[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] Two articals





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah silva [mailto:nsilva@atari-source.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 9:18 AM
> To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Two articals
> 
> 
> > <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?


They can't.  And if their amendment had been adopted and
passed, you could sue them.  God only knows what the current
law says about their "self help" attitude.  (I haven't read
the US Code section linked to by the Wired article yet ... have
you?)

> > 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.

I doubt that, or you couldn't even browse to yahoo.com legally.
I assume that, if you are putting up a server using a standard
port (80 for web server, 21 for ftp) then permission to connect
is must be implicit.  It would make for an interesting court 
case ...

> 
> 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...

Port scanning would deviate from the well-known ports, so
under the current law, even if permission for standard ports
is implicit, scanning would probably still be illegal.  (note: IANAL)

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

Unless my "implicit permission" assumption is correct, yes ...

Even if the implicit permission assumption is not correct, any
company that advertises it's web address would have to be seen
has having granted blanket permission to connect to it.  The
case for companies that do not advertise (TV, URL on magazine
ads, etc) might be more gray ... but again, I have to assume
that using the standard port assignments implies that you know
that people will attempt to connect there.

> 
> > (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 
> 



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

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