Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Apr 2010 18:48 UTC
Legal Another article on intellectual property enforcement? Yes, since I consider this to be the most important struggle technology has to face over the coming decade. We already know that content providers don't care one bit about hard-fought concepts like freedom and privacy, but the joint proposals by the RIAA and MPAA to the US Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator really blew my brains out: monitoring software installed on people's computers, border inspections - it's all there, and then some.
Order by: Score:
Call to arms
by Leroy on Thu 15th Apr 2010 19:03 UTC
Leroy
Member since:
2006-07-06

Get the Tea Party riled up by saying that RIAA/MPAA is a government agency out to raise taxes on music and movies. Illegal search and seizure!

The "paranoid government conspiracy freaks" will jump all over the "install software monitoring checks".

And.. The rest of us sane, technically enlightened folk will just say no.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Call to arms
by t3RRa on Thu 15th Apr 2010 19:20 UTC in reply to "Call to arms"
t3RRa Member since:
2005-11-22

"install software monitoring checks"

that reminds me of China and South Korea filter out internet contents and things. Isn't that a thing that people outside of those countries blame them for? Do they want to control people like their own lab rats? I wonder if by themselves actually they do not infringe any IP at all.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Call to arms
by Laue on Thu 15th Apr 2010 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Call to arms"
Laue Member since:
2010-04-03

...and in France yet : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haute_autorit%C3%A9_pour_la_di... (Yep, France, an European country !)

And funier : http://www.hadopi.fr/

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Call to arms
by neticspace on Thu 15th Apr 2010 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Call to arms"
neticspace Member since:
2009-06-09

that reminds me of China and South Korea filter out internet contents and things.


As for South Korea, the South Korean president endorsed the internet filter despite he is infamous for NOT USING COMPUTERS.

This is why the president's nickname is 2MB: semi-initial for his name and humorous rumors tell that his brain has only 2 MB of storage like an old school Commodore 64.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Call to arms
by dylansmrjones on Thu 15th Apr 2010 23:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Call to arms"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Eeeh? 2 MB storage and Commodore 64? Something doesn't add up here ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Call to arms
by DigitalAxis on Fri 16th Apr 2010 04:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Call to arms"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

They're being generous, I guess.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Call to arms
by Phloptical on Thu 15th Apr 2010 23:46 UTC in reply to "Call to arms"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

You mean get the Republicans riled up? Don't think so, they live for this draconian rule too. Their paychecks come from the same source as the dems.....corporations.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Call to arms
by yossarianuk on Sun 18th Apr 2010 11:11 UTC in reply to "Call to arms"
yossarianuk Member since:
2009-04-01

The Tea party crowd only ever get upset about things that are immoral and right wing - i.e - the belief in evolution are black rights. They do inspire violence towards members of the government - I for one hope the FBI are deeply rooted in their members and are watching them closely (as they are the biggest threat to democracy in America)


i.e : they won't get upset about something sensible like this - Also the Tea party crowd usually stand for business interests (Fox news/republican party) not for something that is actually moral.

One last thing I do not get is that the T parties who are pretty much entirely Republican supporters even though the biggest destruction of America's civil liberties again and again are the Republican party.

Reply Score: 1

*faceplam*
by Praxis on Thu 15th Apr 2010 19:17 UTC
Praxis
Member since:
2009-09-17

I really can't add anything beyond my absolute abhorrence of these people. I really don't have a problem with companies trying to enforce their copyrights, but they must do so within the law and our freedoms. If they find these things to burdensome, they should switch business models.

I can't imagine such things actually being implemented, the backlash would be intense. Even the most brain dead politician knows it would be political suicide to support stuff like this, wouldn't it?

Reply Score: 1

RE: *faceplam*
by Gullible Jones on Thu 15th Apr 2010 19:37 UTC in reply to "*faceplam*"
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

It wouldn't be political suicide at this point. The American public has the collective attention span of a five year old with ADHD, and little control over its representatives anyway - they campaign on whatever platform they think will get them elected, and then do whatever the hell they want once in office.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: *faceplam*
by dylansmrjones on Thu 15th Apr 2010 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE: *faceplam*"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Despite common misconceptions among laymen, persons suffering from ADHD do not necessarily have a very short attention span. You "just" have to keep their attention in a different way. This is also true for children at 5 years with ADHD. I strongly dislike your comparison. And I will give you an apology right away for reacting strongly, but I can't help it (the "downside" of studying pedagogy).

