Printable View
You have got to be kidding me...
Government sanctioned hacking??? So if I have a bunch of mp3s on my comp, does that mean that sony can hack into my pc???
These washington goobers need to pull their head out.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...copyright_dc_1
I hate those fake mp3's. It takes about 1/2 and hour to download an mp3 on my crappy 56k so extremely pissed off when I find its full of static.
Great DOS attacks...
"It also would let industry use denial-of-service ( news - web sites) attacks — commonly launched by hackers to flood commercial Web sites — to knock personal computers offline so they can't trade copyrighted songs and films. "
Guess who the Rep. that introduced his bill is getting the majority of contributions from...
"Rep. Howard Berman ( news, bio, voting record), who represents part of Hollywood and is the House's single largest recipient of political donations from the entertainment industry, said his legislation "allows copyright owners to use technology to deal with technological piracy."
Does this piss anyone else off?
Here is a link to the Reps statements to congress about his bill...
http://yahoo.capwiz.com/yahoo/webret...use.gov/berman
"One approach that has not been adequately explored is to allow technological solutions to address technological problems. Technological innovation, as represented by the creation of P2P networks and their subsequent decentralization, has been harnessed to facilitate massive P2P piracy. It is worth exploring, therefore, whether other technological innovations could be harnessed to combat this massive P2P piracy problem. Copyright owners could, at least conceptually, employ a variety of technological tools to prevent the illegal distribution of copyrighted works over a P2P network. Using interdiction, decoys, redirection, file-blocking, spoofs, or other technological tools, technology can help prevent P2P piracy. "
Here is a link to the break down of this bill...
http://yahoo.capwiz.com/yahoo/webret...use.gov/berman
"§514(f)(2) ensures that a copyright owner who fails to qualify for the safe harbor is subject to the full range of liability that would exist in the absence of the safe harbor. In other words, if the interdiction efforts of a copyright owner constitute a violation of a state denial-of-service statute and do not qualify for the safe harbor, the copyright owner could be prosecuted under that statute. "
WE THE PEOPLE are the first line of defense in this matter. I have taken the liberty of writing a generic email for concerned members to use to protest this piece of legislation. I am also re-posting the links that will get people in contact with their congress-person. Feel free to use the attached document as you see fit, make any changes you deem needed, whatever. The main thing is that you USE it, make your voice heard. To quote the motto of my own state, "United we stand, divided...we FALL."
U.S. Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cfm
U.S. House of Representatives:
http://clerk.house.gov/members/index.php
this is insane. if you give an inch, they take a mile. where do you draw the line?
thankyou allenb.
btw. im, well, integral to this small weekly paper in northern ohio and i print my own zine around town. can i print your letter as a letter to the editor? pm me if i can.
First off as an Artist learn and understand recording contracts in fact usually an artist makes pennies while the recording company, and music publishing are where the bucks are at. So in short don't blame any group for protecting their pennies it is all they make. Then we have front groups people no music ability hogging market shares what is this Britney things pushed on kids but a rip off or what was it N' Sync? Fact is a group of youngs blacks came out of Harlem played the Applo and not their own image is used as some Marketing ploy. How much did these young men make for their efforts? It was never enough why did they get to be becaause they actually could sing and compose. What is this Ennman guy? A white person that talks like a black man he is not and I have good friends that are black a cheap copy is what he is. As for CD's I buy mine yes burn copies you think I'm going to keep originals worth thousands in my car or my wife? This is fair use let the insurance company pay for $2,000.00 in original CD's I may be forced to carry if I want to listen to them let them deal with the record company and their copy protection crap.
Do not even come to a Security site and ever suggest a DDos unless you are fully aware that saying such things here draw you into my sites as a possible danger and that of others. I'm not givening any points to this thread. But all of you need to learn how the real world works, how business works. Know that FREE may cost a true Artist a way to make a living and do what you all will one day have to do pay your bills and have a roof over your head.
I do not condone your actions nor that of these recording corps, nor that of Washington giving them rights to do so. As you all whine about this do you know that even AO may be forced to report all intrusions attempts to the US goverment so they can review the entire contents of this site? How many DDos will take that away they won't do anything but provide the current US admin to come after you all and I include myself. Just let an artist make their pennies geez we all have to make a living.
Peace
from www.zdnet.com
Will Rodger, the director of public policy at the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), said his group would do its utmost to oppose the bill. CCIA's members include AOL Time Warner, Sun Microsystems and Oracle.
"If I have one illegal MP3 on my computer, Hollywood gets $50 of free damage," Rodger said, referring to a part of the still-unnamed bill that says an electronic intrusion may not cause "economic loss of more than $50 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader."
"Extending that logic further," Rodger said, "if I have 50 infringing MP3s on my computer, Hollywood is free to trash it entirely. This is vigilante justice for the 21st century."
-----------------------------------------------------
allenb1963, you the man. im sending your doc, as is, to everyone i know urging them to do the same.
Copyright holders can include any artist or writer, so this bill would not only give a license to kill to the movie and recording industry. That could mean anyone with a copyright, the church of scientology or mad magazine could be breaking in to your computer.
