|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 17 new of 154 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 138 of 154:
| 
Jun 18 13:10 UTC 2003 |
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5865
Senator endorses destroying computers of illegal downloaders
By Ted Bridis, The Associated Press Jun 17 2003 3:04PM
The chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee said Tuesday he
favors developing new technology to remotely destroy the computers of
people who illegally download music from the Internet.
The surprise remarks by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch during a hearing on
copyright abuses represent a dramatic escalation in the frustrating
battle by industry executives and lawmakers in Washington against
illegal music downloads.
During a discussion on methods to frustrate computer users who illegally
exchange music and movie files over the Internet, Hatch asked technology
executives about ways to damage computers involved in such file trading.
Legal experts have said any such attack would violate federal
anti-hacking laws.
"No one is interested in destroying anyone's computer," replied Randy
Saaf of MediaDefender Inc., a secretive Los Angeles company that builds
technology to disrupt music downloads. One technique deliberately
downloads pirated material very slowly so other users can't.
"I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone's computer
"may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."
The senator, a composer who earned $18,000 last year in song writing
royalties, acknowledged Congress would have to enact an exemption for
copyright owners from liability for damaging computers. He endorsed
technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal online
behavior, "then destroy their computer."
"If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines,
we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the
only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few
hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize" the seriousness
of their actions, he said.
"There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," said Hatch, who
has earned royalties for composing music.
A spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America, Jonathan
Lamy, said Hatch was "apparently making a metaphorical point that if
peer-to-peer networks don't take reasonable steps to prevent massive
copyright infringement on the systems they create, Congress may be
forced to consider stronger measures."
The RIAA represents major music labels.
|
tod
|
|
response 139 of 154:
|
Jun 18 16:19 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 140 of 154:
|
Jun 18 18:55 UTC 2003 |
How do they plan to 'damage' computers without invading the homes of the
owners?
|
tod
|
|
response 141 of 154:
|
Jun 18 19:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 142 of 154:
|
Jun 18 20:31 UTC 2003 |
And what ever happened to due process?
|
tod
|
|
response 143 of 154:
|
Jun 18 20:42 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 144 of 154:
|
Jun 19 07:03 UTC 2003 |
Maybe less people are buying into TiVo because, with little
thought, TiVo will think you are gay.
(ps. don't TiVo King of Queens).
|
flem
|
|
response 145 of 154:
|
Jun 19 16:04 UTC 2003 |
It took me several tries to figure out what #144 was talking about, but if
I did manage to get it, that's pretty funny. :)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 146 of 154:
|
Jun 20 18:45 UTC 2003 |
There have been articles about it. If you can find them, they're hysterical
(like what happens when you try to convince your TiVo you aren't gay).
|
mcnally
|
|
response 147 of 154:
|
Jun 26 05:06 UTC 2003 |
?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 148 of 154:
|
Jun 26 13:05 UTC 2003 |
Sometimes it overcompensates. Here's the story:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1038261936872356908,00.html
|
gull
|
|
response 149 of 154:
|
Jun 26 14:21 UTC 2003 |
It strikes me that these people care far too much what guesses a
computer algorithm is making about what they'd like to see. They're
acting as if it's another person they're trying to convince, instead of
a mindless computer.
|
gull
|
|
response 150 of 154:
|
Jun 26 14:22 UTC 2003 |
This should be about as popular as death:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31434.html
Line'em up! RIAA to sue thousands
By Ashlee Vance in San Francisco
Posted: 25/06/2003 at 21:10 GMT
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has issued the
biggest threat to date against online file-traders, saying it will sue
thousands of individuals into submission.
Starting Thursday, pigopolist grunts will begin combing P2P networks in
search of industrious file traders. Once the RIAA has targeted a large
store of copyrighted files, it will serve a subpoena on the user's ISP,
grab his/her name and address, and fire off a lawsuit.
"The RIAA expects to use the data it collects as the basis for filing
what could ultimately be thousands of lawsuits charging individual
peer-to-peer music distributors with copyright infringement," the RIAA
said in a statement. "The first round of suits could take place as early
as mid-August."
A pair of recent court rulings opened up this means of attack on
file-traders. First, a Los Angeles judge in April said P2P service
operators could not be held responsible for their users' actions. This
decision blocked the RIAA from shutting down large chunks of the P2P
community in one go - think Napster - and pushed them toward nailing
individuals.
More recently, the RIAA won another decision over Verizon, which gave it
permission to see the name and address of the ISP's customers.
Users face civil lawsuits, thousands of dollars in fines and even
criminal prosecution. At least the legal action is a more civilized way
of conducting business. Sending out fake files and having musicians
swear at users are puerile forms of protest.
For now, file traders should swap with caution. The RIAA plans to inject
network scanning software out into the vast P2P world and track what
files users are looking for and what they trade. If the RIAA bot spots
an infringing song, it marks the date and time the file is accessed.
It's unfortunate the government did not have such sophisticated tools
when it was examining the music labels' pricing fixing scheme that
pushed CD prices higher throughout the 1990s. Maybe then, the labels
would been hit with something harder than a slap on the wrist.
Time, perhaps, for a good old-fashioned consumer boycott?
|
gull
|
|
response 151 of 154:
|
Jun 26 18:19 UTC 2003 |
Another, longer article about the same thing:
http://www.freep.com/money/tech/newman26_20030626.htm
|
remmers
|
|
response 152 of 154:
|
Jun 26 19:31 UTC 2003 |
Re #150, last sentence: Yes.
|
krj
|
|
response 153 of 154:
|
Jun 26 23:00 UTC 2003 |
Oops, sorry, I duplicated the gist of David/gull's resp:150 when I
rolled in the new quarterly incarnation of this item.
I believe that there is a widespread misunderstanding of the
Verizon case, including its citation in The Register's item above.
It was not disputed that the RIAA could get the subscriber ID
information of the Verizon customers who the RIAA believed to be
infringing its copyrights; the dispute was over the mechanism to
be used. Verizon wanted the RIAA to file a "John Doe" lawsuit
against the user at the given IP address; this satisfied Verizon's
desire to slow down the process to something it can afford, and
offered judicial review of the case for privacy advocates.
What the RIAA wanted (and got) was access to the "expedited subpoena"
process spelled out in the DMCA. This doesn't make it any easier
for the RIAA to file suit against P2P sharers; it does make it possible
for the RIAA to send threatening letters to the users without
suing them.
The Verizon ruling may also allow the RIAA to shop for particularly
unattractive defendants, and avoid the embarassment of suing cute
12-year-old girls, but that's not directly the issue.
|
gull
|
|
response 154 of 154:
|
Jun 27 13:53 UTC 2003 |
Re #153: It's okay. More people will read the info in the new Agora.
|
