A new bill proposed by US Republican senator Sam Brownback seems designed to keep porn away from p2p, at the same time leaving the way open for the RIAA to nail file sharers.

Brownback, from Kansas, believes his Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management Act of 2003, introduced yesterday, would, "close the special subpoena powers record companies are using to prosecute file sharers," says the Wichita Eagle here.

His fear, says the report, is that pornographers, stalkers or other people with an interest in blackmailing or otherwise harming people could also obtain subpoenas under the 1998 DMCA, forcing service providers to give out personal information.

The RIAA, says the Eagle story, "can still subpoena and prosecute people under his [Brownback's] bill, but gaining a subpoena would be more difficult".

"I find it untenable that any Internet subscribers' identifying information can be obtained, under government auspices no less, without oversight or due process," Jefferson Graham quotes him as saying in his USA TODAY article, Lawmakers weigh in on file sharing. "There are no checks, no balances, and the alleged pirate has no opportunity to defend themselves."

His bill is slated for discussion before the Senate Commerce Committee today. In attendance, apparently, will be lawyers for Verizon and Net provider SBC, plus RIAA president Cary-Sue Sherman.

(Thanks for the pointers, directive, isp-privacy and gilbd : )

I'm puzzled. I'm very glad they're trying to address the Porn issue. I hate getting bombarded with it on the net constantly. however there is a legal problem as I see it. The legal Porn industry has as much legal right to protect their copywright material as anyone. so why eliminate their right and still allow others like the RIAA to sue. I SAY DON'T ALLOW ANY OF THEM TO GET INTO OUR COMPUTERS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, PERIOD!!!!!

SLAP EM BACK SENATOR BROWNBACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YAY KANSAS!!!!
THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME!!!! NO PLACE LIKE HOME!!!!!!!!!!

GO

What so is he saying anyone who has a copy of Debbie Does Dallas on mpg is a net-stalker or someshit? Get rid of subpoenas entirely and protect our privacy! The ONLY way that our identify and IP should ever have to be linked is if we spam others and shit!

pr0n is everywhere...stop avoiding the real issues.

The real issue here is being avoided!!! Stop the smoke screen and address the main issues!!!

Question - it's nice to know they're trying to make it a bit harder for the RIAA to slam a suit onto our faces, but what else? It's not stopping the problem, like Red5 said. The RIAA still has rights they shouldn't under OUR rights.

Speaking of rights, doesn't the definition of "crime" equal the point where the criminal infringes on the rights of the victim? So the RIAA stomping on our rights... MAKES THE RIAA A CRIMINAL!!

It seams kinda like a low blow to use porn as a way to undermine P2P users. Oh they like porn. It just a smoke screen to cloud the issue and attach negative imagery to file swaping. The thing I find so odd about the whole thing is unlike file shareing, porn is perfectly legal.

I totaly on board with not alowing anyone in personal computers without due process. My home is private. My computer feels 10X as private. If someone was poking around my system without my concent it would feel like they were violating me. I don't like that. Not one bit.

I think the Porn issue they're referring to is that in addition to the RIAA SOB's, several Gay Porn websites have used the DMCA subpoena powers on Verizon (and other ISPs) in an attempt to get the real identities of visitors to their sites. The fear is that they would then use this info to blackmail these people. One of the MANY problems with the DMCA is that it allows anyone (i.e. porn sites, stalkers, etc.) to simply claim copyright infringement and then get personal info on an anonymous internet user.
Ideally, Brownback's bill would take the subpoena power away from the RIAA entirely. But if he makes it more difficult for them to get one, it's at least an interim improvement until we can get the whole DMCA thrown out.

SoCalUser is right. This article wasn't very clear in explaining it.

I think Brownback's bill is designed to stop abuse of the DMCA by requiring copyright holders to file a "John Doe" lawsuit and obtain a REAL subpeona issued by a judge, just like everyone else has to. If this were to happen it would make things more difficult for the RIAA because they wouldn't be able to pick and choose who they sue and they might end up taking a Senator to court over his/her children's p2p use.

That would be fun to watch.

I like the bill, but I don't think it goes far enough in some areas, and I think it covers too many issues in one bill. But I do really like the DRM issues it covers. It's imprtant to realize that if companies start implementing DRM, then that could hurt our libraries, schools, and our ability to donate our used media products to people who need them.