That said I agree that the public in general have a way to short attention span - as well as memory span.

Reply Score: 3

RE: *faceplam*
by Cody Evans on Fri 16th Apr 2010 01:45 UTC in reply to "*faceplam*"
Cody Evans Member since:
2009-08-14

How could something be political suicide if it simultaneously earns the politician the Rupert Murdoch, Disney, and Comcast vote of approval? Combined they control the most of the "News" media in the US.

Not including the tens-of-millions in campaign contributions plus a guaranteed job as a Lobbiest for them when said politician eventually leaves office.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: *faceplam*
by Praxis on Fri 16th Apr 2010 04:04 UTC in reply to "RE: *faceplam*"
Praxis Member since:
2009-09-17

People will remain passive about this stuff until they get affected directly and placing spyware on your computer, monitoring for download traffic, and border searches does affect people directly. These are things that are actively used against people regardless of their guilt or innocence of the charge. In the face of this, I can't see how any one could remain passive or supportive. It may take something extreme like that, but people won't remain asleep when it happens to them. And when that happens there will be a push back.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: *faceplam*
by jrichey_98 on Fri 16th Apr 2010 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: *faceplam*"
jrichey_98 Member since:
2005-10-09

You say that and yet Comcast, in some markets in the US at least, requires you to install there software on your computer to activate your cable connection. Of course after it is activated you can un-install it and setup your router.

There are probably millions of people already in the US with cable internet that do not know they have software on there machine that log's what they visit. Oh and guess what, it was done "voluntarily", and for most is the only choice for broadband cable they have.

Yeah you can say get DSL but the support from both SBC at least is horrendous. It took one of my friends two months of paying but not getting internet before someone would come out to his house, a month later they dropped service because the connection was extremely intermittent. Besides besides all that, Ping times are at least double with DSL as cable.

Reply Score: 2

Oh here we go
by kurgan2001 on Thu 15th Apr 2010 19:52 UTC
kurgan2001
Member since:
2008-12-31

The mpaa, riaa, and the like are idiots. Unfortunately our president is likely to side with them .. I hate politics and politicians. They're all two-faced greedy SOBs and you can bet that if this does happen (hopefully not) you'll see Obama voted out.

If this crap actually comes to pass you can bet your ass I'll be leaving the country because the 'land of the free' turned into the 'land of copyright monitoring' .. unfortunately not to Canada .. I hate the cold. Spain would work though.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Oh here we go - Obama will already be voted out
by jabbotts on Thu 15th Apr 2010 20:03 UTC in reply to "Oh here we go"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

He had the audacity to try and bring your health-care into the 20th century; if that doesn't get him voted out and starting a war didn't get the previous administration voted out then a little thing like gross privacy violation won't cause any concerns.

I'm sure some will point and laugh at this particular news item but with your poor policy choices often effecting us across the norther border; I can only shake my head in pessimistic dread for how much of this will make it through if not all.

Reply Score: 2

viator Member since:
2005-10-11

I didnt want to reply to this but i couldnt let this bs continue to be repeated. YOU DONT HAVE TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE! Read the bill! do you know what the penalty is for not having it??? NOTHING thats right absolutely nothing. And believe me i know all about healthcare mandates I live in mass you lose $200 on your tax return for not having it.

Reply Score: 1

kurgan2001 Member since:
2008-12-31

I didnt want to reply to this but i couldnt let this bs continue to be repeated. YOU DONT HAVE TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE! Read the bill! do you know what the penalty is for not having it??? NOTHING thats right absolutely nothing. And believe me i know all about healthcare mandates I live in mass you lose $200 on your tax return for not having it.



from cnn


An adult who does not have health insurance by 2014 would be penalized $95 or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, so long as the amount does not exceed the price tag of a basic health plan. But by 2016, the penalty increases to $695 for an uninsured adult, and up to $2,085 per household, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater.

A person would also be penalized only if he or she went more than three months of the year without insurance.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/24/health.care.penalties/index.ht...

Reply Score: 4

StychoKiller Member since:
2005-09-20

Somewhat related to your comment:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/89349727.htm
Guess Socialism falls flat on its face (again!)

Reply Score: 1

viator Member since:
2005-10-11

(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES- The Secretary shall not--
‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.’.