Im including these for grins and giggles:
[email protected]
Lamar Smith (R-TX),(202) 225-4236 http://lamarsmith.house.gov/contact.asp
Robert Wexler (D-FL) Robert Wexler (D-19) 202-225-3001 561-988-6302 http://www.house.gov/writerep/
I agree with you Palemoon, artists do not get paid as much as we think; the record labels and talent agents get paid the bulk of the artists' hard work. I also think it shows how our government can backstab its own citizens; illegal for someone to gain unauthorized access to a system, crack a few programs, rip some MP3s, etc., but not illegal for record companies to hack into and potentially damage a consumer's home PC because it has a few MP3s on it? Please, that is insane.
How much money are those record labels losing by "spoofing" MP3s? They have to hire firms to put fake MP3s on a P2P network, not to mention bandwidth costs.
If the record labels were so concerned with making money, they shouldn't waste their time with something that cannot be won. There will always be piracy, there will always be people out there who will do it as well.Quote:
Many large record labels have already resorted to a method known as "spoofing," where they hire firms to distribute "decoy" files that are empty or do not work in order to frustrate would-be downloaders of movies and music.
I for one download songs and other forms of media from P2P programs. Does that make me a criminal? You cannot deny the fact that even with P2P sharing programs, the recording industry is still making a profit, which I believe is higher than last year's profit by quite a bit.
Forgive me while I laugh...Quote:
Additionally, sources have said the major recording companies, like Bertelsmann AG ( news - web sites) BMG, EMI Group Plc ( news - web sites) , Vivendi Universal and Sony Corp ( news - web sites) are considering taking a new tack by suing individuals who use the services, rather than the companies that host them.
These companies shouldn't waste their time and money on something as cheap as music. Suing for what, millions? over a 2 dollar song? What about all these used cd resellers? Are they criminals as well? They are making money off of people from selling used cd's, and what share of that do the record companies receive? none.
All in all, I believe recording artists shouldn't be screwed over by their labels, and I also believe record companies are fighting a war that will not end or be won.
-Nitro-
I posted this link in another thread called 'A record artists view of P2P', and it is very interesting. For the artists who read THIS thread, I recommend you take a look at this article as it sheds some light on the relationship between artists and recording companies, as well as who REALLY owns the copyright...
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
you would think that they would let u hack child porn sites before they would let them do that
no but thats being a vigulanty. go figure
The recording companies seem more concerned with quarterly profits, and such financial business, than the artists. They are trying to show the shareholders that they are taking steps forward. Record company thought process: profit go down, this bad, how make profit go up?? i know! shut down nasty bad sharing people! Share price go up! collect bonus!
This is probably why you don't see any major group or solo artist championing this 'innovative approach to combating the serious problem of Internet piracy'. In most cases, they are still making ends meet, and they are not going to see the immediate benefits of supporting a cause such as this. They also wouldn't feel any pressure to damage their image by supporting sabotage attacks on KaZaA and other services. I am sure there are many people, such as myself, who buy plenty of music, but still download a fair bit of music just to see what it's like. I would lose respect for any band that supported this idea.
I can only recall one band that has been significantly damaged by MP3 distribution, and that is King Diamond. This is quite sad, but until it actually becomes a serious problem to many artists across the spectrum, I don't think people will stop downloading music. Recording companies also don't seem to realise that no matter how hard they try, dedicated software programmers will always find a way around their attempts to shut down P2P.
I Posted this in a board on the same subject
The record industry is annoyed that sales are going down, so they try to find any excuse they can to explain this, eg that file-sharing is stopping sales. Maybe if they stopped making wave after wave of annoying bands which all sound the same, and stop paying people so much money, then sales would improve.
Also from what has happened in the past, annoying people on the net is a bad thing, they usually team up and get revenge eg DDOS a server, or take over a network
allenb, do you mind if i upload and re-post that letter on a few other forums i frequent(with due credit of course)?
By all means feel free to distribute it in any manner you see fit...thats what I wrote it for. ;)
i think that the government sanctioned hacking is a bad idea, although... there may be ways to stop it... hehe... not that it matters, cause it didn't pass.
3 words...
State Sponsored Vigilantism
Right on guys...
Glad to know this article pissed off other people besides me.
What we need to do it:
Ok lets say your using Kazaa to grab music, now every user would have to take part in this but what we could do is everytime one of use downloads a song, we check it out, if its fake we get rid of it and take it out of the sharing circle. So if everyone, and I stress everyone, does this we can almost trace what users are putting the bad files on the net, if we could somehow confine these users and use DoS attacks or just plain hack them we could stop the music industry from taking away our rights. I know this is easy to say but if we all work together we can control this. The internet is ours, not some money hungry piece of **** record producer.................
and again IRC prevails
The thing is, zephrin, that IRC won't prevail. Nor will F-servers or FTP sites. These guys want carte blanc access to your system, your privacy be damned. It doesn't matter to them if you use Kazaa, Limewire, IRC or AudioGalaxy. They want file-sharing stopped at any cost, so long as it's the consumers who pay it. If they win, we ALL lose, no matter WHAT method or program we use to share files. IRC, FTP, or P2P... it doesn't matter to them what they shut down as long as they get their way. If we don't take action, if we don't BOMBARD congress with protests, the only winners will be the RIAA and the MPAA. Worse yet, however, is the fact that ANY copyright holder can do this, no matter how big of a fruitloop they might be. That, my friend, is an outcome that I simply cannot accept...and I hope you can't accept it either. It so happens that I have some material that has a copyright on it. Do you really want ME to have the ability to nose around in YOUR system?