Re: [dvd-discuss] two articles

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

John Schulien wrote:
> 
> I've read through the statute, and I think
> that the RIAA is attempting an enormous bluff.

Isn't bluffing about committing a criminal action which would do harm to
a person a crime in and of itself -- effectively assault.  "I you don't
stop <X>, I'll DOS attack you."  Where <X> could be anything.  Given
that DOS attacks have now fallen under the rubric of the anti-terror act
threatening DOS should be treated as seriously as threatening Anthrax.

If they are not bluffing, it seems they are already conspiring to commit
a crime.

Either way aren't they already in legal hot water (assuming corporations
were held to the same legal standard).

IANAL,  those who can say IAAL please comment.

> 
> It seems to me that for the RIAA to attempt
> to hack into someone's internet-connected
> computer and disable it is clearly illegal under
> current law:
> 
> ---
> 
> 18 USC 1030(a)(5)(C)
> 
>    (a) Whoever - (5)(C) intentionally accesses a protected
>    computer without authorization, and as a result of such
>    conduct, causes damage; ... shall be punished as provided
>    in subsection (c) of this section.
> 
> An internet-connected server would appear to be a "Protected
> computer" under the definition in 18 USC 1030(e)(2)(B)
> 
>    (e) As used in this section - (2) the term ''protected
>    computer'' means a computer - (B) which is used in
>    interstate or foreign commerce or communication;"
> 
> "Damage" is defined in 18 USC 1030(e)(8)(A):
> 
>    (e) As used in this section - (8) the term ''damage''
>    means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data,
>    a program, a system, or information, that - (A) causes loss
>    aggregating at least $5,000 in value during any 1-year period
>    to one or more individuals;
> 
> ---
> 
> If the RIAA really thinks that it is legal for them to hack into
> and disable other people's computers, then why aren't they
> doing it already?  Answer, because they know that it's really
> illegal -- if they were to do more then $5,000 in cumulative
> damage, they could be charged with a felony, but they're
> hoping that they can fool Congress into making it legal for
> them to attack and destroy other people's computers by
> claiming that they currently have that right, and that
> the antiterrorism bill is going to take that right away
> from them.
> 
> The RIAA appears to have adopted the strategy of making a
> completely false claim, then taking advantage of the
> runaway-train-antiterrorism bill to insert a brand new
> exemption for themselves.
> 
> Dirty tricks as usual.