Sign in to follow this  
Guest mikehaska

Piracy fight gets serious

Recommended Posts

Piracy fight gets serious BBC News | Thursday, 27 June, 2002, 16:17 GMT 17:17 UKRecord makers could win the right to carry out hack attacks on music sharing services if a US proposal becomes law. Californian congressman Howard Berman has drawn up a bill that would legalise the disruption of peer-to-peer networks by companies who are trying to stop people pirating copyrighted materials. If his idea becomes law, record companies will be able to carry out a variety of attacks on the sharing services to make them unusable or so irritating to use that people abandon them. Existing legislation makes it an offence for anyone to carry out many of the attacks mooted in the proposal. Better blockers So far, music companies have used legal action to stop people spreading pirated pop through net-based peer-to-peer networks, such as Napster, Kazaa and Audiogalaxy. Their attempts have largely been successful. Napster has declared itself bankrupt and is trying to relaunch itself as a subscription service; Kazaa has run out of money to pay its mounting legal bills; and Audiogalaxy has agreed to remove copyrighted material from its network that it does not have permission to share. However, legal action can take a long time to work and now Howard Berman, a democrat congressman for California, has proposed legislation that will let music makers act much more quickly. Spoof tracks His proposal would let the record makers carry out hacking-type attacks on sharing networks to protect copyrighted works. If it became law, record companies would win the right to place spoof tracks on sharing services, block downloads, redirect people to non-existent files and launch attacks that disrupt the smooth running of the networks. Some record labels have already been known to seed some networks with spoof tracks or adverts to try to stop people getting hold of music they have not paid for. The law would also allow the record companies to place programs on the machines of peer-to-peer networks to let them trace who is pirating pop.Legalized hacking and virus planting... I want to see this law as written.Can you say "unintended consequences?"I knew you could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Well, the Supreme Court through out the First Amendment last week. We might as well throw away the Fifth Amendment this week. What the hay?? Why not. King George's first act in office was to throw away all of the Freedom of Information Act laws. Might as well continue. What say you all???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this could set a dangerous precident. The government and corporations are having a large amount of trouble with hackers who are perpetrating DOS attacks (Denial of service, which floods servers with repeated requests for information, bogging and even shutting down the network).So, what? Some people are allowed to disrupt networks, while others are prosecuted for doing so? Good luck!The USA is only one in more than 100 countries. If you want to make such sweeping laws that affect everyone on the internet, you better make sure that they don't affect me- I don't elect your politicians, so you can't make decisions that affect me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything is fine sofar... You would think so right? No, if they would append this to the lawbook, the it would only apply to US. Right? Well, if they hack a network based outside of US (one can not disrupt the US part only) then a legal action against the Music companies would be in order. The Dutch law sais clearly that no one has the right on disrupting a service running in this country. Let them try and disrupt the whole KaZaa network. I think that they will have a hard time here in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent. At last the industry gets the right to defend itself from muggers and thieves. Now to apply the same to the software industry as well.Why should it be legal to install defenses against shoplifters but not against software pirates?Why can a US citizen shoot a burglar in his house, but is he not allowed to fight back against people breaking into his PC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why can a US citizen shoot a burglar in his house, but is he not allowed to fight back against people breaking into his PC?"##### are you talking about? No one is breaking into anyone's computer- quite the opposite. If you are using KaZAam or Napster or WinMX, you have installed that software on your own computer. No one is "Breaking into your computer".Plus, you're right on about the US citizen part. Yeah, so you're a US citizen. So what? You have no rights to make laws that disrupt a global network- that in itself is a crime.JWenting, as with all your other posts, you need less rhetoric, and more hard facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this