~goingnova

Here's what I'd like to know (and feel free to chastise me if this is too far off topic):

Who authorized the RIAA to compile "evidence" against p2p users? Who verifies that it is valid and unaltered?

Let's say a case goes to court and the defendant claims that they don't have copyrighted material on their computer. The RIAA then produces it's "evidence" including (maybe) screenshots of Kazaa showing filenames and username, IP address, whatever. They also produce a copy of the files they supposedly downloaded. Who checks on them to make sure that they are gathering evidence in a proper manner? Who's to say they aren't manufacturing their own evidence? What gives them the right to act in the capacity of the police?

It's possible for an artistic (albeit sick) individual to convincingly and realistically paste Britney Spear's head onto a picture of a nude woman. It wouldn't be that hard to create or alter a screenshot and throw together some random mp3 files.

Not to say that the RIAA would really need to do this, but hey, their banking on the threat of bankruptcy to keep these cases from ever reaching trail anyway. I'm just wondering if this could be used as a defense.

Maybe you can help me out here, Code.

I like your way of thinking, goingnova, and I agree. I would prefer if the DMCA were either repealed completely or modified to reign in the more overbroad (and ridiculous) provisions. That, to me, would be a much better solution.

If they were prosecuting a criminal case, a 12-person jury needs to be unanimously convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" so the audit trail for the evidence becomes important. In a civil case a 6-person jury needs to be convinced by a "perponderance" of evidence, so the audit trail is not so important.

Thanks for the info Teresita! It is immensely helpful to have such knowledgable folks around here.

I've heard on several boards people speaking in earnest when they discuss exploiting the subpoena power of the DMCA (in order to show just how badly it can be abused). Effective as that may be, what is stopping an entity from using the DMCA against the government's ISPs, Gov. employees, the president's daughters, ect..? Wouldn't you expect the DMCA to get burried if someone started digging up names, issuing supoenas and seizing computing equipment - if the targets were the "privileged few"? How long do you think it would last if a supoena dug up a protected witness..ect.. the potential for abuse and misuse is limitless. Hopefully lawmakers wake up to this fact before we have to demonstrate our "legal options".

P2P is like millions of cars going 75 MPH down a freeway posted for 60. RIAA has managed to pull over 261 cars, and their flashing blue lights have made some drivers touch their brakes, but it's not really putting a dent in the average speed of the traffic. Even pleas by RIAA on billboards to slow down are laughed at. All kinds of elaborate "Vehicle Speed Management" schemes have been tried. If Ford builds a GPS-based system that tracks your car's speed and automatically fines you, people shift to buying Chevys. If the government responds by requiring all internal combustion Operating Systems made in the USA to go no faster than 60 MPH, people shift to foreign cars.

maybe this bill is a start.. would have to read the whole thing though.

Someone should look into it and see if we can't get a congressman to add an admendment to that bill for us. To have it tightly restrict all identification request... maybe to only let law enforcement make such request.

nm... that article kinda confused me..

the bill would make the RIAA go through a court to get someone's ID.

so, That means the most hated part of the DMCA would be thrown out

I'm sure the bill is quite useful to fix some problems. However, as I see it the real problem we have is with DMCA. So I think if this guy really cared about the problems caused by the DMCA he would be working on modifying or repealing that bill. I don't see the need for another bill. In fact I think we need just the opposite.... One less....

What's going on here is long overdue. You think you have privacy on the internet? Nah. Never had. The RIAA is just one of the idiots who make your life hell. Slightly off topic, but Congress needs to lay off the copyright thing, and finally do something about the whole spam issue. Now, I LIKE porn. I have alot of it. However, I know where to find it, I don't really need 50 or more spam emails telling me where to get it.

I don't see where the bill is calling me a "pornographer or stalker", I don't make porn, my fiancee would kill me. I don't hunt down people with the intent of seducing them. I just happen to like to watch it sometimes. I don't think that's what this bill means, though. What it's saying, is that under the current version of the DCMA, I could request a subpoena from a superior court, with no real checks on who I am, by simply saying I've found some of my copyrighted work on the internet. Current law would require the subpoena to be issued, and I could force any ISP to give me names, addresses, and personal info for any number of people, or perhaps just one or two people.

Repealing the DCMA isn't really necessary. I think even Code will agree that there's some good points to it, and some needed parts. It needs to be modifies, for sure.....and in today's world, modifying is easier by creating a whole second law to clarify. Too many idiots, not enough time. If you even knew how many laws there are that are just plain common sense, but have to be there for the moron who doesn't know how to put his pants on in the morning, you'd be shocked.

