss plus attorney's fees. This does NOT include any provisions for remunerative compensation for the illegal invasion of your privacy, time spent preparing your case, further loss of wages appearing at hearings to determine the eligibility of your claim, et cetera. It's frankly reminiscent of the old Porky Pig cartoon... IF you get a bump on your head after being hit by a herd of STAMPEDING BUFFALO, in JULY in a BLIZZARD...

And there is NO notice requirement that they contact the alleged file trader. They must contact the DoJ 7 days prior to blocking, tampering, deleting, or interfering, but no such requirement is made with respect to notification of the alleged trader or the IP assignee. Read a little more closely.

‘‘(2) At the request of an affected file trader or the assignee of an Internet Protocol address used by an affected file trader, a copyright owner shall provide notice to the affected file trader or assignee (as the case may be) of
‘‘(A) the reason for impairing trading in the computer file or data containing the copyrighted work of the copyright owner;
‘‘(B) the name and address of the copyright owner; and
‘‘(C) the right of the affected file trader to bring an action described in subsection (d).
‘‘(3) The notification by a copyright owner under paragraph (1) shall not be construed for any purpose as an admission of an unlawful act.

This does NOT mean advance notification. This means notification after-the-fact. If the provider or the end user suspect such tampering and can prove it was a particular copyright holder responsible, AND they contact and make a request of the copyright owner, the copyright owner must THEN make notice.

The blocking means action taken to prevent further transmission of material that supposedly violates copyrights - don't think for a second it means JUST that instead of blocking ALL transmissions. It's a carte blanche license for DOS attacks, which is why the provider has the right to request notification regarding the action being taken - but again only AFTER the fact, not BEFORE.

And while Valenti may have spoken out against its present incarnation, and Berman has attempted to distance the RIAA somewhat as well, make no mistake that they would both jump for joy if anything even closely resembling this bill were to be turned into law.

The moral is simple:

Accept nothing. Question everything. The cost of eternal peace is eternal vigilance.

JAV

You are quite right on the 'prior notification' aspects of the Bill. I did misread (wishful thinking) that it did require prior notice to the affected parties. My bad ...

One more reason it will not fly. I am in agreement that it is very pooorly written & is extremely vague. I don't believe the DOJ will support it nor the majority of Congress. If by some twist of idiotic fate it does pass: I have faith the Courts WILL strike it down.

Keep the vigil!

SSV
GBA!

Worthless Munkee

But just imagine winning a law suit against the record companies, you wouldn't have towork again in your life.

Im not exactly sure but I think they dropped the amount of french programming to 25%, which i find ridiculuos because only somethign like 5% of canadians watch french tv only. The reasion is because french tv is jsut horrible, but they do do a take on Street Smarts which is pretty funny.

Im thinking that sometime soon all the technology that society has worked so hard to build, we won't even be able to use, so when these companies are trying to keep making money off of us, in the end we wont be able to buy anythin from them, so they will only end up losing money. I don't know what the music industry is complaining about it is still a multi billion dollar industry and you can only do so much with money. Eventually there is nothing u can do with it, man its cool to have money but from the words of the punk group Big Wig "I would rather be happy and poor than have it all and still want more".

__________________
----<<<[And that is My opinion and I am sticking to it!]>>>----

Shaith

The problem is, that punk group's cohorts all want more money. While it's great that there's an artist out there who isn't in it simply for the money, fact is, 99.999% of them are.

As for Canadian TV - wasn't the requirement for the broadcast to be primarily in French, not necessarily "French TV"?

Not that it really matters - I won't be leaving the USA

Yemble

We're talking here about some of the richest companies in the world...

...ain't it just another typical case of American corporate greed.

Who gives a shit anyway, we'll just find a smarter way of ripping those movies.

__________________
See all, hear all, say nowt.
Eat all, sup all, pay nowt.
And if tha does owt for nowt, alus do it for thisen.