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

If they aren't going to go after you for it, why penalize in the first place? Sad thing is, I know many who can't afford health coverage and would rather pay the $95 or 1% of income instead compared to what the insurance leeches want from them. Oh, the wisdom of our government. <sarcasm />

Reply Score: 2

bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

We didn't get socialized healthcare.

We got mandatory corporate healthcare, as opposed to optional corporate healthcare.

http://my.opera.com/bhtooefr/blog/why-theres-so-much-backlash-again...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Oh here we go
by robojerk on Thu 15th Apr 2010 20:33 UTC in reply to "Oh here we go"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10
Is this news?
by steogede2 on Thu 15th Apr 2010 19:54 UTC
steogede2
Member since:
2007-08-17

I think most people with more than half a brain already knew that the MPAA and RIAA want this level of control (if not more) - at least now the rest of the population knows what a bunch of control freaks they are.

Reply Score: 3

if its media vs freedom
by TechGeek on Thu 15th Apr 2010 19:58 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

If the argument comes down to them saying that we can't have their media AND freedom, they can keep their crap to themselves. Honestly, America needs to ween itself off the TV/Movie tit and start reading books again. Or maybe learn how to play an instrument. Used to be people entertained themselves. Now we need someone else to do it for us? And at the cost of our freedoms? Bah. Nuke them from orbit, its the only way to be sure.

Reply Score: 11

RE: if its media vs freedom
by WorknMan on Thu 15th Apr 2010 20:06 UTC in reply to "if its media vs freedom"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

America needs to ween itself off the TV/Movie tit and start reading books again.


Yeah, and then we'd have to deal with the same shite from the publishing industry when everybody and their grandma starts pirating books.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: if its media vs freedom
by rebel787 on Thu 15th Apr 2010 21:03 UTC in reply to "RE: if its media vs freedom"
rebel787 Member since:
2007-01-13

"America needs to ween itself off the TV/Movie tit and start reading books again.


Yeah, and then we'd have to deal with the same shite from the publishing industry when everybody and their grandma starts pirating books.
"


LOL

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: if its media vs freedom
by DigitalAxis on Fri 16th Apr 2010 04:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: if its media vs freedom"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Honest! I borrowed this book from a friend!

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: if its media vs freedom
by lemur2 on Fri 16th Apr 2010 05:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: if its media vs freedom"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Honest! I borrowed this book from a friend!


http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read

I don't know, but perhaps it might just be possible that Richard Stallman wasn't entirely crazy all along, and no-one realised it.

Edited 2010-04-16 05:07 UTC

Reply Score: 6

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I often laugh when some celebrity is hailed for being a double threat (acting and singing or acting and dancing) or the rare triple threat celebrity. Does no one remember when every celebrity in Hollywood was a triple threat? One had to be able to act, dance and sing to be competitive. Now it's some kind of novelty when an actor breaks out into singing or some such thing.

Ah, the celebrity worship culture. That magical place where people can be celebrities simply for being famous (Paris) with no further attributes required.

Reply Score: 3

Protecting Summer Blockbusters
by shotsman on Thu 15th Apr 2010 20:01 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

Easy you Hollywood idiots.

Release them everywhere at the same time. Don't put them out in the US and then 6 or 9 months later in Europe and elsewhere.

Reply Score: 4

I've been saying this all along
by Eugenia on Thu 15th Apr 2010 20:40 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

And this is why I TAG *all* my free promotional mp3s I download off the web with the URL I downloaded them, to show that the downloads were legal.

You see, the indie scene (note: ~70% of the US indie labels are using RIAA as a distribution channel, so there's no escaping the RIAA products) and even some major label artists have moved in the last 2-3 years to give away 1-3 *free* promotional mp3s to music blogs. Sites like StereoGum, Pitchfork, BetterPropaganda, RCRD.LBL, MagnetMagazine, SPIN, Spinner.com, KEXP, etc etc. are ALL featuring *multiple* free, legal, mp3s, DAILY.

I usually download about 1 GB per week of *legal* mp3s.

Now, here's the problem. If this border control comes into place, how the hell do I prove that my mp3s were legal?

Well, the way I do it is by TAGGING each and every of these mp3s with the download URL. I download the mp3s in a special folder, I use the MP3Tag application to add the URL in the "comments" tag, and then I fix subsequent tags too (e.g. album art, album artist, track #,etc), and then and only then I import these mp3s on my iTunes to feed off my iPod/iPhone.

