×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

The Future of Copy Control

michael posted more than 13 years ago | from the your-gate-is-down dept.

The Internet 363

TechLawyer writes "For those of us interested in the use of the DMCA, and the tactics utilized by copyright enforcement specialists under the DMCA, Law.com ran an interesting article today on Dave Powell and Copyright Control Services. Read about how he plans to knock out Napster & how he shuts down warez d00dz from .com to .ru." There are some fascinating and ugly quotes in here about how this guy goes after targets - a combination of harassment and threats against their service providers, admitted illegal actions, etc. Meanwhile, this LA Times story describes even more insidious technologies apparently designed for use in transparent proxies - censorware for copyrighted materials.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:Hmm, I wonder how they can get him off their ba (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#413146)

There is NO proof that they were dealing in software...I am gonna draft a couple of letters about you myself :) Traced your connect back and gonna tell your provider you are guilty of pantent and trademark violations, they will take you down so fast you won't know what happened then talk out your ass some more :) these tactics are illegal and someone should sue for libel, but it should be soemone in the UK as the have better laws :) Make asswipe provide definitive proof or pay up and shut-up :0

Re:Seen It Happen (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#413147)

Freedom [freedom.net] .

I remember Dave... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#413148)

Dave Powell used to hang out in a # warez channel i frequented back in the day before i could afford expensive audio software...

It was kind of comical actually. The ops knew when he joined (and duly warned others in the channel) The funny thing was that instead of kick/banning him they let him hang out in the channel! They at least could keep track of him that way...

his intimidation tactics work pretty well, and software companies pay him handsomely for his services.

Interesting Article (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#413149)

Favorite part was

Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document.

I invite this guy to come to ukraine. You know a hit here costs about $100 US? How about we start a pool?
Dunno what the going rate is in China or the states though...
This was a joke btw....

Re:Hmm, I wonder how they can get him off their ba (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#413150)

I got a letter from him once for using a set of pictures that were obviously spammed by company that was having copyright issues with my site. I told him: Send me registered mail from a real lawyer, not some unverifiable email message from a baillif. Fuck off ay, hoser. He replied: Oh, youre canadian. Never mind, then.

Pretty nice guy, if you ask me.

Re:Extortion is illegal too (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#413151)

Yes - basically what they are saying is pay $3000 or we are going to take you though the courts which will financially cripple you for life. This is why the legal system is flawed - it can cost so much damn money to prove you are innocent as it`s easier just to pay the smaller fee.

How about rewriting the GPL so that you can use it for free - on the condition you never become involved in raping someone over IP.

If a litigating company uses GPL code - they have to pay FSF a fee per CPU for using the software - scaling up depending on how much money they are asking for from the litigation. That way those of us who believe in free cake and contribute to it can have it. And those who believe everyone should pay for software can pay for all software. In addition FSF can have some income to help support victims of this kind of heavy handed tactics.

It is basically extortion. I grew up in Belfast - it`s not much different from pay us protection money or we will shoot your knees out - just a little more messy on the wallet and a little less messy on the knees ;-)

It's one thing to respect the law. (5)

jd (1658) | more than 13 years ago | (#413157)

It is another to act as an international terrorist, acting as a hired gun to blackmail anyone who opposes a particular corporation's policy.

A bit strong? Then let's look at the terms.

  • Terrorist - One who uses fear and intimidation as weapons to pursue a political agends.
  • Hired Gun - Mercenary. One who operates in a hostile manner towards "undesirables" for money.
  • Blackmail - Demands With Menaces (legal definition). To use threats - implied or actual - to compel another to meet some demand, usually monetary payment.

This guy makes the Sheriff of Nottingham look like a saint. Further, his actions could constitute a violation of the UK's Data Protection Act and also a violation of anti-hacking laws.

(Which, since UK law now defines crackers as terrorists, goes back to point #1.)

Under UK law, this guy could be looking at life, with no chance of release, =IF= the UK police chose to act. He'd make a nice cell-mate for Ian Brady.

We'll see how interested the UK Govt. is in acting in the interests of it's citizens, with how it reacts to his conduct.

Gibson cometh (1)

Urmane (2213) | more than 13 years ago | (#413158)

I see the formation of Gibson-esque private, encrypted virtual networks reeeeal soon now ...

--

Insightful (2)

the red pen (3138) | more than 13 years ago | (#413159)

  • If law enforcement wants technical knowledge that would help them do their job, they have to buy it from the same group of people that built the infrastructure that allows us to copy information.
So what your saying, if I understand correctly, is that hackers/coders/geeks should close ranks like a jealous preisthood and cut off access to the knowledge that would allow the law enforcement community to understand or control technology.

I hate to break it to you, but there's already something in place that will make witholding this kind of information impossible. It's called The Open Source Movement . Maybe you should look into it.

Re:Heh heh -- ISP support won't be enough (2)

acroyear (5882) | more than 13 years ago | (#413164)

Besides, when stream-monitoring for digital watermarks and stuff like that, how are they going to tell the difference between an "illegal download" and a legitmate listener listening to a legitimate internet-radio broadcast...unless they're going to restrict broadcast software (and again, its too damn late) to proprietary-only schemes and find some way to illegalize it.


They keep forgetting that mp3, xmms, icecast -- its all out of the bag. Even if they kill shoutcast, winamp, mp3.com, and live365.com, its too late. I can still set up my own little private internet-radio station all i want. I already have the tools and they can't (legally) take them away (yet).

Re:Heh heh -- ISP support won't be enough (2)

acroyear (5882) | more than 13 years ago | (#413165)

So somebody writes a P2P software package that's "anonymous". Yes, it means whoever wrote the damn thing will be an RIAA target (like the norwegian who wrote DeCSS is being targetted by the MPAA), but again -- the cat will be outta the bag...

Heh heh -- ISP support won't be enough (3)

acroyear (5882) | more than 13 years ago | (#413167)

to get the scheme described in the L.A. Times article to work. All you have to do is take open-source gnutella (or future opensource efforts to produce P2P packages) and build in automatic 40-bit encryption. It remains fully distributable (since 40bit is exportable, so code can still be covered under GPL), but no attempt at digital watermarking and stream-monitoring will be able to detect through it.

Basically, catching "napster pirates" is going to end up a lot like catching speeders. Every so often, to meet quotas, they'll pick on one or two here and there, and those will probably be given fines or penalties far out of proportion to their "crime"...and otherwise, they stick to going for the napster-pirate equiv of "aggressive drivers".

Re:Cherchez l'argent! (Look for the money!) (4)

Cardinal Biggles (6685) | more than 13 years ago | (#413168)

All this made sense until you started calling copying "stealing".

Because no matter what you think of it, unauthorized copying is not stealing.