Anyway, my understanding of the bill in question is that it's rather similar to one Code and I, as well as a few others, have worked on. It still provides for copyright holders to protect their work, including porno companies and book publishers, while at the same time providing the same measure of checks and balances as provided for in every other form of lawsuit or legal action. For example, you can't be hauled into court for speeding, without a measure of verifiable proof, and even then, there's enough protection for the defendant that you can many times get out of paying the fine. Likewise a shoplifter cannot be prosecuted, no matter HOW much circumstantial evidence there is, without actually being caught "in the act", with the stolen goods. What the RIAA is doing is hauling you to court, with no verifiable proof that you are indeed doing anything wrong, and the law allows for that. They say I did it, so I must've done it. It's akin to you being arrested for shoplifting because the cops think your roommate may have done it, and he pays rent to you, so you're guilty by association.

The entire copyright systems full of bugs. Its suffered from hundreds of years of uncoordinated changes, often induced more by lobbying than by any intention to benefit consumers. Remember the objective of copyright is only to benefit consumers, by encourageing content creators. If I could somehow rewrite it, I would shortern copyright terms to only 30 years after creation, for both individual or corporate owned works, and once again make an explicit copyright notice a requirement. I would then set an exception for software, which would expire in only 15 years to reflect the short useable commercial life of software. Finally, I would tighten the standards for precisely what can and cannot be copyrighted, to prevent people copyrighting stupid things such as one-line slogans (often both copyrighted and trademarked at the moment) or noncreateive databases and to prevent any more cases such as the rediculus "look-and-feel" copyrights which plagued early work on GUI-based operating systems. That wouldn't be hard, I would just set an explicit list of what can be copyrighted (text intended for publishing, music, movies, software in both source and object form, images, perhaps a few other things) and set a procedure by which the list can be altered if circumstances change.

But its all just ideas. Copyright law is controled by polititions which learn everything they know on the subject by listening to lobbyists who tell them how much better things wil lbe if they extend terms by just another twenty years...every twenty years, and how the civilisation will collapse unless more is done to fight the plague of pirates.

(Did I post that explanation of why the traditional pirates parrot wouldn't like MP3 music yet?)

heffie- There are a small number of part of the DMCA that I don't find particularly offensive, but I take ,most respectfully, a different stand and that's why, in my current version of my proposed bill (codewarrior.50mb.org/digitalconsumers.htm ), I have a provision calling for repeal of the DMCA. The reason is that, I personally believe that, just like the most evil of people, say, like Adolf Hitler, does have SOME redeeming qualities, (he loved animals, and helped get the Volkswagen produced) that trying to make a plethora of changes in order to reform something that is evil at its core, is a waste of time and effort. The DMCA is evil at its core. It seeks to violate rights, it enables improper subpoena process shortcuts, and a bunch of other things. It is an implementation of the EURO WIPO copyright version, and, as such, a tool of the globalist to eradicate our national identity in some ways.
I think it would be foolish to try to "repair" the DMCA and would ultimately be a waste of time. It is wrongheaded from its inception.
I don't know how many people here are registered copyright holders, but I am and have been for around 20 years
(copyright registration fee increased from then to now). The old copyright act was fine in my estimation. We really didn't need the DMCA and it created more problems than it could ever claim to repair. And, just as an aside, no less a computer user hater than Orrin Hatch co-sponsored it, so that tells you something (Orrin..let's let copyright holders hack and destroy computers - Hatch).
So, my stand on this needs to be understood very clearly. I am 100 % for repeal of the DMCA, and 100 % against it continuing to be inflicted on the American public. The host of horrors inflicted by the RIAA are enabled by this obscene legislation.

In my opinion, the DMCA MUST be repealed, and I personally am doing everything in my power to bring this about, and am doing this, for the benefit of not just myself, as a registered copyright holder of various copyrighted materials, but as a computer user on behalf of other similarly situated computer users.


~CodeWarrior

I've read and you should one provision.

Any bill that would turn millions of average law-biding citizens into criminals is therefore unconstitutional, and any member of a Legislative body in the United States, (The is include municipal, state and the national legislature[Congress] who attempts to pass such a bill, willfully and defiantly submits to grounds of impeachment, and therefore could be removed from office.

edit you should add one provision