And of course, I have emailed all these major publications to have their reply IN WRITING that their mp3s are legal (even if I knew they were).

I know it's a lot of work of doing all that, but exactly because I KNEW (yes, I really did expect it) of border control plans, I started doing that in 2008 already.

But yes, it all sucks. Unfortunately, Obama is a VERY pro-copyright guy, so he will take the corporations' side. I've said it before, and will say it again: the only away from this mess is Creative Commons. That's why my own videos are all CC-BY. I don't just preach it. I get off my ass and do it.

Reply Score: 6

bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

I just avoid consuming music, with the exception of chiptunes, and if it's not chiptunes, I check to make sure it's not positive on RIAA Radar before consuming it.

Problem solved.

If the bastards want to lock up our culture, let them. We don't need it. We can make our own culture.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Well, the way I do it is by TAGGING each and every of these mp3s with the download URL


Ok, but what if my audio player has tracks that I ripped from my own CD collection?

Reply Score: 2

jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Ok, but what if my audio player has tracks that I ripped from my own CD collection?


That may not be legal at all, depending on the country you live in and the country you are importing them to.


JAL

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Oh yeah, just like how recording your CD's and LP's to tape wasn't legal. It was fair use then and it's fair use now.

Reply Score: 3

jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Oh yeah, just like how recording your CD's and LP's to tape wasn't legal. It was fair use then and it's fair use now.


Not all countries have a "fair use" clause in their copyright legislation. And I'm pretty sure that if it's up to the RIAA there won't be any in the US legislation either.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I can't think of any that doesn't but then again, I don't live in a fascist corporate state.

Reply Score: 2

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

It is in the US. But not in the UK. So it depends in which country you live in, and which country you fly to.

Reply Score: 1

Hold on...
by darknexus on Thu 15th Apr 2010 20:41 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Wait a minute, they want access to my devices at the boarder? Does that mean I have to carry my collection of audio books and cds around with my computer just so I can prove I didn't pirate them? There's no way to tell, from a bunch of ripped music files, whether I ripped them or someone else did, and knowing their guilty until proven innocent model this would be nothing short of a catastrophe. As dumb as our politicians are, I can't see them going for *that*. They might very well do the rest of it though. If they do, I'm out of here, that'd be the final straw. Anybody know which countries have reasonable immigration laws?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Hold on...
by evilwraith on Thu 15th Apr 2010 21:32 UTC in reply to "Hold on..."
evilwraith Member since:
2010-04-15

According to the RIAA/MPAA dogma, you're breaking the law by ripping those audiobooks and CDs. Cause Fair Use doesn't exist in their world.

In the real world, however....well it's still legally cloudy in the US even though every software maker in the known universe supports format shifting these days. The world would be a better place if the *AA outfits would just vanish or better yet actually represent the best interests of the artists. Since neither will happen anytime soon I guess we'll just have to fight them in every way possible.

Viva la resistance.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hold on...
by darknexus on Thu 15th Apr 2010 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Hold on..."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

No I'm not. I'm not cracking or otherwise removing any encryption. There's no encryption on audio cds. Now, my collection of my own legally-purchased and ripped DVDs, you have a point there. But you know what? I don't care. They're mine, I want them on my device, and I'm not going to buy them twice. I don't care if a bunch of crybabies don't like it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hold on...
by japh on Fri 16th Apr 2010 08:37 UTC in reply to "Hold on..."
japh Member since:
2005-11-11

Does that mean I have to carry my collection of audio books and cds around with my computer just so I can prove I didn't pirate them? There's no way to tell, from a bunch of ripped music files, whether I ripped them or someone else did...


Here's Sony BMGs take on it:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/10/sony-bmgs-chief-ant...

Yep, doesn't really matter if you own it or not, putting it on your MP3 player should be considered theft if they get their wish.

quote from article:
"Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'

Reply Score: 2

Those guys....
by BluenoseJake on Thu 15th Apr 2010 20:51 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

Monitoring software? Border checks, for movies and music? They can just go to hell.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Those guys....
by rebel787 on Thu 15th Apr 2010 21:24 UTC in reply to "Those guys...."
rebel787 Member since:
2007-01-13

Monitoring software? Border checks, for movies and music? They can just go to hell.