If you want to seem neutral on these issues, try to avoid the copyright industry's terminology.

Re:Seen It Happen (1)

grahammm (9083) | more than 13 years ago | (#413174)

Why should someone receiving such a demand have to prove themselves innocent? Is "demanding money with menaces" not still a crime?

after the War On Piracy (5)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 13 years ago | (#413175)

I can see it now, fast fwd 20 years hence, a current college student is running for President and is asked, "Have you ever pirated music?" - answer: "Well, I, uh, I did download a track once, heck everybody did it back then! But I didn't listen to it!"

Hmm, I wonder how they can get him off their back (1)

Zico (14255) | more than 13 years ago | (#413186)

I know! How about not trafficking in pirated software?


Cheers,

Good and bad (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 13 years ago | (#413190)

This is basically the Right Thing to do: go after the pirates. It sure as hell beats going after the makers of tools (which almost always have legitimate use) or passing unnecessary draconian laws.

The problem is the legal intimidation aspect. If it takes years and $100,000 to defend oneself against a legal attack, then even innocent people are going to fold. What pressure is there to insure that this guy only attacks the guilty? None.

What is needed is for legal defense to get a lot cheaper and faster, so that only guilty defendants (and mistaken plaintiffs) end up being harmed by the legal system. Do that, and people like Dave Powell will be good guys, instead what they currently are: a dangerous menace to everyone.


---

Someone else put it better (2)

bee (15753) | more than 13 years ago | (#413193)

It may be a bit gauche to reply to one's own post, but in the time I wrote my post, someone else posted my general idea, but even better: Hit them where it will hurt [slashdot.org] .

---

Two words: strong encryption (3)

bee (15753) | more than 13 years ago | (#413195)

All the cooperation from backbone providers et al won't do them a damn bit of good if they can't tell what's being passed thru them.

The moral to the story? Use strong encryption on *everything*. Hell, Napster could fsck over lots of its enemies simply by integrating strong encryption into its client.

---

Fighting back against freedom-haters: blacklist (4)

bee (15753) | more than 13 years ago | (#413196)

Probably lots of you are wondering how to fight a company like this. Granted, there are countless legal, quasi-legal, and illegal methods, but here's one that's totally above board and reasonable.

If you write open-source software, consider adding something like the following to your license of choice: "The following companies are forbidden from using this software in any manner: __________. Violation of this clause means said company agrees to give $1 million or 10 percent of their yearly gross combined domestic and international sales, whichever is greater, to the Free Software Foundation, per violation." I'm not a lawyer, so I'm sure someone could make that legally firm by rewriting it appropriately.

Why let companies like this use our own tools against us?

---

Re:Weird HTML in that link (2)

seizer (16950) | more than 13 years ago | (#413197)

A work around? Sure.

% lynx "http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTCont entServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZ5EVNA GJC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0&s=News&ExpIgnore=tru e&showsummary=0"

Enjoy :-)

It renders messed up in my Nutscrape, also, by the way. But lynx shows it up a treat

This guy is our only hope (5)

rw2 (17419) | more than 13 years ago | (#413198)

There are some fascinating and ugly quotes in here about how this guy goes after targets - a combination of harassment and threats against their service providers, admitted illegal actions, etc.

Look, we all bitch an moan about how the RIAA shouldn't be trying to shut down Napster. Why? Because they are doing nothing wrong. They are like a publisher of bomb making books.

The fact is, a crime is being committed. The RIAA should not be going after Napster, but you can bet your ass they should be going after the violaters. Like jammer in the story.

They are the ones causing all the problems. If you don't agree with a law (or a business practice in the case of the leeches at RIAA passing almost no money on to the artists) you don't have a right to break it (Thoreau aside for the moment as even in the case of civil disobedience you don't have a right to expect not to be jailed).

The reason this is our great hope is that the public won't stand for it. The RIAA attacked Napster because they knew that going after the fans was a loser. If this guy does it then one of two things is going to happen. Either Congress will pass laws at the request of the nation to fuck the RIAA, or the RIAA is going to realize that the nationwide boycott of their goods is costing more than sueing jammer can earn them and they'll come up with a better idea.

--

Re:I should have expected this... (1)

double_h (21284) | more than 13 years ago | (#413201)

Browser Error Sorry.You must have cookies enabled to enjoy this site.

Odd. I'm using Netscape proxied through Junkbuster [junkbuster.com] , with all cookies but a select few sites blocked, and the law.com page loaded just fine for me. I just checked the netscape cookies file to double-check, and there's nothing from that domain.

Re:Wow... the Crimebuster became the criminal... (2)

powerlord (28156) | more than 13 years ago | (#413207)

>>It's bad crime-fighting too, since in the U.S. evidence obtained illegally is automatically discarded.

I was under the impression that evidence obtained illegally was only discarded if the source was a law enforcement agency. If evidence obtained illegally is presented to a law enforcement agency then they may use it (since THEY didn't act illegally to obtain the evidence). Now, wether charges can/should be brought against someone like that for breaking and entering is a totally different matter.

Re:Wow... the Crimebuster became the criminal... (2)

powerlord (28156) | more than 13 years ago | (#413208)

>> Amazing to hear that a lawyer will actually admit to doing something like that.

Oh, and while we are on the topic, can a move be made for an ethical hearing to have him dis-barred? >:)

Wow... the Crimebuster became the criminal... (5)

deesvito (29835) | more than 13 years ago | (#413209)

"...In December 2000, CCS ran across one of the most brazen pirate sites Powell had seen on the Internet in months....[Powell] received a tip from an informant who knew the site's administrative password, allowing Powell to download the e-mail addresses of all the registered users."

Isn't this crime under the legislation of most developed nations? If you access a person's computer without that person's authorization (even if you have all the passwords), you are guilty of hacking and can go to jail (unless you are law enforcement and have a warrant to search).. Amazing to hear that a lawyer will actually admit to doing something like that.

It's bad crime-fighting too, since in the U.S. evidence obtained illegally is automatically discarded.

I usually don't care about the whole piracy debate (it's easy not to worry about it that much when you use Linux), but it really irks me when I read about someone using illegal techniques to catch people doing illegal stuff.

I'm of two minds (2)

ajs (35943) | more than 13 years ago | (#413220)

I use Spamcop [spamcop.net] for this very reason. I want to shut down the people who spam me by getting their providers to harass them.

Now, someone is mis-using the providers to do the same to people who may have done nothing wrong.

What we really need is a formal (but government-independant) way of coordinating the complaints, arbirating them and deciding if a) the user should be removed b) the case merits being moved out of that forum and into the courts and c) which parties are actually involved. Something like Spamcop with more feedback (Spamcop's feedback process for ISPs is great, and there really is a lot of good you do for yourself by signing up if you send out ANY bulk email, even true opt-in). You track the complaints and allow ISPs to feed back the results of their research, closing a complaint if it's been resolved.

