[dvd-discuss] two articles

[John Schulien <jms(at)uic.edu>]

I've read through the statute, and I think
that the RIAA is attempting an enormous bluff.

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.