Moore's Law now longer applies to the cpu clock race, "those guys" decided : time to apply it on this race.
DRM is progressing folks. and it's impressive performance makes me ill.
I don't have the full picture but patents, copyright, drm...something, these are all part of their motherboard spec.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Those guys....
by lemur2 on Thu 15th Apr 2010 23:43 UTC in reply to "Those guys...."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Monitoring software? Border checks, for movies and music? They can just go to hell.


I'd be interested to hear how they proposed to get monitoring software on MY machines (not their machines, MY machines).

http://www.cioupdate.com/features/article.php/3876581/You-Cant-Cont...

For IBM, one of the hardest lessons it had to learn was one about control. Mainly, there is none. "There is nothing that we can do to control individuals or communities, and if you try, you make thing worse," Frye told the audience.


Edited 2010-04-15 23:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Those guys....
by darknexus on Fri 16th Apr 2010 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Those guys...."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I'd be interested to hear how they proposed to get monitoring software on MY machines (not their machines, MY machines).


I second that. There's no way I'm installing any monitoring software, and I don't use Windows so whatever back doors Microsoft will put in for this will just pass me by. Sorry RIAA/MPAA (well, not really). Better think of something more effective... hey, I've got an idea: Why not just provide content we can fairly use? What a novel concept! You know, like CDs have always been (except for Sony of course).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Those guys....
by Leroy on Fri 16th Apr 2010 12:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Those guys...."
Leroy Member since:
2006-07-06

Microsoft would probably issue a "Security Update" to sneak MPAA in.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Those guys....
by Cody Evans on Fri 16th Apr 2010 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Those guys...."
Cody Evans Member since:
2009-08-14

The way they get it on computers is actually very simple. They make the monitoring spyware for Windows and Mac products, and make it a requirement for accessing the internet.

The big ISP's in the US also being content companies, would gladly go along. Other OS's would just be written off as a cost of "progress".

This is the same plan they have for implementing trusted computing as well.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Those guys....
by darknexus on Fri 16th Apr 2010 01:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Those guys...."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I'd think that could be faked relatively easily though all things considered.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Those guys....
by bhtooefr on Fri 16th Apr 2010 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Those guys...."
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

Although, the TC hardware would have to be broken, and isn't it moving into chipsets?

Then again, there's always setting up a new network to replace the Internet. Various technologies... 802.11 mesh (scaling issues, extremely obvious RF traffic,) free space optical (hard to add new users, extremely visually obvious,) sneakernet (horrendous latency, but excellent bandwidth, and with how small USB flash drives and microSD cards are, extremely undetectable,) dial-up (slow, detectable, but lowish latency,) etc., etc.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Those guys....
by lemur2 on Fri 16th Apr 2010 03:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Those guys...."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The way they get it on computers is actually very simple. They make the monitoring spyware for Windows and Mac products, and make it a requirement for accessing the internet. The big ISP's in the US also being content companies, would gladly go along. Other OS's would just be written off as a cost of "progress". This is the same plan they have for implementing trusted computing as well.


Not only do I run Linux, but so does my ISP. There are no "Windows or Mac" machines in sight in this picture.

Neither the MPAA nor the RIAA has any jurisdiction at all over my ISP or over me.

http://gizmodo.com/5517850/riaampaa-want-government+mandated-spywar...

Here are some of the lovely things that they're calling for:

* spyware on your computer that detects and deletes infringing materials;


Sorry, but somehow that item just wasn't on my list to "sudo aptitude install" today.

Edited 2010-04-16 03:14 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Those guys....
by jal_ on Fri 16th Apr 2010 10:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Those guys...."
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

I'd be interested to hear how they proposed to get monitoring software on MY machines (not their machines, MY machines).


Given the ludricousy of these proposals, that answer is simple: you may not carry a device that does not conform to their proposals, i.e. devices other than those that can (and must) carry their spyware will be illegal as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Those guys....
by Soulbender on Fri 16th Apr 2010 03:35 UTC in reply to "Those guys...."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You know, I just love how hard America is working on making itself irrelevant.

Reply Score: 4

Rhetorical question
by coreyography on Thu 15th Apr 2010 21:48 UTC
coreyography
Member since:
2009-03-06

"What's more important to you, Mr President? Those juicy RIAA/MPAA campaign dollars, or the rights of the American people?"

Sadly, that is but a rhetorical question.