This would slow down our Mr Powell, but it would also give the pirates a force to fear, which, quite honestly is needed. It's *not* legal or even a particularly nice thing to steal someone's copyrighted work. At the same time, services like Napster should not have to pay the price for their users' indiscressions.

What an asshole (2)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 13 years ago | (#413223)

What an asshole that guy is. He's not doing this for the good of the economy or the artists that make that music. He's doing this to make a name for himself.

--

Re:Seen It Happen (1)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 13 years ago | (#413229)

How about they track your IP everytime you log in?

I should have expected this... (1)

smurd (48976) | more than 13 years ago | (#413233)

From www.law.com

Browser Error Sorry.You must have cookies enabled to enjoy this site. Please adjust this setting in your browser preferences. If you are using Internet Explorer, go to Tools, Internet Options, Security, Custom Level and select 'Enable Cookies'. If you are using Netscape, go to Edit, Preferences, Advanced and select 'Accept all Cookies' from your the options. Law.com uses cookies to provide better and more personalized service to you. For more detailed information regarding the use of cookies, see our Privacy Policy.

Ignorance is Strength (2)

Antilles (49894) | more than 13 years ago | (#413234)

How long is it before a disenting site's content is viewed as an act of heresy against good thought patterns (well conditioned thought patterns that associate well and agree with the Ruling Authorities Views) and is shut down in a similar way?

Re:If ever we needed law reform... (2)

British (51765) | more than 13 years ago | (#413235)

This guy reminds me of Officer Hege(or whatever his name is), that hot-roddin' tough-as-nails LART-welding sheriff that even has his little cable show in the county jails of the little hick town he guards, except he's a lawyer and his hick town is the Internet.

And there has been some accusations of officer Hege dragging innocent people out of their homes and beating them senseless.

Re:Fluffy writing (2)

British (51765) | more than 13 years ago | (#413236)

He brags as if he were Jeff K of somethingawful.com, but all the words are spelled correctly.

The best way to deal with cookies. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 13 years ago | (#413237)

I'm using OmniWeb on Mac OS X. It accepts all cookies, and deletes them all every time I quit the browser.

-jcr

Re:fp (1)

kahuna720 (56586) | more than 13 years ago | (#413240)

That is one of the reasons I choose to FP in their honor instead. Now their legacy is digitally enshrined, intact. Behold, the meme propagateth, and the meme raths outgrabe.

"Props to all dead homiez" is a message from which we all can draw a measured dosage of comfort and hope, a rarity in These Troubled Times where THE MAN considers PTADH's trVth to be a lesson best unheard by the masses, a call to arms best picked up by Their answering service--hence the (-1; Offtopic) bestowed upon it by unknown yet diabolical forces at Their command...

Yea, tho it lacks the immediacy and cachet of the Latest Internet Catchphrase (that honor, as you know, "are belong" to something else), its enduring legacy shall be the direct simplicity and abstracted sincerity it manages to encompass in the mere space of five small words; surely all among us can utilize the short time it takes to read through this historic phrase for a brief reflection upon our own dead homiez, and be bettered for the experience. (And it wouldn't hurt to mod it up every once in awhile, in order that our valued /. friends who browse at high thresholds may receive the benefit of its wisdom as well.)

One more reason to use encryption (2)

glitch! (57276) | more than 13 years ago | (#413242)

It looks like one of the methods they plan to use is some kind of pattern matching or fingerprint identification done on the IP stream. If both endpoints use a session key, then all the snoopers would see would be encrypted data. Use public keys to protect the session key. Problem solved...

Now the second issue - wouldn't this give "them" (whoever "they" are) a new tool for censorship? If this new system is to be effective, it will have to be largely automated. So now who is actually accountable if "they" start salting the copyright "database" with fingerprints of contents they want to censor?

Hmmm...

thestandard link (2)

cetan (61150) | more than 13 years ago | (#413245)

as noted by the article, this appeared in the standard linked here:
http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151, 22315,00.html [thestandard.com] .

What I find most funny about this article is the following quote:

And the CCS servers are frequent targets of attack; on Christmas Eve Powell opened Outlook Express to find he'd been mail-bombed with 15,000 messages

Uhm. Outlook Express? What, are you kidding me?

[/rant]

Takedown orders? This is racketeering! (5)

Convergence (64135) | more than 13 years ago | (#413252)

I like this..

They've managed to figure out how to fine and steal money from people without trial, without even convicting people of anything.

They just send a takedown order and offer people a choice: Either pay $8000, or risk going into debt for the rest of your life just attempting to prove your innocence.

Sweet racket, isn't it? RICO anyone? Either pay 'protection money', or they fuck you over, whether or not your guilty, and the best part is no trial necessary. They don't even need evidence!!

Re:And they're proud of this? (2)

alprazolam (71653) | more than 13 years ago | (#413255)

i wonder how good he would be at tracking a hit and run. where's this guy live anyway?

Hit them where it will hurt (3)

dsplat (73054) | more than 13 years ago | (#413256)

Add language to open source licenses specifically prohibiting the use of any software, hardware or legal tactics to hinder redistribution. Specifically state that that particular clause applies not just to people who use the software, but to anyone who stores or transmits it. The value of open source is in the free distribution that allows collaborative communities to form. Any action that hinders that harms every user of open source. Use those licenses vigorously on any code or writing you produce. Make the web a minefield of intellectual property for them.

Copyright (c) 2001 by dsplat.
This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later (the latest version is presently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/ [opencontent.org] ).

Re:Fighting back against freedom-haters: blacklist (1)

jalbro (82805) | more than 13 years ago | (#413258)

Actually, that would mean that the program is no longer open source.

The open source definition states:

"The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."

Besides, what if the company actually changes it's ways? Do you want to go back and change all your documentation?

-Jeff

Re:The best way to deal with cookies. (2)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 13 years ago | (#413259)

chmod 500 .netscape/cookies.txt

Re:DMCA is evil (1)

DarkSyd21 (90195) | more than 13 years ago | (#413262)

Is this even legal...I mean they are not law enforcement agents...can they really carry on an investigation? I mean according to that they can snoop on you...pretty much extort information out of ISP's and thats legal? If it is i am gonna go shoot myself cause this is f***ed up.

there's a bug in property (1)

Jart (100459) | more than 13 years ago | (#413287)

Oh the inhumanity! But consider this: Maybe IP, and property in general, could use rethinking. By property I mean the property-the-meme; the program. The 'who's owns this stuff' program. We all seem to be running it. Why? Because TV told us to? Because everyone's doing it? Inertia? Maybe it's debugging time. Or Rewrite? Property might be a bust. Sure it works for dogs pissing on trees but I suspect that it's time we humans invented something new.

