Its official folks, Reps. Howard Berman (D. CA.) and Howard Coble (R. NC) have introduced the bill that would allow copyright holders to attack peer to peer networks, individual networks, and private computers. The bill has yet to be named, but would give unlimited power to the MPAA and RIAA with little responsibility for the damage they might do.

"The bill my colleagues and I introduce today will free the marketplace to develop technologies that thwart P2P piracy without impairing P2P networks themselves," Berman said in a statement on Thursday. "It will do so by allowing copyright owners, in certain limited circumstances, to use technological tools to thwart P2P piracy without fear of liability.

"The bill is a nightmare," said Mark Lemley, who teaches intellectual property law at the University of California at Berkeley. "I am amazed that after Sept. 11, members of Congress are willing to sacrifice our nation's computer security in order to give Hollywood yet another tool in its already formidable arsenal against piracy."

Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in copyright law, said the draft bill improperly encourages "vigilante justice." "I think it's wildly overreaching," Litman said. "Copyright owners are in essence asking Congress to say that peer-to-peer file trading is such a scourge, is so bad, that stopping it is more important than enforcing any other laws that federal or state governments may have passed on computer security, privacy, fraud and so forth."

Litman said that even if a copyright holder accidentally deleted a home video titled "Snow White," the owner of that PC could be out of luck. "Unless I can show economic harm, I can't even be compensated," Litman said. "Even if I want to be compensated, I have to jump through procedural hoops."

The bill does not specify what techniques, such as viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks, or domain name hijacking, would be permissible. It does say that a copyright-hacker should not delete files, but it limits the right of anyone subject to an intrusion to sue if files are accidentally erased.

The proposal applies to any copyright holder, news organizations, photographers, and even the Church of Scientology would be granted new hacking authority. This would allow anyone with a copyright to make the accusation, and act on it with little if any review or proof of the validity of the claim.

The U.S. attorney general must be provided complete details about the "specific technologies the copyright holder intends to use to impair" the normal operation of the P2P network. Those details would remain secret and would never be released to the public.

"This is part of a greater strategy that's being implemented by the entertainment industry to lock up and control digital information in general," said Robin Gross, an EFF staff attorney. "The rights that we've enjoyed in the analog space are now being taken away from us because we're entering a digital realm."

Gross said she was concerned by the broad grant of immunity to copyright holders who become computer intruders. "When they screw up, they don't want you to be able to get some sort of retribution from them," she said.

Text of bill as introduced:
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/berman.coble.p2p.final.072502.pdf

Section-by-section analysis, prepared by Rep. Berman and friends:
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/berman.coble.p2p.analysis.072502.html

Berman's statement:
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/berman.coble.p2p.statement.072502.html

Find and Contact your Representative:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

this is crap. there is going to be so much backlash from this that they'll never hear the end of it. it will also welcome all hackers in the general population to go to town on the industry computers and hack them to pieces. it's time for these idiots to realize that us "little people" have more control in the digital world than they do. there will always be someone who is able to hack into business networks, this will only encourage them to do so.

The way the bill is written, you could. Send the Attorney General a notice that you intend to do it, and how you intend to do it 1 week before. All you would have to say is I have reason to believe they have copyright files of mine on their computer. This bill opens up a "Pandoras Box" that would do far more harm than good. It's kind of like chopping off your arm because you have a hangnail on your little finger.

it really irritates when reps jump on a bandwagon to get in the good graces of huge corporations on huge issues. i'll tell you what, you know who's computers are going to get hit first: Reps. Howard Berman (D. CA.) and Howard Coble (R. NC)

A quick check of Opensecrets.org reveals that Berman has received $189,000 and Coble has recieved $39,000 from the entertainment industry for this years election.