Reply Score: 4

Cavity search for flash drives?
by bannor99 on Thu 15th Apr 2010 22:16 UTC
bannor99
Member since:
2005-09-15

With 64 GB flash drives available for $150, you could smuggle 15,000 of the RIAA PIP ( Precious Intellectual Property) in an orifice.
I see the future of cross-border traffic - lines of crimin... ...er, tourists, bent over withs pants around ankles while an MPAA/RIAA terrorist,.....er, investigator zealously probes for PIP

Reply Score: 5

RE: Cavity search for flash drives?
by l3v1 on Fri 16th Apr 2010 00:22 UTC in reply to "Cavity search for flash drives?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, as with other "threats", when they can't hassle people inside the borders - well, they do, but have to step a bit more carefully - they do it with those people who are the most defenseless, people at the borders. Tourists and travellers are sadly accustomed by now that they lose every right they [thought they] had, and nobody dares - well, if sane and valuing time - to do anything but comply with whatever they ask from you at US borders. Smile and swallow, motto to be remembered.

I don't possess high value company or trade secrets - even if I did, I'd never travel with them on me - still I always travel to the US with a totally cleaned up laptop - no music, no videos, no images, caches cleaned, software legit - so I don't care what they are looking for.

What I care for is my time. I always hate seeing it being wasted.

Reply Score: 3

bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

Doesn't stop other methods from working, though, although an x-ray will work.

Stick the flash drive or microSD cards in a condom, tie it off, swallow it. Crap it out on the other side.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cavity search for flash drives?
by tdemj on Fri 16th Apr 2010 03:20 UTC in reply to "Cavity search for flash drives?"
tdemj Member since:
2006-01-03

How exactly am I supposed to prove the legality of my music originated from CDs? There's no encryption on audio CDs, so the only proof is the physical media itself. Are they going to put up vending machines in Best Buy that shred CDs and spit out digitally signed flac, or <gasp> mp3? How much is it going to cost? Are iTunes and Amazon mp3s unique enough to be used as proof? I certainly hope these companies track all purchases and issue proof of ownership. It's bad enough that I carry a pile of paperwork with me to prove the origin of my camera equipment and other gadgets.

Quite frankly, if they want to accuse me of a crime, the burden is on them, not on me, to prove it. If any of this is going to happen, we're better off going with a subscription service. I've already given up on buying movies, because it's so much cheaper and easier to rent it online. In return I don't even have to worry about the media format conversion. Really, there's a movie I purchased on tape, DVD and BluRay. How many more times am I supposed to buy it? And you're saying if I want to take it on an airplane, I need to buy the mobile version as well?

Reply Score: 1

Fuck the *AA
by Lazarus on Thu 15th Apr 2010 23:07 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

All I have to say is that this makes me feel sick to my stomach. You'd think I'd be used to this sort of stupidity by now.

Reply Score: 2

Mandatory Internet Filters
by mrhasbean on Thu 15th Apr 2010 23:26 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

How many people honestly believe that mandatory internet filters already in place in New Zealand and soon Australia and almost certain to come to a country near you, the technical details of which are being kept secret, are only there to "filter" HTTP content in order to "protect children"?

This has to be one of the biggest cons ever. The very reason it's being kept secret has nothing to do with "national security" and everything to do with them being able to add whatever services and criteria they please to these "filters". This stuff is already on it's way no matter how much noise we make about it. If it isn't introduced in public view it will certainly be done in stealth, the first most will know of it is the feds knocking on (or down) the front door...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Mandatory Internet Filters
by Murrell on Fri 16th Apr 2010 01:57 UTC in reply to "Mandatory Internet Filters"
Murrell Member since:
2006-01-04

"...mandatory internet filters already in place in New Zealand..."

Speaking as a New Zealander*; No, we don't.

An ISP can optionally implement transparent proxying via the Department of Internal Affairs where if the IP a user is connecting to is on a banned list, the user will be redirected to a non-logged warning page.

A better explanation is here; http://www.3news.co.nz/Internal-Affairs-to-filter-URLs-in-New-Zeala...

At least one major ISP refuses to implement this system; http://www.orcon.net.nz/about/article/the_new_zealand_internet_filt...

Now, I think this is a terrible system for both technical and political reasons, but it's not mandatory, the technical details are not a secret, and my Internet connection is not filtered. Getting major points wrong makes you sound like a idiot at best, and a nut at worst, and only makes it to discount you and other privacy advocates.