Dave powell is a ^%I^%#^()^&^&*^@@#^@&^ (1)

OmegaDan (101255) | more than 13 years ago | (#413288)

Dave powell is one of the most hated names in the audio-warez scene, hes no better then any of the "pirates" he's busting, and he's for damn sure alot less noble.

I'd like to have 10 minutes with the man in a boxing ring, and see if he still feels like a bully. Because at best, thats what he is.

This quote... (2)

kreyg (103130) | more than 13 years ago | (#413294)

Why not use a legitimate site and support the music you love so much.

Hmm, like which site? Anybody have a link? Anybody?

I wonder... (2)

mmmmbeer (107215) | more than 13 years ago | (#413297)

Does anyone else picture this Powell guy as Satan wearing a tin halo?

And they're proud of this? (2)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 13 years ago | (#413316)


"He has single-handedly rendered entire news groups suitable only for spam and porn"

I knew there was someone was behind this!


What happens if... (5)

jvmatthe (116058) | more than 13 years ago | (#413318)

What happens if someone turns the "honeypot" idea around on the aggressors? That is, imagine that I own 1000 CDs and I set up an automatic downloader from Napster or some other p2p network of *only* mp3s of the music that I already legitimately own that I from various places on that service. Have another program which kills the MP3s as more space is needed. Make a big deal of it, by using all of my available bandwidth 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for months. This would have to get attention from the pit bulls after a while.

Then, when they send a subpeona, actually take them to task, countersue on whatever grounds you can (invasion of privacy, frivilous lawsuit, emotional distress, whatever) and go to the courts knowing that you didn't download anything that *wasn't* (as far as you knew) not allowed by "fair use". Besides, you were just using the network to download things that you didn't already have rights to.

Then, once they're busted a few good times, and hopefully had the pants sued off of them and some bad media exposure, see what happens.

Then again, I need another Mountain Dew...

If ever we needed law reform... (5)

BlackSabbath (118110) | more than 13 years ago | (#413319)

...its now.

When someone actually boasts about exploiting the prohibitive cost of mounting a legal defence then its time to look at reforming the system. The law exists to protect the innocent as well as punish the guilty. This guy however has a "Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out." kind of attitude.

He claims to act when the "evidence" is decisive. But whose standard of evidence are we talking about here? He is not a judge, or even a lawyer but a person who admittedly gets off on coming down on his targets. To allow such a person to brazenly threaten people (comply or we will send you broke fighting it) amounts to sanctioned blackmail.

After reading that article... (1)

umask077 (122989) | more than 13 years ago | (#413322)

Ok, So this idiot lawyer hacked into someone elses system and stole there user list. That is criminal. Any unauthorized access to someone elses computer for any reason is prosecutable. If I find a law firm has scanned any of my machines I will be reporting them to both the fbi and filing a cival suit in small claims courts. Ive taken to using this method with my insurance company and it really works. It only costs a little bit of money to file a civil suit. You dont need a lawyer but unless they want to send there president they do. And they have to send them. I dont care if I win. Im just sueing to cost them the price of there lawyer and there lawyers traffic. My insurance company now pays my claims quickly and without a word. All it took was 3 suits which they settled out of court and I dont have a hiccup anymore even though they denied every claim. If this or any other jerkoff scans my network I will file harrassment lawsuits. Thats me harassing him by costing him legal fees, and I will send contact his ISP as well. See. While piracy is illegal hacking is just as illegal and much easier to have the have the fbi prosecute. So if you see this twit or any other legal twit scanning your network call the Feds and Call his ISP. He wants a war, we can give him more of a war then he is ready to deal with. Not that I advocate piracy. Im just sick of these greedy lawyers forcing there impartial laws down peoples throats and trying to inspire fear. On the flip side, First lawyer who comes after me is gonna end up with a set of broken knee caps. I own a baseball bat and Im fed up enough to use it.

Re:Hit them where it will hurt (2)

MikeTheYak (123496) | more than 13 years ago | (#413323)

And how do you plan to bind someone to a contract they don't even know about? Can I send you an e-mail that legally compels you to send me money? As long as service providers can even claim not to know about every single piece of data that passes through them, this simply won't work. Moreover, assuming that it were binding, providers would simply choose not to host the software. Now who benefits from such an arrangement?

Re:It's one thing to respect the law. (2)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 13 years ago | (#413327)

Under UK law, this guy could be looking at life, with no chance of release
Wow; poetic justice. Somebody will penetrate HIS system, through a backdoor, and upload some unwanted data, if you get my drift. Hopefully it will be a 'brute force' attack.

Extortion is illegal too (1)

YIAAL (129110) | more than 13 years ago | (#413329)

This guy sounds like he's cruising for a lawsuit or prosecution for extortion. Can you say RICO?

Which is it? (5)

clary (141424) | more than 13 years ago | (#413335)

You say...
Intellectual-property owners don't have a fundamental natural-law right to restrict the copying of their intellectual property.
and
There is no right to steal others' IP.
Which is it? I'm not trolling, but honestly trying to work this out in my own mind. I am not sure I think anyone has an ethical (as opposed to legal) right to restrict what bits someone else copies around.

I am leaning toward the position that "intellectual property" cannot be ethically justified, because the mere copying of bits has no direct effect on the original author of those bits. I am leaning toward the position that if I have a stream of bits I don't want copied around, then I need to keep them secret.

In the software world, that could be accomplished by running an ASP rather than selling software copies. Or, software authors could use individual nondisclosure agreements with users (properly agreed to before opening the shrinkwrap, of course). But note that this last could only hold the discloser responsible for the software being revealed...receivers of the copy who did not agree to the NDA would be under no obligation not to use or copy the software.

Notice that this would also undercut the GNU license, since if one doesn't have the right to restrict how bits he has authored are copied, then he can't enforce the GNU restrictions.

I make a living writing software, and I like the idea of authors, artists, etc. being able to make money from their creations. Someone out there give me a solid ethical justification for intellectual property restrictions, please.

Re:Stopping Flow of Piracy at ISPs (LA Times) (1)

sallen (143567) | more than 13 years ago | (#413338)

This is kind of distrubing, if you ask me. I certainly do not want my ISP looking through my connections and determining what should and shouldn't be transmitted.

