RIAA Tries to Sneak in Pork on Anti-Terrorism Bill - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-17-2001, 07:33 PM   #1
love, blood, life
melon's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,789
Local Time: 12:15 AM
RIAA Tries to Sneak in Pork on Anti-Terrorism Bill

"RIAA Wants to Hack Your Computer"

WASHINGTON -- Look out, music pirates: The recording industry wants the right to hack into your computer and delete your stolen MP3s.

It's no joke. Lobbyists for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) tried to glue this hacking-authorization amendment onto a mammoth anti-terrorism bill that Congress approved last week.

An RIAA-drafted amendment according to a draft obtained by Wired News would immunize all copyright holders -- including the movie and e-book industry -- for any data losses caused by their hacking efforts or other computer intrusions "that are reasonably intended to impede or prevent" electronic piracy.

In an interview Friday, RIAA lobbyist Mitch Glazier said that his association has abandoned plans to insert that amendment into anti-terrorism bills -- and instead is supporting a revised amendment that takes a more modest approach.

"It will not be some special exception for copyright owners," Glazier said. "It will be a general fix to bring back current law." Glazier is the RIAA's senior vice president of government relations and a former House aide.

The RIAA's interest in the USA Act, an anti-terrorism bill that the Senate and the House approved last week, grew out of an obscure part of it called section 815. Called the "Deterrence and Prevention of Cyberterrorism" section, it says that anyone who breaks into computers and causes damage "aggregating at least $5,000 in value" in a one-year period would be committing a crime.

If the current version of the USA Act becomes law, the RIAA believes, it could outlaw attempts by copyright holders to break into and disable pirate FTP or websites or peer-to-peer networks. Because the bill covers aggregate damage, it could bar anti-piracy efforts that cause little harm to individual users, but meet the $5,000 threshold when combined.

"We might try and block somebody," Glazier said. "If we know someone is operating a server, a pirated music facility, we could try to take measures to try and prevent them from uploading or transmitting pirated documents."

The RIAA believes that this kind of technological "self-help" against online pirates, if done carefully, is legal under current federal law. But the RIAA is worried about the USA Act banning that practice -- and neither the Senate nor the House versions of that bill include the RIAA's suggested changes.

Glazier said that the RIAA was no longer lobbying for the language provided to Wired News -- "that's completely out" -- but instead wanted to ensure that current law remains the same. But Glazier said he could not provide a copy of the revised amendment he hopes to include.

Legal scholars say that the original amendment the RIAA had been shopping around to members of Congress raises privacy and security concerns.

"It could lead to some really bad outcomes, like a program purposefully intended to delete MP3s that misfunctions and erases everything on a disk -- ooops," says Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "Think a repo man smashing windows and knocking down doors to pull out the 27-inch color TV when you've missed a couple of payments."

Peter Swire, a former top privacy official under President Clinton and now a professor at Ohio State University, says he hopes there would be public debate on any such proposal.

"On its face, this language would allow a deliberate hack attack by a copyright owner against the system of someone who is infringing the copyright," Swire said.

The draft amendment is overly broad and poorly-written, says Orin Kerr, a former Justice Department lawyer now at George Washington University. Says Kerr: "It would deny victims their right to sue copyright owners and their agents if they engaged in vigilante justice by hacking or other means in an effort to block online music distribution."

"Another troubling thing is that they appear to be trying to limit their liability for consequential damages," says R. Polk Wagner, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania's law school. "What if their efforts caused your hard disk to become fatally corrupted?"

An aide on Capitol Hill who had been contacted by the RIAA was even more blunt, dubbing the amendment the "RIAA's License to Virus" proposal.

For its part, the RIAA is still trying to get a copy of its revised amendment -- that it would not provide a copy of -- included in the anti-terrorism bill called the USA Act.

"It didn't make it into the Senate bill," says the RIAA's Glazier. "So the great work of the Senate staff to fix this unintentional problem didn't get through. Now we're in the House with the base language that could have these unintended consequences."

On Friday, the House voted 339-79 for the USA Act, which eases limits on wiretapping and Internet monitoring. The Senate approved the bill on Thursday.