* Your comments may apply to Australia. However, New Zealand is entirely separate country to Australia, separated by about 2000km (1300miles) of ocean. (Just in case anyone was unsure)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mandatory Internet Filters
by Brendan on Fri 16th Apr 2010 06:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Mandatory Internet Filters"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

To add to this (speaking as an Australian); no Australians (excluding a few stupid paedophiles) actually care about Australia's IP filtering.

Smart paedophiles can probably get around the filter. More importantly it's much much harder for people (including voter's children) to accidentally go to a site containing (and even promoting) child porn.

It doesn't effect anything else (including all other types of porn, guides to making explosives in your bathroom, racist or homophobic stuff, etc).

Most people who do complain about Australia's IP filtering are actually Americans. They make the mistake of assuming that our government is run by idiotic crackpots (like theirs).

Basically, if the American government was running Australia's IP filtering I'd be very worried (but thankfully they aren't).

- Brendan

Reply Score: 2

Dear Americas
by Soulbender on Fri 16th Apr 2010 03:26 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Welcome to cold war East Germany. Please enjoy your freedom...but not too much. If you have any questions pleace just approach your neighbourhood Stasi...err..I mean RIAA representative.

Edited 2010-04-16 03:26 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RIAA/MPAA now grants you
by circlomanen on Fri 16th Apr 2010 06:50 UTC
circlomanen
Member since:
2008-11-02

the timelimited freedom to buy a record. Its a very special record. An updated version. Now you can listen to it twice (!!!!) without entering your 512 digit personal security-code or paying a "listen-licens". This offer will last for 26 minutes.
"Bestof Brittany playes Justin" 32 kb/s MP3.

We all thank RIAA/MPAA for their generous contribution to our culture! Without them we would be lost in a sea of evil pirates.

Reply Score: 1

They should die
by Mr.Manatane on Fri 16th Apr 2010 08:02 UTC
Mr.Manatane
Member since:
2010-03-19

Well, I think that a lot of people will moderate me down, but when I read such crap, I want those people to die. really ...

Reply Score: 1

RE: They should die
by jal_ on Fri 16th Apr 2010 10:21 UTC in reply to "They should die"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Well, I think that a lot of people will moderate me down, but when I read such crap, I want those people to die. really ...


I cannot blame them for trying - they are making big bucks with their copyright. What I find alarming is that even smart people like Obama just buy their crap. It seems the US government is more concerned about their big corporations than about their citizens. Welcome corporatocracy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: They should die
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 16th Apr 2010 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE: They should die"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What I find alarming is that even smart people like Obama just buy their crap.


Money > intelligence.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: They should die
by jal_ on Fri 16th Apr 2010 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: They should die"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Money > intelligence.


Money > principles as well. I'm not sure about principles vs. intelligence. Probably principles > intelligence. Intelligent people tend to stuck to silly principles.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ballmerlikesgoogle
by ballmerlikesgoogle on Fri 16th Apr 2010 11:19 UTC
ballmerlikesgoogle
Member since:
2009-10-23

Well their more than happy to come and try to install such software to monitor my computer

Im sure I'll have snacks an drinks waiting when they break down the door.....

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by ballmerlikesgoogle
by jal_ on Fri 16th Apr 2010 12:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by ballmerlikesgoogle"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Well their more than happy to come and try to install such software to monitor my computer Im sure I'll have snacks an drinks waiting when they break down the door.....


Are you being silly on purpose? If it's up to the RIAA, without such software you are not allowed to use internet, and you'll be locked out, experiencing 80s-style computing.

Reply Score: 1

Yeeeeaaaahh
by jo3lr0ck5 on Fri 16th Apr 2010 13:11 UTC
jo3lr0ck5
Member since:
2010-03-17

I want to see this happening, this is going to be hilarious...yeah who is going to let this thing happen? Does the MPAA/RIAA think that people are going to take this laying down?

I got a better idea how about someone flips the giant internet switch to the OFF position and then people will have to buy CDs, go to the movies, and watch TV with all those awesome commercials. Oh I know if they do this the economy is going to pick up too and everyone is going to have jobs and be making millions of dollars, another positive big foot and unicorns are going to walk around in the open.

Reply Score: 2

No surprises.
by deathshadow on Fri 16th Apr 2010 13:26 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits. -- Plutarch

The RIAA through lobbyists, donations and back-room deals is a perfect example of this in action. You ask the majority of citizens their opinions of these types of laws, I would at least assume they would be against it - and thus lies the flaw with republics; Your elected officials can be compromised into passing unjust laws.