What seems even more of a concern was that this could be installed regionally at point the net aggregates connections. However, if I was running a piece of the backbone, I wouldn't walk away from this, I'd be running like hell. I can't believe the potential liablity if this screws up and 'stops' the wrong transmissions. They may not care much about privacy, but they do give a damn about their money. And it could be more than civil. Are there criminal statutes regarding interfering with someone's computer, interfering with the transmissions, etc? One cannot break a law saying they're prohibiting the breaking of laws. The old vigilante method of justice was outlawed many year ago.

is he thinking about this? (2)

slashdoter (151641) | more than 13 years ago | (#413344)

this just in a man by the name Dave Powell was found dead in his home today, police do not know the couse of death but they think it could have some thing to do with the subpoena up his ass. The FBI is using it's top secrest database of 1337 skript kiddies to look for leads......


________

similar to virus scanning? with similar weakness? (1)

jayfoo2 (170671) | more than 13 years ago | (#413358)

So the idea of looking for files based upon signatures (data footprint, name, etc) got me to thinking. These are basically some of the same methods that many anti-virus packages use to look for malware.

Would it be possible/feasable to create a polymorphic content protocol? i.e. put a wrapper around a file. It would be far harder to scan such a object moving over a chokepoint, as the scanner would have to get past the wrapper.

Additionally isn't how could anyone do that much traffic analysis? Scanning that many headers would take monsterous computing power, and it would cause a severe performance hit wouldn't it?

thoughts?

Beautiful irony (2)

gammoth (172021) | more than 13 years ago | (#413360)

I love the irony of the Den/IFPI fiasco:

The IFPI then demanded that Powell remove its name from his site, even though CCS had just finished a consulting contract with the organization in November.

Powell was bewildered by the IFPI's request and has thus far refused to comply.

So Powell makes his living getting material off the net, but refuses to do exactly that for a former client!

Re:Cherchez l'argent! (Look for the money!) (2)

Bluesee (173416) | more than 13 years ago | (#413361)

I'll tell you why we are still talking about this. Because once we shut-up they will seize and win the day. Keep practicing your Right to Free Speech, apparently it's the only thing the masses have going for them.

Anyway, as I have said before (see what I mean?), there is Zero Moral Implications in using Napster, in copying someone's book, and in making a movie of someone's novel the day after it is finished. It's just an economic model that was created 'in the day', a time when printing presses were still of the Gutenburg type.

It is my considered opinion (and many of you as well, as we practice our arguments, I notice they get more coherent and concise, good work all) that the advent of the Internet has brought about definite stresses in the way we do business. We are only just discovering that!

I would personally study the phenomena for a while and try to anticipate the implications of a number of possible policies before deciding on a single one. But the RIAA doesn't want that for obvious reasons. Money.

However, the dipwad lawyer cannot afford the luxury of not being a pit-bull for the landed, moneyed interests, so he has to be a jerk. He chose that profession and deserves all the enmity we can throw at him. He gets paid well.

Me, being more interested in the free association of people and the protected interests of individuals, care less about one man's personal fortune than the crapifying of what could still be a boon to humankind in general and me in particular.

But TV could have been a boon, too. But it's not for many of the same reasons; the greedy among us have sought to turn it solely into a revenue-generating box. For some reason that function excludes the possibility of all other functions. And don't talk to me about Public TV, it's gone the way of corporate interests.

In like fashion, we will see all the useful functions of this, our Internet become marginalized as people get harrassed off the internet until there are only providers and consumers left.

There may be a time when I am afraid to log on. Because of lawyer weenies like this joy-killer.

Re:This is a battle (2)

Bluesee (173416) | more than 13 years ago | (#413362)

I like it. A little much with the sheeps and wolves, but great thoughts, man.

So you would opt for a Bastille Day. I personally would go the Boston Tea Party route. And there are plenty of Gandhi's out there.

Is this why we can't get organized? Because we don't know whether to storm the gates, meet on the dock, or lie in the street together?

Tell me, now. What keeps us from organizing and informing the world? It's funny, I had no inkling of the WTO riot in Seattle until the day it happened, but I'll tell you, I would Never have known about the WTO if not for the riot.

Re:Right click is your friend (1)

ocelotbob (173602) | more than 13 years ago | (#413363)

Just right click on links and choose open link in new window. This is especially useful for sites like /. where there is discussion about a topic, and it is useful to go back and forth. It's especially useful if a site falls prey to the slashdot effect, you can reload every few minutes while reading what those who have been fortunate enough to access the site before it became bogged.

A $15 billion problem? (2)

mttlg (174815) | more than 13 years ago | (#413364)

From his low-rise offices in the suburbs of southwest London, Powell and his crack team of cybersleuths work on a problem that they estimate to be worth $15 billion a year: the unauthorized copying of software, music, books, film and other fruits of the vast and growing media industry.

As I was often told as a child, something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. Huge numbers like this $15 billion figure are often used to demonstrate how big the problem of piracy is, but what proof is there that people would pay for everything if they couldn't download anything for free? How many people would pay $600 for Photoshop or $15-20 for each CD they download in mp3 format? How much of that $15 billion has already been paid by people who either wanted to sample music or expensive software or already owned a legitimate license? How much of that $15 billion represents data that was deleted shortly after being downloaded or was never used? As anyone who is familiar with eBay knows, things don't always sell for as much as they are supposed to be worth. Claiming $15 billion in damages is easy - proving it is impossible.

Re:What happens if... (2)

SubtleNuance (184325) | more than 13 years ago | (#413372)

That is the best damned idea ive ever heard on this whole damned issue.
Please mod this guy up.

So the legal system doesn't work (1)

KjetilK (186133) | more than 13 years ago | (#413375)

ven if Jammer could find a lawyer to represent him, he would probably be advised to pay the fine and move on. Jessica Litman, a professor of copyright law at Wayne State University in Chicago, says that in these cases a lawyer's best advice would be to pay the fine. "If you're a lawyer and someone comes to your client from Walt Disney, you are not going to tell your client to go ahead with the trial," she says. "You could be right, but it would take seven years and $100,000 to find out."

I don't think it can be stated any clearer: The legal system doesn't work. If the case can't be tried in court by any realistic means, there is no way to obtain justice. Too bad.

"We enjoy this because it's an intellectual challenge," Powell says. "There is a real art and skill in this."

Just like the script kiddiez, right....

Well, I haven't got any pirated programs, free software makes them irrelevant. That you don't like the prize or the license it's no excuse, just don't use the stuff and move on.

But this guy has got an attitude that I really don't like.

Re:Fighting back against freedom-haters: blacklist (1)

tester13 (186772) | more than 13 years ago | (#413377)

I'm not sure about the legality of such an idea. Could it possibly be construed by a court as restraint of trade? Not sure just wondering.

Link works fine with Mozilla 0.8 (1)

splante (187185) | more than 13 years ago | (#413378)

And, I had cookies turned off.

Crashes and bugs greatly reduced since 0.7.