I'll just laugh my ass off if they're computer's get hit

Heh, ok from the CDPDTA (or however you spell that stupid acronym) to this even if they don't pass into becoming a law they're still proving their stupidity to us all. Sure let vigilanties hack into p2p networks and just let anything from damaged networks to outbreaks of worms & viruses let loose. Hell just by them coming up with this stupid idea is gonna probably encourage somebody to hack RIAA and MPAA computers . Like somebody from there who damages another's computer is gonna step up and say "oops, did I do that to your computer? I appoligize and will pay you towards your damages". C'mon if that's what you or anybody is thinking then that's just one more reason why people should just say no to crack. (>*o*)>-~

that figures, and i'm sure they will get a lot more after this.

Boy this really sucks, how are we going to fight this off? I hope some one steps forward and sets up the "boot leg network" Something where we can use a C.B to transmit data over the air to other users who can then repeat the signal down to the rest of us, man this blows!

what's up with the howards?

someone will dee, just you wait. this bill goes WAY over the line, they're asking for some serious retribution if they start f'n with poeple's files.

I think Bertelsmann's server has copyrighted tracks of me singing in the shower. I am planning my assault on their domain now.

The Hacking wars

who knew world war three would be like this

power to the people!!!!

Does this apply to world wide computers ? our prat of a prime minister (Blair) would probably agree to it.

To the Howards Duo. Is the title of your next release to be " Reap that ye shall sow "

Being that copyrights are accepted in most modern countries, and the attacks themselves will launch from domestic US servers, fair bet that they can attack ANYONE globally on a p2p network. Seems like they would ensure this in their mandate. Otherwise, we can all subscribe to a website for 5 bucks monthly, and have a server based in Belgium somewhere host ALL our files for us.

That's not a bad idea too!

If this bill passes, I will consider it highly legal, justifiable, and Constitutional for me to sabotage people's car engines so that they'll be forced to hire my taxi service. I mean, these amateurs are doin' nothin' but pirating our business, and I think it's about time the industry do sumpm to put a stop to it. ...I don't just mean the gypsy cabs (pirates) either; I'm talkin' about goin' after the commuters, shoppers, transport moms, etc.

...and further, if it passes, I'll be able to not only pull wires from under the hood, but I'll also be able to loosen lug nuts, stabilizer bars, and tie rods, causing the people's cars to go outta control and really do some damage before they get in one of our fine cabs. Hey, it'll be cool; the company won't be at all libel for any incidental damage.

"Those details would remain secret and would never be released to the public." I guess this means I don't hafta tell anyone how or when I'll be doin' my "hacking." ouch.


Hilary's reaction:

"We applaud Congressman Berman for introducing bipartisan legislation that takes an innovative approach to combating the serious problem of Internet piracy," said Hilary Rosen, chairman and chief executive officer of the RIAA.

"Online piracy undermines the growth of legitimate music sites and hurts all consumers in the long run. Every dollar lost to piracy is a dollar that cannot be invested in fresh, new artists we have all come to expect and enjoy," said Rosen.

"The current landscape for online music is dangerously one-sided, with the peer-to-peer pirates enjoying an unfair advantage," Rosen of the RIAA said.

"It makes sense to clarify existing laws to ensure that copyright owners -- those who actually take the time and effort to create an artistic work -- are at least able to defend their works from mass piracy," Rosen said.


Look how she freely throws that "piracy" word around. How convenient. The fact the she's unwilling to make the distinction between pirate (bootlegger) and non-pirate (music-loving citizen) just serves to show the insightlessness of their stance. Pirates/bootleggers steal money that most likely would otherwise make it to the pockets it belongs in. Simple file-sharing downloaders are NOT taking money from their sharing. That the industry sees every download as a lost sale (thus rendering the downloader into a pirate), imo, shows just how badly they want total and utter control of every recording.

And this bill shows to what lengths the industry's willing to go to get that control. They continue to go after their own clientele. I wouldn't really go after the commuter or the shopper since I know that one day they may take me up on my services. If I were to hurt them, I would expect them to do anything they possibly could to refrain from usin' those services. ..A boycott, so to speak.

I sure hope Congress realizes that the RIAA has legal control of only a small fraction of the world's copyrights, and that the majority of copyrighted material out there will never fall under its auspices. I also hope they realize that if they were to pass this bill, it will most certainly allow physically harmful criminal activities to be legally perpetrated.

