[G.Mason]

What's going on here?

Are we throwing the courts and rule of law out?

This is what the Clinton democrats have given us?

[jimtorr]

""Under the bill, companies would not be required to warn users in advance of their actions. A user wrongly attacked could sue only if he suffered more than $250 in economic losses and obtained permission to file a lawsuit from the U.S. attorney general. ""

This aspect is especially pernicious.

Talk about inviting a counter-offensive of computer attacks..........

[grania]

The industry currently must trace downloaders individually and persuade their Internet providers to intervene. It also has resorted to seeding file-sharing networks with fake music files to frustrate users.

Uhhhh.....maybe the recording industry should resort to something really different. That would be quality music, with cover art, information, and lyrics people would be willing to pay for.

Meanwhile BMG music's recent signup deal is "Get 11, pay for 1, with nothing to buy, ever!" on CDs. (The ad doesn't specify what "shipping and handling" will cost, however.) Point is, they can give me all of that music for free, but a friend can't?

[ShadowAce]

Under the bill, companies would not be required to warn users in advance of their actions. A user wrongly attacked could sue only if he suffered more than $250 in economic losses and obtained permission to file a lawsuit from the U.S. attorney general.

Right here it tells me that it can be overturned on a fourth-Amendment basis. It won't last long if it does get passed and signed.

[OldFriend]

Only a liberal democrat could even THINK of such a thing.

To them the right to privacy extends to the right to kill your unborn baby, but your computer belongs to THEM.........

Can anyone explain this warped twisted thinking?

[JameRetief]

Two other threads that are about the proposed law:

Congress to turn hacks into hackers
Hollywood heads up anti-piracy charge (MPAA wants end to recording TV)

[Gorzaloon]

Under the bill, companies would not be required to warn users in advance of their actions. A user wrongly attacked could sue only if he suffered more than $250 in economic losses and obtained permission to file a lawsuit from the U.S. attorney general. Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, warned that the bill would allow zealous copyright owners to employ "all kinds of technical measures that will interfere with the functioning of the Internet."

I don't need permission to file a lawsuit. I do not "steal".

But: As we see the bribes paid by the recording industry, perhaps it will be handled another way:

Vandalize my computer, and practice malicious destruction of property, I burn a record store.

Repeat as needed.

[robertpaulsen]

Hah! In post #722622, "Your Home Privacy is Secure", Walsh tells us not to worry. What's going on?

All your computers are belong to us.

[tacticalogic]

Lovely. Every PC and file server in America with a federally mandated remote cutoff switch on it's network interface, and the command codes in the hands of a bunch of clueless liberal twits in the entertainment industry. How much is the Chinese Army's cyberwarfare division going to love this?

[billbears]

sponsors of the measure include Reps. Howard Coble, R-N.C.

I'm simply ashamed. But you know it's so good to see how Republicans in the House are so much different than the Democrats on property rights. Just think what we can accomplish when we 'win back the Senate'!! < /sarcasm>

[KS Flyover]

BTTT

[2OOOll]

Additional two related threads

Hollywood Hacking bill hits the house

Could Hollywood hack your PC?