File-sharing jamming proposed

San Francisco Chronicle ^

[RCW2001]

Entertainment companies could legally launch electronic attacks against Internet file sharing networks under a proposed law previewed Tuesday by a Southern California congressman.

U.S. Rep. Howard Berman, D-North Hollywood, plans to introduce a law to legalize the use of electronic countermeasures to thwart copyright infringement on popular peer-to-peer networks such as KaZaa and Morpheus, where millions of music and movie files are traded.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Copyright law is an anachronism that stretches back to the days when reproducing data was difficult and expensive. The technologies of data reproduction have changed, but the parasites who own the copyrights on work other people did want to maintain antiquated copyright laws to maintain their stranglehold on popular culture.

[3AngelaD]

Regardless of the issue, anything Howard Berman wants to do is not in the best interests of the American people. This is the guy who fought tooth and nail in 1996 to make it impossible to deport illegal and legal alien felons. A tobacco nazi of the first order, he also is responsible for pushing the most egregious anti-tobacco legislation and is a close, personal friend of Barney Frank. He has the worst judgment in Congress and never hestitates to use it.

[Rebelbase]

I can forsee the p2p hardcores launching their own counter attacks.

[Physicist]

I can forsee the p2p hardcores launching their own counter attacks.

Exactly, and not all of it would be network-based, if you get my drift. But whether they do or not, the traffic from a media-giant denial-of-service attack alone could seriously degrade the public networks, even for legitimate users. Just imagine the lawsuits resulting from that.

[steve-b]

is a close, personal friend of Barney Frank

You wouldn't be... insinuating... anything, would you?

[VoiceOfBruck]

U.S. Rep. Howard Berman, D-North Hollywood, plans to introduce a law to legalize the use of electronic countermeasures to thwart copyright infringement on popular peer-to-peer networks...

Or any other form of communications that U.S. Rep. Howard Berman, D-North Hollywood finds objectionable.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

This is Pure Bull$!t. Such actions would not stop people from downloading copyrighted material.

It would only serve to make P2P services more plodding and annoying to use. Kind of like sugar in the gas tank.

Absolute and utter sour grapes. What a pathetic bunch of little, whining, greedy trolls.

[robertpaulsen]

File-sharing? This used to be called stealing. Ooh, I bet you don't like that word, do you?

[3AngelaD]

No, not that. It is just that he and Rep. Frank share the same socialist views, do not play fair and are not to be trusted. They are good buds who cooperate closely on Judiciary Committee and other matters, always in a way that does great damage to our country. I have no knowlege one way or the other about whether Rep. Waxman likes boys or girls, and it is a subject I prefer to avoid.

[BILL FROM TROUT CREEK PASS]

HMMM, A DEMONCRAT ENCOURAGING AND ADVOCATING DIGITIAL TERRORISM - GO GET HIM ASHCROFT!

[Iscool]

File-sharing? This used to be called stealing. Ooh, I bet you don't like that word, do you?

I think you are a little off track here...

That's exactly like saying I can not loan my truck to my neighbor if and when he would like to borrow it because that's takes away his incentive to buy a new truck for himself...That's his business and mine...Not yours...No stealing to it...

And when Ford motor comes out with a device that prevents me from loaning my truck, that's fine...But when I disable the device, that's my business because I own it...

[3AngelaD]

By that definition, so is letting someone else listen to the new CD you just purchased. What annoys me is that if I buy a new CD, I like to copy it onto my computer at work or at home so I don't have to carry it back and forth, but now that is hard to do. I probably buy three or four CDs and month and I think I am doing my part to further enrich Sony, etc., and that it isn't too much to ask that I be able to use my CDs in the most convenient way possible to me. I don't have a problem with file sharing as long as no one is selling unauthorized versions. But back to my original point, if I buy a new CD, I am probably not going to turn my guests away at the door because I am listening to it, and am too fastidious to let them listen as well. Nor am I going to send the record company another $15 - $20 because my guests heard a few bars of my new music. How do you handle this moral dilemma?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

This bill isn't going anywhere. But if the children retake control of the House, than we can expect more of this type legislation which will pass.

Berman btw is probably one of the most anti-American legislators in that body. I can't think of anything he has ever done except stick it to everyone, unless you're an illegal alien of course.

[Brookhaven]

File-sharing? This used to be called stealing.