Get Mozilla [mozilla.org]

Fluffy writing (1)

Monkeyman334 (205694) | more than 13 years ago | (#413391)

This sounds overly buzz-wordy like they're trying to sell something. Take this for example:

"And Powell employs a formidable arsenal of remedies. He can have almost any Web page removed from the Internet in hours. He can have a suspect's Internet connection turned off -- pedestrian dial-up or fancy broadband -- within days. He has single-handedly rendered entire news groups suitable only for spam and porn. By pressuring large ISPs, he has made entire areas of the Internet a danger zone to pirates hoping to trade in his client's software. "

They could have just said "He's an asshole"

Hey thats good.. (1)

PHr0D (212586) | more than 13 years ago | (#413396)

..Ya hear that? "He has single-handedly rendered entire news groups suitable only for spam and porn".. In other words: Sharing Bad. Selling Good.


--------------------------------------

This is a workable solution: (2)

Miragejp (214942) | more than 13 years ago | (#413400)

March into Dave Powell's office, look him in the eye, and machete him to death. This will work well for other idiots as well, in any sector of any society, public or private.

I wonder what Judge Kaplan would think... (2)

ubernostrum (219442) | more than 13 years ago | (#413403)

Powell acted quickly to bring the site down and in a lucky turn received a tip from an informant who knew the site's administrative password, allowing Powell to download the e-mail addresses of all the registered users.

Doesn't this make him one of those morally degenerate hackers Kaplan railed against in the 2600 decision? Someone ought to bring charges against dear old Dave...

Re:Seen It Happen (2)

namespan (225296) | more than 13 years ago | (#413408)

Question:

If you've created your hotmail account from a
public location, what then?

Or if you dialup on a free ISP with fake information, and then create your hotmail account?

Can they track you through all that?

--

Running the numbers (2)

Jucius Maximus (229128) | more than 13 years ago | (#413411)

What guys like Powell don't seem to understand is that one pirated copy of a $900 piece of software does not equal that same amount in lost revenue.

Do you think that every kid out there who downloads a copy of Photoshop would go out an buy it if they were unable to find an illegal download? Of course not. And besides, how do they determine that the industry has lost $[...] in revenue anyways? They're not keeping track of every warez download on the planet! I deeply suspect that their financial numbers and statistics are being pulled out from under Elvis Presley's armpits.

Powell relies on the fact that most law enforcement in the world doesn't really know very much about criminal activity related to the internet. A few years back I was actually questioned by the local police department about some internet related threats, and the officer in charge of the investigation admitted that she knew practically nothing about computers. I wasn't involved in what happenned, and ended up explaining how to trace the obvious clues in related e-mail headers which clearly lead back to a local ISP. (Not my ISP ;-)

You see, my point is that guys like Powell are relying on a) Numbers and statictics from very dubious or nonexistent sources, and b) The ignorance of the world's law enforcement, and their willingness to swallow whatever he spouts.

O'Toole's Commentary on Murphy's Law:

Re:This guy is our only hope (1)

nowt (230214) | more than 13 years ago | (#413417)

"Boycott"

Now there's a word I've been looking for in all this RIAA/mp3 MPAA/DCSS garbage. Anyone up for a boycott of products from RIAA/MPAA members with the Napster changeover? They question the validity of the marketforce of Napster users so let's show them. Instead of saying how many cd's Naspter incites you to buy, let's stop buying!

Attention gained. Point made. And we can get back to our regularly creative reality.

Re:Seen It Happen (2)

clinko (232501) | more than 13 years ago | (#413418)

Yes, hotmail logs IPS, do free isps log their ips? I don't know. But it sure seems like they would...

Seen It Happen (4)

clinko (232501) | more than 13 years ago | (#413419)

"He can have almost any Web page removed from the Internet in hours. He can have a suspect's Internet connection turned off -- pedestrian dial-up or fancy broadband -- within days. "

I've seen this happen. Within 2 days, A warrent to hotmail, then strait to @home, to the door of a friend-o-mine's. Pretty scary stuff. And hotmail and @home QUICKLY gave up the information...

Copyright Control Services? (2)

Dr. Awktagon (233360) | more than 13 years ago | (#413420)

That is a fuckin' creepy name.. very Orwellian. I bet they have special little red uniforms they wear when they make their phone calls and write their subpoenas. All we need is for them to become a branch of government and every little nightmare scenario we've imagined for copyright will come true.

"We want to control you..." (2)

q000921 (235076) | more than 13 years ago | (#413422)

The link doesn't work with Netscape 4.7* on Linux: it gets lots of JavaScript errors. Without JavaScript, you get a blank page. And if you don't have cookies enabled, you get a "Browser Error". The recommendation of law.com: "enable all cookies".

Aren't you glad to know that law.com has your privacy and consumer choice at heart? As long as you allow them to track you and use the latest version of Internet Explorer, you are fine.

Re:Fighting back against freedom-haters: blacklist (3)

q000921 (235076) | more than 13 years ago | (#413424)

Tempting as it may be, I think the Free Software Foundation has always regarded such restrictions as undesirable, and I believe the open source definition also excludes it.

The reasoning is that free software and open source software is about principles, and it's bad to compromise those principles for some possible short-term gain.

From a purely practical point of view, I think it would just be a bad precedent for people to write such specific restrictions into licenses. Enforcement is difficult, and you can't easily revoke the restrictions when the company changes (many companies have come around to open source).

In this particular case, I don't even see anything particularly serious to get upset about. The guy is going after people who post commercial software to newsgroups. That would be a worthwhile thing to do even from the point of view of keeping some junk off of USENET.

wouldn't worry about it (5)

q000921 (235076) | more than 13 years ago | (#413425)

From an ethical point of view, if someone posts an obviously copyrighted commercial software package to USENET, I think he deserved to lose access to the ISP. Folks, do something productive instead: learn programming and drive Steinberg and Powell's other clients out of existence by writing better open source software; don't blindly post their stuff.

From a technical point of view, someone who wants to post potentially incriminating material and uses NNTP from their cable modem deserves what they get.

As for the transparent proxies detecting content, unless there is legislation restricting users to a handfull of well-known formats, in the presence of even simple cryptography or compression, that's a pointless exercise. OTOH, I see no problem with companies trying to detect copyrighted works by participating in P2P networks; of course, since P2P is moving towards tit-for-tat schemes, these participants better be prepared to put up some interesting content themselves in order to particpate :-)

Action ? Reaction! (1)

Bug2000 (235500) | more than 13 years ago | (#413426)

A team of investigators combs the Internet for infringing sites, identifies the culprit, then e-mails the evidence to Powell and waits for him to give the word.

