RE: [dvd-discuss] Two articals

[Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>]

> <blockquote>
> 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. 
> [...]


Ok, but what is Pirate?
I have commercial Copyrighted songs on my FTP server.  Of course, they are
legally there, because I copied them from MY cds for MY use.  Even if they
see people FTPing in and grabbing them.  Maybe it is ME FTPing in and
grabbing them from WORK, or some other location.  How can they know wether
or not there is infringing use going on?

> "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." 

How can they block you?  They have no control over my network
connection.  If they asked my ISP to do something, then my ISP would have
to answer to me in quite a few ways.  I would hope my ISP wouldn't just do
what some organization askes them to do, especially in light of my SLA.
 
> The RIAA believes that this kind of technological "self-help" against online
> pirates, if done carefully, is legal under current federal law. 

I really doubt this, given how strict the FBI and others have helped
online "hacking" laws to become.  IIRC, it is illegal to:

"connect to or transmit any data to any port of any computer without prior
permission from the owner".

I assume permission = written permission.

While I think that law is a bit unreasonable, as ICMP pings, etc. fly
around all the time, and I don't think port scanning should be illegal...

As it currently stands, you could technically be thrown in jail for going
to www.yahoo.com without a prior invitation.  

> (Where "current federal law" is a link to
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html,
> which would be US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, Sec. 1030)  
> 
> I haven't read that yet ... but they seem to think that it _already_ gives
> them permission to "self help" when they think somebody is infringing rather

It doesn't seem to "give" them anything, it just doesn't specifically
mention anything about RIAA, or music (or entertainment) at all.

I think they are saying that what they are doing is not
specifically illegal in THAT particular section of the law, unless they
cause damages.

  -- noah silva