... which IMHO, well, someone else said it better.

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. -- Martin Luther King Jr.


You watch the language used the politicians supporting it, and one of the biggest lies of most legislatures becomes obvious... Repeatedly they call it 'protecting the public interest' - almost all new laws after the first... 20 years or so of a government being around is a matter of the government trying to "protect people from themselves", even if the people don't agree with it and rarely obey said laws.

Worse, they will sell it as "reducing crime" - you'll see that malarkey all the damned time with new laws. "Our new law will reduce crime" - NO LAW EVER REDUCES CRIME!!! How can I say that? All new laws do is turn law abiding citizens into criminals.

Which is exactly what the RIAA and it's kin want to call every potential consumer.

The simple fact is the recording industry is at a crossroads akin to the one they faced two decades ago when artists started *SHOCK* demanding part of the royalties from their own music. Rememeber, we're talking about the same sleazeballs who for decades had artists sign contracts that signed over all rights to all music they recorded... Simple fact is the majority of mega artists prior to 1980 saw little if any profit from a single one of their records; and for many artists today who sign with the big labels (Sony, EMI, Warner, BMG) this remains true... Which is why for the majority of artists they still make most of their money on stage and not in the studio; The record release for them remains little more than an advertising gimmick.

Which is why for every group like Metalligreed ranting and raving about filesharing evils you have bands like Motley Crue saying "Go ahead and pirate our music". (But to be fair to metalligreed, it doesn't help when the one with talent died in '86 and four years later the band was replaced by alien pods).

For more and more artists ditching the classic demo tape or even conventional albums for MySpace pages and "internet only" releases is replacing the normal recording industry. Simple fact is as the quality of amature recording hardware reaches the studio quality of just three decades ago, the classic 'studio' and record label supporting them is going to either have to adapt, or fall by the wayside.

But that doesn't mean they aren't going to fight it tooth and nail like a squealing rapacious swamp sow.

Edited 2010-04-16 13:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: No surprises.
by Soulbender on Fri 16th Apr 2010 19:47 UTC in reply to "No surprises."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Wow, I'm actually agreeing with you. One of the best posts in this thread.
Yes, in the old days many musicians was more or less left pennyless by the labels even if they've had great chart success.

"Go ahead and pirate our music"


Or to (probably mis)quote Lemmy: "Go ahead and steal the album, I just want you to hear the fucking songs."

Don't download this song.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1248542035906402031#

Reply Score: 2

Vince malum bono
by MadRat on Fri 16th Apr 2010 16:25 UTC
MadRat
Member since:
2006-02-17

Ephesians 6:12

Reply Score: 1

RE: Vince malum bono
by deathshadow on Sat 17th Apr 2010 05:36 UTC in reply to "Vince malum bono"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

I think Samuel 8:11-18 seems more appropriate... But as an agnostic I'm more of a fan of back when the Lord had a pair.

Edited 2010-04-17 05:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Vince malum bono
by pepa on Mon 19th Apr 2010 06:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Vince malum bono"
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

1 Samuel 8:11-18 (ESV):
He said, These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.

And while I'm at it, Ephesians 6:12 (ESV):
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Both seem to apply.

Reply Score: 2

Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Then they'll find out what I do with all my pirated products... it makes me feel "extra dirty."

Reply Score: 2

change the model
by ulyssesr on Sat 17th Apr 2010 18:35 UTC
ulyssesr
Member since:
2010-04-17

Since enforcing copyright laws cost money and tax resources if government is going to be involved, trust me, the government throws away money like no other institution, why not just make all digital music FREE. It's a wild and crazy concept, but it makes the most sense in terms of cost. It's going to be difficult to enforce anyways. The only question is how do you guarantee that musicians make money? They can still go on tours, concerts, signings, and other sales. The world is changing. Welcome to the digital economy. The old model of selling records and CDs just don't work effectively anymore.

Reply Score: 1

Sucks to live in Florida
by FunkyELF on Mon 19th Apr 2010 13:15 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

Border patrol checkpoints are a way around the constitution. Looks like we can add pirated movies and music to terrorism child porn as root passwords to the constitution.

Are you living in a constitution free zone? The entire state of Florida is.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-yo...

Good read on checkpoints....

https://www.checkpointusa.org/

Reply Score: 2