Because neither the House nor the Senate versions of the USA Act include either variant of the RIAA's amendment, the association's lobbyists will focus on a possible conference committee, which would be appointed to work out differences with the Senate. Another possibility is that the Senate could enact the USA Act when senators return this week, automatically sending the bill to President Bush for his signature.

Bush has asked Congress for the additional surveillance and detention powers as a response to the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The text of the original RIAA amendment says that "no action may be brought under this subsection arising out of any impairment of the availability of data, a program, a system or information, resulting from measures taken by an owner of copyright in a work of authorship, or any person authorized by such owner to act on its behalf, that are intended to impede or prevent the infringement of copyright in such work by wire or electronic communication."

It also immunizes from liability actions that "are reasonably intended to impede or prevent the unauthorized transmission" of pirated materials.


Now you see why I am telling everyone to be cautious? I bet the RIAA was expecting everyone to still be on the patriotism high and not even notice this little added pork in an anti-terrorism bill. Be forewarned. I have a feeling that this is just the beginning. What other special-interest groups and their tainted politicians will try and sneak in their crooked agendas on important bills? This is exactly the kind of stuff I have been criticizing.


"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

melon is offline  
Old 10-17-2001, 07:55 PM   #2
The Fly
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Doylestown, PA, USA
Posts: 143
Local Time: 04:15 AM
Wow, that is very interesting. Thanks for posting that melon.

Zoomeranger is offline  
Old 10-17-2001, 08:03 PM   #3
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Queen Lurker
Posts: 323
Local Time: 04:15 AM
Just thought I'd say "hello!" on my first post.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
adam's_mistress is offline  
Old 10-17-2001, 08:35 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 09:15 PM
That's jacked up...

I remember reading news about FBI's Carnivore... saying that the FBI said they won't read contents of email without a federal warrant, but only the to-and-fro sender and receipent's addresses...

They said they hoped to use Carnivore to surveil terrorists, sexual deviants, etc. etc.

All of which still sounds kinda fishy.

"Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on." - Stairway to Heaven, Zoso: Led Zeppelin
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 10-17-2001, 10:32 PM   #5
War Child
wannabe's Avatar
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Athens, Ohio
Posts: 734
Local Time: 08:15 PM
wannabe is offline  
Old 10-18-2001, 08:45 AM   #6
Kid A
The Wanderer's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 11:15 PM
fucking wankers using this tragedy for gain...

The Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-18-2001, 08:56 AM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
speedracer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 7,604
Local Time: 12:15 AM
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
fucking wankers using this tragedy for gain...

Isn't "fucking wanker" a bit of an oxymoron?
speedracer is offline  
Old 10-18-2001, 10:34 AM   #8
Not George Lucas's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Bend, IN USA
Posts: 399
Local Time: 04:15 AM
You've got a point, there, but I don't think one always excludes the other. In fact, I know a guy who like to fuck AND wank. Come to think of it, most adult films involve fucking and wanking, sometimes within seconds of each other.

That being said, I don't see how it could possibly be legal. One could argue that if you suspect someone of stealing your property, you have every right to break into his home and take it back. What's to prevent you from stealing something of his? What's to prevent these people from stealing things off my hard drive?

It's just a really bad idea.

<A HREF="http://"http://www.iusb.edu/~preimers/monkey.jpg"" TARGET=_blank>It's a monkey!</A>
Not George Lucas is offline  
Old 10-18-2001, 08:09 PM   #9
Kid A
The Wanderer's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 11:15 PM
actually, a woman could fuck someone while wanking someone else, I've seen the video clips of this, my friends
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-19-2001, 02:32 AM   #10
Blue Crack Supplier
Popmartijn's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,852
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Originally posted by Not George Lucas:
That being said, I don't see how it could possibly be legal. One could argue that if you suspect someone of stealing your property, you have every right to break into his home and take it back. What's to prevent you from stealing something of his? What's to prevent these people from stealing things off my hard drive?

It's just a really bad idea.

That's the whole problem. If the RIAA can get this proposition through it will become legal. And a problem with the Internet is that it is so international. The RIAA can then attack computers of persons not living in the USA. How can this be prevented?
It again shows that the RIAA is out of touch with the current (musical) society. Instead of embracing and stimulating the new technology so they can sell more records they try to break it, thereby decreasing record sales.

C ya!


People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle

Popmartijn is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com