Just filter the email addresses or domain names he use to contact people and send it to /dev/null or bounce it back... Enough spam! :))

Re:Weird HTML in that link (1)

rppp01 (236599) | more than 13 years ago | (#413427)

I am able to see it with Opera 5 for linux and windows. Try downloading opera 5 with Java and give that a try.

dangerous (2)

rppp01 (236599) | more than 13 years ago | (#413428)

This guy is dangerous. He illegaly cracked a site and emailed its users and told them to stop their activity. The company was outraged, and demands he remove their name from his site [copyrightcontrol.com] . He won't, simply because he thought he did a 'good job'.

He has had people kicked off their ISPs for posting illegal software. He is located in the UK. I wonder, where does he get his jurisdiction from? This is ridiculous. I swear, if I had the money, I would challenge this ass-wipe in court.

I hate people like this. Take your moralistic standings and go preach to your reflection with a burning torch up your ass.

Russia have many warez ftp sites (1)

elsvp (250794) | more than 13 years ago | (#413442)

Most of them are supported by students. Servers don't have a good circuits/channels in global internet.

This is a battle (4)

Prophet of Doom (250947) | more than 13 years ago | (#413444)

People like this are prime examples of why the common refrain of "someone will crack whatever protection they come up with" must end. People like Mr. Powell are our enemies.

The Roman Republic failed, in part, because they could not successfully answer the question, "Who Shall Guard the Guards?" The Founders of this Republic answered that question with both the First and Second Amendments. Like Stalin, our politicians couldn't care less what common folk say about them, but the concept of the informed citizenry as guarantors of their own liberties sets their teeth on edge and disturbs their statist sleep.

Governments, some great men once avowed, derive their legitimacy from "the consent of the governed." In the country that these men founded, it should not be required to remind anyone that the people do not obtain their natural liberties by "the consent of the Government." Yet in this century, our once great constitutional republic has been so profaned in the pursuit of power and social engineering by corrupt leaders as to be unrecognizable to the Founders. And in large measure we have ourselves to blame because at each crucial step along the way the usurpers of our liberties have obtained the consent of a majority of the governed to do what they have done, often in the name of "democracy"-- a political system rejected by the Founders. A good friend of mine gave the best description of pure democracy I have ever heard. "Democracy," he concluded, "is three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner." The rights of the sheep in this system are obviously in peril.

Now it is true that our present wolf-like, would-be rulers do not as yet seek to eat that sheep and its peaceable wooly cousins. They are, however, most desirous that the sheep be shorn of rights, and if possible and when necessary, be reminded of his rightful place in society as "good citizen sheep" whose safety from the big bad wolves outside the barn doors is only guaranteed by the omni-presence in the barn of the "good wolves" of the government. Indeed, they do not present themselves as wolves at all, but rather these lupines parade around in sheep's clothing, bleating insistently in falsetto about the welfare of the flock and the necessity to surrender liberty and property "for the children" or for "the lambs." In order to ensure future generations of compliant sheep, they are careful to educate the lambs in the way of "political correctness," tutoring them in the totalitarian faiths that "it takes a barnyard to raise a lamb" and "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Every now and then, some tough old independent-minded ram refuses to be shorn and tries to remind the flock that they once decided affairs themselves according to the rule of law of their ancestors, and without the help of their "betters." When that happens, the fangs become apparent and the conspicuously unwilling are shunned, cowed, driven off or occasionally killed. But flashing teeth or not, the majority of the flock has learned over time not to resist the Lupine-Mandarin class which herds it. Their Founders, who were fiercely independent rams, would have long ago chased off such usurpers. Any present members of the flock who think like that are denounced as antediluvian or mentally deranged.

The tyrant must be met at the door, at yours or mine, whenever he shows his bloody appetite. It matters not what flag he flies, what uniform he wears, nor what excuses he brings for pillaging your property, your liberty, or your life. "By their works ye shall know them." The time is late. Those who once had trouble reading their watches for the darkness will have none for the glare of the fires, we will have the advantage of that terrible illumination. The tyrant is outnumbered and we destroy all that he represents.

They got the guns but we got the info (4)

perdida (251676) | more than 13 years ago | (#413445)

Dave Powell is not an officer of the law, but he
prides himself on having a keen sense of where
a man will bend and where he might break. The
casual software pirate will usually respond to a
sternly worded e-mail that appeals to some
sort of universal sense of justice. Stealing,
after all, is wrong and even though the Internet
gives people a sense of anonymity, most
people don't like to think of themselves as
thieves. For the more savvy software pirate,
Powell must appeal to an instinct more powerful
than morality: self-preservation.

"A subpoena will look something like this,"
Powell says, lifting an inch-thick sheaf of
papers off his desk. "A pirate gets this in the
mail and it's like, 'holy s--t.'"


Okay, people. These are obviously people with a great deal of power, law enforcement oprganizations who are only educated about tech to the degree that their governors or congressmen are informed by lobbyists for various causes.

The law enforcement community is using heavy handed techniques against ISP operators and Napster, etc. users- two groups of people who share a common interest in protecting their current "freedom" to make copies of information. These people have the technical knowledge. If law enforcement wants technical knowledge that would help them do their job, they have to buy it from the same group of people that built the infrastructure that allows us to copy information.

Law enforcement is able to get this information because people sell it for money.Why don't people stop selling their services as "ex hackers" to law enforcement?

Of course, then the info-sharing community would have to p0lice itself. But signing contracts with individual contract providers is infinitely better than allowing law enforcement to supervise a process they do not understand.

I do not use Napster, I do not pirate software, I use the Internet as a research tool for various writing that I do. I copy words and occasionally code, and it would suck if law enforcement put a damper on the technologies I use to do this. Musicians need the technology to sample other music for their tracks. To protect the vital usses of file sharing and copying, it is essential that people come to a compromise about stuff like copying Britney Spears music.

Come to an understanding with content providers! Don't let RIAA lobbyists tell governors and congressment to tell their law enforcers to enforce it THEIR way. Find an agreeable solution, and protect the essential freedoms of the internet.

Re:Seen It Happen (2)

Mercaptan (257186) | more than 13 years ago | (#413450)

All I have to say is that this man and his company have a lot of power. As the article mentions, he clearly relishes the hunt and the chase. It is almost ironic how much he achieves through social engineering, rather than brute force tech.

If various other groups take this tactic up as a full time endeavour, I shudder to think what the online world will become. With a private group bringing lawsuits against individuals, those who are wrongly accused (standing in the whorehouse as the article says) would be financially hard pressed to put up a fight. When faced with "pay the fine $10k now" versus "$100k over four years to be proven innocent", I wonder which path most people will take. In a sense, this methodology can be a lawsuit-to-settlement engine, with fresh meat just an e-mail list away. This could be a lucrative tactic indeed.

So if David Powell is successful and drives music pirates deep underground or away, will he hang up his sword or switch to a new field? In other words, what would be next?