My seatbelt's fastened.

Yeah, this is bad. Copy protecting all content E.G. the CBDTPA, is
bad enough. But now this. Maybe what they're trying to do is to
stop filesharing by getting everybody scared they may be attacked.
If this happens, people will start buying/installing mega mega
firewall hardware and/or software, closing up previously open
ports. No open ports = no filesharing. If nobody can connect to
anybody else because everybody is scared they might get attacked,
you can't have filesharing. We already know centralized services
don't work. Yeah, they work, but they just don't last long. So
decentralized is the way to go. Maybe what needs to happen is
something along the lines of Freenet. In this and any other such
system, as I see it, all of the following must be true for truly
secure filesharing:
1. Nobody, not even the creators of the network, has any control
over the network. If nobody has any control, it can not be shut
down by legal action.
2. Nobody has any control over what types of information are
shared over the network.
3. Nobody has any way to find out, E.G. by IP address, who is
sharing any given content or who is downloading any given content.
4. Information is securely encrypted when sent over the network,
making packet sniffers and other monitoring software/hardware
totally useless. Sure, it could be determined that, say, ip
address 123.45.67.89 connected to ip address 246.80.246.80 port
5029 and exchanged some data, but the data that were exchanged
would be totally undeterminable by a third party. For even further
security, data should probably be transmitted in such a way that it
takes several steps for data requested by somebody to travel from
the provider of that data to the requester.
Those were just a few thoughts.

how much does the MPAA and RIAA pay these guys??

Utter foolishness. They seem worried that P2P networks are taking money away from the pockets of artists. How noble of the RIAA to put a stop to it! Puh-leez! Let's not talk about how the industry refuses to acknowledge (and sometimes actively discourages) artists that don't fit into their cookie-cutter version of acceptable music.

Not to mention the fact that I resent having to support whoever THEY say I should support. If I like a commercial artist, I will buy their CDs, go to their concerts, watch their videos, and buy their endorsed products. However, if I want to support someone who's trying to make it on their own, publishing their music via P2P, and just trying to establish themselves, I want the opportunity to give my support to them. This law is tantamount to closing off that venue and I don't agree with it at all.

Bottom line, there's plenty of money to go around and these associations should just leave the P2P community alone.

I have a question. I have not really read the bill, but does this apply to anyone with copywrights that apply to products that can be transferred online. the reason i ask is..... if i design some crappy little program in C or something and copywright it does this give me the same rights that the media giants have? I have thr ight to protect my property dont I? To take it a little further

Everything I have made available is there for people to use personally. However, if I heard a company using my tunes to promote themselves I could go searching for it in their computers as although the music is free, every artist still has the right to a copyright, right? People can listen to and share free music, but let's say for argument's sake and for the issue of copyright that the music can't be re-distributed for profit. Now that means the company's marketing campaign infringes my rights, yes? but my music is free (is their argument) too, right?

So I find one of my tunes sat on their company machine. I don't know whether it's for listening pleasure or for darker gains. I'll just delete it until I get a bill saying that their $100000 marketing campaign got wiped out by a hacker....

I think I'm gonna start my own record label soon

No way, dee. I'm not gonna screw about with the figures except the tax returns maybe but the artists get a contract whereby ANYTHING created by them gains any profit they have their share (as a %) including albums, performances, etc.. I'll take time to invest in artists I find promising and spend the money making them known.

Heh, notice the % of profit. I gotta pay the bills, make my living, run the business, etc... but the bottom line is: if the artists don't succeed then either I can't run a business or they're crap (i.e. I can't run a business). Hard decisions....

No intervention by corporations. The idea of having a major label wanting to buy (poach) one of my artists appeals to me as I can really screw them senseless. The downside is that I lose the artist and the respect of a lot of independant artists by dealing with a major label. Hmm... If the artist wants to go, however, should I cash in like all the others or should I hold on and perhaps risk a great deal? If the artist goes major, how much will it cost me to get him back when he/she realises that the major label calls the tunes (literally) and finds their true artistic talents stifled?

sorry im operating on very little sleep. can i employee anyone i want to insure my product is not on unauthorized computers.

really the root of my question is. Does copywrights on any software audio or video, give the person that has the copywright the same permission of accessibility? Will this open the doors for hackers? is a copywright to software the only thing i need to access other peoples hard drives?