Don't you mean "file-sharing of copyrighted material without the owners permission"?

File sharing can apply to any file type (plain text, pictures, pdf, web format, ms-word, etc...) not just music files.

Even with music files, this is not always stealing. There are plenty of bands or musicians (mostly small without a recording contract) that put their music on these networks voluntarily as a way to promote themselves. These small independents would be hurt by a scheme designed to cripple these networks.

I'm opposed to the pirating of music. If the copyright owner doesn't want their product to be distributed over the internet, it shouldn't be. But, file sharing is not always pirating.

[Conservative Chicagoan]

I find it sad that people care so much about the garbage called "popular music".

[Criminal Number 18F]

want to maintain antiquated copyright laws

Actually, the constitutional purpose of copyright laws has been twofold:

1. to ensure authors a fair chance to profit, and
2. to ensure that the period during which they might do so was limited, so that their work would ultimately benefit all

Recent changes in the law, not "antiquated" laws, have favoured corporate "collectors" of copyrights over original artists, and the trend is towards extended (and ultimately, perpetual) copyrights held for the benefit of owners who have no relation to creators.

One of the most recent changes came about because the copyright on Mickey Mouse was about to expire, and with Walt Disney long dead his corporate successors saw a possible gravy-train interruption.

The "antiquated" laws were fairly good, and the 1976 change briefly shifted the balance towards the creators. That has been thoroughly overthrown both in law and in fact. For instance, in music songwriters whose material is used by the two surviving mega-majors normally must kick back a part of their writers' royalty to the publisher (a subsidiary of the entertainment conglomerate). Musical groups negotiating with these conglomerates must pick a lawyer from a list provided -- all memebers of which are loyal to the conglomerate, not to the de-jure client.

It's amusing in a way. The entertainment conglomerates make crap and treat the creators like crap, and then bemoan their crappy results, and go complain to Washington for more special privileges. Just say no to TV and popular music -- cut off these creeps' air supply.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

PS: you can probably go out in the nearest small city and listen live to better entertainers that will come to the stadiums this summer, in any genre you like. There is a LOT of talent out there.

[boris]

"I find it sad that people care so much about the garbage called 'popular music'."

Whoa. When Napster was around, I used it to collect a lot of classical music--much of it "out of print". I also obtained "golden oldies" which I could not obtain otherwise, such as a complete set of the songs of the original folk group "The Seekers".

Another example. There is a Peruvian music group called Inti-Illimani. I own all their CDs. ALL of their albums were available on CD and Napster except one. This was a vinyl pressing of a soundtrack they did for the BBC. I contacted their agents and found that the soundtrack would never be released on CD, nor had the copyright been extended. I transferred my vinyl copies to digital form...and for a brief time my share drive was one of the most popular on Napster--as other Inti-Illimani fans discovered the "impossible-to-obtain" tracks were available...from me.

ON THE OTHER HAND, there is a brilliant musician who is a virtuoso on the dulcimer. His name is Jim Fhyre. After years of searching, I located him because I wanted to buy his wonderful album "Dulcimer Fusion" on CD. All of his other albums were available on CD, but he had lost the master tape for DF, which is why it was not available.

I pestered him for about two years to try to find the tape. He finally found it and produced the CD. I bought four copies and he sent me an extra gratis. HIS music does not appear on my share drive. I feel it would be very unfair to him, especially given my pressure and his eventual success in satisfying me (and lots of others).

In fact, I suggested to him that he consider placing some of his tracks on MP3.COM as a way of attracting new listeners...to my knowledge he has not done so.

Look for "Plectrum Records" in Laguna Beach CA. I have his last known email as "jfdulcimer@aol.com". Mention me if you ask for info or place an order. My "real" name is Jim Glass.

--Boris (oops, I guess I blew my cover!)

[Honcho]

This is Pure Bull$!t. Such actions would not stop people from downloading copyrighted material.

Your exactly right. In fact all they would have to do is change the transfer protocal on the PtoP to ftp or http. The only way to stop it then is to block the entire internet.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

"Antiquated" was the wrong word, I agree. "Transmogrified" might have been better. The original intent of copyright was good, to allow the creator to benefit financially from her/his creation during his/her lifetime. Copyright transmogrified is a disgrace, meant to allow corporations to harvest money from other people's work in perpetuity, people like Ted Turner who owns the copyrights on ten million old films that he had nothing to do with creating.