Re:Gibson cometh (3)

Mercaptan (257186) | more than 13 years ago | (#413451)

It's an interesting solution, but the failings will be human. After all, I don't think Powell is packet-sniffing at all. He's logging in as a user and looking for content, he's using informants, he's pressuring ISPs.

Clearly what he seeks to do is make it hard to trade audio software or music, to take it out of the realm of the armchair pirate. Powell is targetting the public sources that anybody can get to, like Napster and websites. Once he nails the public forums, he's done and won.

He won't care that you've built a secure trading network because by definition that sort of network will be hard to get into and limited to a small group of people. Sure you can have distributed trust structures and so forth, but it'll be too technical for most people. And that's all he cares about, putting the fear into most people. And even if you made it easy to use a secure trading network, how would you make sure that the Powells stay out?

Dave Powell telnetted in and killed my server! (3)

typical geek (261980) | more than 13 years ago | (#413457)

Really, the log goes like:

dave$ su
*******
# cd /
I'm sorry Dave, you can't do that.
# rm -rf *
Dave, you're scaring me
Dave, would you like to hear a song?
Daisy, Daisy give me your answer do....

Okay, now he's just going looney (2)

FrostyWheaton (263146) | more than 13 years ago | (#413459)

putting up fake songs on Napster that say:

"You are imperiling the future of music production. This is a felony in the U.S. Why not use a legitimate site and support the music you love so much. Thanks for listening. Here's the rest of the track. Have a nice day."

That is just too funny. I think the guy has lost his marbles. If I think about it I'm probably against music copyright infringement, but this is just too much, "Imperiling the future of music production"?!?!? come on. Now I can understand piracy threatening specialty audio software, but the recording industry? oh please.

And by the way, who let the recording industry become a 40 billion dollar industry?? That's really the root of the problem. $16-18 for 10 tracks of music?? sold to you on media that costs
The simplest act of surrealism is to walk out into the street, gun in hand, and shoot at random

Cherchez l'argent! (Look for the money!) (4)

Chuck Flynn (265247) | more than 13 years ago | (#413463)

This isn't about freedom and it isn't about personal autonomy. It's about money for both sides, plain and simple. And for this reason, I consider the whole debate to be intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual-property owners don't have a fundamental natural-law right to restrict the copying of their intellectual property. That right exists merely because of government fiat, protecting moneyed interests. As such, IP-owners will go to any length to ensure maximized profit realization, regardless of which individuals get the shaft.

Similarly, the individuals who are fighting the IP owners are acting out of their own selfish economic motives. They are too lazy or too narcissistic to pay for others' work, and therefore they try to cloak their economic motives in the florid language of freedom and liberty. It's a disgrace to proper civil liberties to lump socially sanctioned stealing in with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, the right to bear arms, and all the other fundamental rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. There is no right to steal others' IP.

With that said, where do we go from here? Both sides will continue duking it out in court or in the realm of public criticism, and no amount of wishing will make them shut up. Both sides will continue to waive their banners of zealotry, and both will try to recruit innocent bystanders to their side, either through coercive acts of Congress or through media blitzes.

I'm not suggesting we should regulate what sort of discourse we should allow on the airwaves so as to exclude these tired rehashings of pro/anti-IP and pro/anti-stealing, but it would go a long ways towards getting this debate off the front pages where it doesn't belong.

At the end of the day, it still comes down to the difference between the haves and the havenots. I don't see much room for discussion, anymore.

Why are we still talking about this?

Re:DMCA is evil (2)

cavemanf16 (303184) | more than 13 years ago | (#413473)

Unfortunately, it probably is quite legal. In Ohio, USA, you can be a bounty hunter and not have a license. You can't go around killing people, but you can go around 'hunting' down fugitives of the law to collect the bonds that bail-bondsmen have posted for that person to get them out of jail while they wait for their trial date. You, in effect, become simply a collection agent, where instead of collecting money owed the company, you 'collect' the person who owes the money.

In a way, this is quite an important service for the community because the bounty hunter is picking up the slack for what the police don't have the time to do: catch more criminals. But it can go overboard, and I think Dave and the CCS has gone overboard with his email tactic mentioned in the above article.

Re:Seen It Happen (2)

cavemanf16 (303184) | more than 13 years ago | (#413474)

Great point! Where's the warrant or proof of copyright infringement. That whole part about just emailing that Russian telco and saying "Do the usual" -with the response: "Ok, done the usual" scares me.

1. Dave sees company website hosted by Telco X that offers same service he offers for lower cost.
2. Dave sends quick email saying: "Do the usual." and includes website URL.
3. "Done the usual." is the reply and cheaper company is now effectively eliminated.

After all, they did 'infringe' on Dave's business model, and that's surely considered stealing!

Weird HTML in that link (1)

ryants (310088) | more than 13 years ago | (#413480)

I'm at work, so I have to use Exploder... clicking on that link created some kind of weird overlay... the law.com page overlaid on top of the Slashdot page. Anyway, the whole mess was totally unreadable. Anyone know a work-around?

Ryan T. Sammartino

Re:thestandard link (1)

AX.25 (310140) | more than 13 years ago | (#413481)

I found that funny too. 15,000 emails is nothing to mutt.

Stantard tactics. (1)

Hiro Antagonist (310179) | more than 13 years ago | (#413483)

He is employing the same tactics practiced by any good army -- attack the supply lines first. In this case, the supply lines are the methods of content delivery: ISPs, telcos, and so on.

On a different note; can web designers stop making pages that display ultra-ultra-ultra tiny type on anything but a Windows machine!?! Sheesh!

--

Re:WARNING: Nasty Picture (1)

Nickoty (313029) | more than 13 years ago | (#413484)

yeah, it was a pretty 'good' troll

That link bug could cause a great disaster on slashdot...

Re:Heh heh -- ISP support won't be enough (1)

Nickoty (313029) | more than 13 years ago | (#413485)

isn't all encryption (no matter key length) fully distributable these days? (Except like Iraq and such)?

copyrights (1)

aoiji (318201) | more than 13 years ago | (#413494)

while i agree that material should be copyrighted if it is used, this is really only needed for things where people can take the credit from others. the only reason that napster is really a target in this war is because the record industries feel threatened by the fact that people have taken new technology and used it to distribute copies of music before they could figure out how. noone ever mentions the other side, that the record companies are actually making more money now then they did before, all people care about is them making money. napster is only doing what people have done for years, taking an original product and copying it, like the first fans of rock bands who would copy tapes and sell them to people. and napster isn't even making money off of this, or at least that was the original idea. copyrights are great, but if people don't try to claim the material, are they really needed?

Re:Weird HTML in that link (1)

Derang() (318404) | more than 13 years ago | (#413496)

Looks fine to me...weird
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?