I have found only a few spoofed mp3s which were immediatley deleated. I got a spoofed movie that was labeled star wars when it was actually a good version of enter the fist. I just changed the name to its real content and made it available for download. It is up to us to filter out these files by downloading to a directory that is not shared. When the download folder is shared, ppl will see and try to download files that possibly were not checked for spoofing. By the way, Zone alarm pro allows you to block specific ip's or a range of ip's so if a list is made of offending(users only presenting spoofed files to share)ip's they can be blocked.

archiver of you get anymore spoofed files, make a note of the ip and send me a note with the IP if you would..I'll publish them on boycott-riaa.

If the RIAA are so worried about sales falling why did they allow the non supply to retailers of the Elvis cd "a little less conversation" just to get a clown called Gareth Gates get to No 1 in the British charts

/me waits with monkey wrench.

The stock market is on the way down. Just a slo-mo crash is all.

Anyways, lets play their game. Lets get a group of programmers, form a consortium that does 'internet security by way of developing hackware/crackware to learn of ways to make critical data more secure' then copyright and/or patent all the software we make. Plus, the software that would be made would make it impossible for them to ratify this bill. All bases would be covered. In fact, they would have to break their own law in order to figure out how to circumvent what we make.

Stock Market is killing these guys.

1. AOL be dumped by Time Warner (chumps)
2. Vivendi will sell Universal to ?
3. EMI is failing
4. BMG is still ok, although target of class actions
5. Class actions were certified against Sony this week for foreign fraud.

Hey- this bill is exactly what we all should be *hoping* for. Here's why:

If this passes, the backlash will become so loud no one will be able to hear them. Think about it- all the files I create on my hard disk are my personal property. The RIAA, under this law, would be given the green light to destroy my personal property- like my five-year-old's birthday party I decided to name "Snow White". Even hard-core Rethuglicans will be against such action, but there is no provision in the bill to stop it.

So it happens. They start destroying personal property all around the country in the name of copyright. Can you all imagine the screaming roar of the public when it realizes that it now has no expectation that their data will survive?

"Honest users won't be affected" is a load of bull; we all know that. The public isn't stupid. I think we all should do this:

1. Tell the companies that make Limewire, Bearshare, Morpheus, etc. about this and ask them to include strong, 128-bit or better encryption in their applications. Use PGP or something; make it so secure no one can reasonably expect to crack all the files they would need to to build a case.

2. Notify Zone Labs, McAfee, and Norton et al that this is going to happen and ask them nicely to specifically lock out all known RIAA/MPAA IP addresses.

3. Write our own utilities that will automatically backtrace all incoming connection requests when running a P2P application and sned a fatal virus specific to those IP addresses that are owned by the RIAA and the MPAA. Destroy their networks, their hard disks, hell- write a virus that causes their CPU to cycle out of control, overclocking the thing until it fries. This would cause several hundred thousand dollars in damages. GOOD.

4. Do nothing more than this and watch the amusement of the public as the RIAA's and MPAA's efforts to stop P2P cause their demise.

It's time to declare war. Go to all the hacking and cracking sites you can and forward the above article and the text of the bill to them. Ask them to work on it, too. Remember, these people (hackers) are a worldwide network of people, communicating via ICQ, email, IRC, IM, and by every stealth means they can think of. Tell them to use steganography (the embedding of messages into an image file, like a .bmp or .jpg). Get the people you know who know how to write programs to help.

I think it's time we started causing as much damage to them as possible. REAL damage. Destroy their systems. Delete their accounts receiveable files. Corrupt their databases. Fry their hardware. Deny their service.

It's time to fight.

After all, this bill would let them do that to us...

wow! kgnally! thats some good writing, inspires a sort of patriotism for what we believe is right. (p2p) yeah....well ... you know what i mean

meep