RE: [dvd-discuss] Two articals

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

"RIAA lobbyist Mitch Glazier said that his association has abandoned plans 
to insert that amendment into anti-terrorism bills"

The RIAA's slimey opportunism truly is offensive.




Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/16/01 09:01 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Two articals




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah silva [mailto:nsilva@atari-source.com]
...
> 
> Two different related articals on slashdot today:
> 
> 1.) about RIAA wanting to have permission to hack people's computers

We are both better off, and worse off, than Noah seemed to fear.

The slashdot posting pointed to this Wired News article:
http://wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47552,00.html

This article had a link to the amendment itself,
http://www.wartimeliberty.com/article.pl?sid=01/10/14/1756248
which did have the caveat that they were exempt only
"provided that the use of the work that the owner is intending 
to impede or prevent is an infringing use." ... so if 
you had non-infringing material that they deleted, you
could still have sued their asses off.

However, the Wired article goes on to say:
<blockquote>
In an interview Friday, RIAA lobbyist Mitch Glazier said that his
association has abandoned plans to insert that amendment into 
anti-terrorism
bills -- and instead is supporting a revised amendment that takes a more
modest approach. 

"It will not be some special exception for copyright owners," Glazier 
said.
"It will be a general fix to bring back current law." Glazier is the 
RIAA's
senior vice president of government relations and a former House aide. 
</blockquote>

It doesn't really say much about what "current law" is, except this:

<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. 
[...]
"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." 


The RIAA believes that this kind of technological "self-help" against 
online
pirates, if done carefully, is legal under current federal law. 
</blockquote>

(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
than being required to pursue it through the courts ... all in all, we 
might
have been better off if the amendment as written _had_ been added !


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!