Could Hollywood hack your PC?

[tigerwolf]

Could Hollywood hack your PC?


By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
July 23, 2002, 4:45 PM PT


update WASHINGTON--Congress is about to consider an
entertainment industry proposal that would authorize
copyright holders to disable PCs used for illicit file
trading.
A draft bill seen by CNET News.com marks the boldest
political effort to date by record labels and movie
studios to disrupt peer-to-peer networks that they
view as an increasingly dire threat to their bottom
line.

Sponsored by Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Howard
Coble, R-N.C., the measure would permit copyright
holders to perform nearly unchecked electronic hacking
if they have a "reasonable basis" to believe that
piracy is taking place. Berman and Coble plan to
introduce the 10-page bill this week.




The legislation would immunize groups such as the
Motion Picture Association of America and the
Recording Industry Association of America from all
state and federal laws if they disable, block or
otherwise impair a "publicly accessible peer-to-peer
network."

Anyone whose computer was damaged in the process must
receive the permission of the U.S. attorney general
before filing a lawsuit, and a suit could be filed
only if the actual monetary loss was more than $250.

According to the draft, the attorney general must be
given complete details about the "specific
technologies the copyright holder intends to use to
impair" the normal operation of the peer-to-peer
network. Those details would remain secret and would
not be divulged to the public.

The draft bill doesn't specify what techniques, such
as viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks, or
domain name hijacking, would be permissible. It does
say that a copyright-hacker should not delete files,
but it limits the right of anyone subject to an
intrusion to sue if files are accidentally erased.

Because Congress only has about five work weeks left
before it is scheduled to adjourn for the year, the
outlook for the draft bill is uncertain.

But because its sponsors include top Republican and
Democratic committee chairmen, it could receive a warm
welcome in the House of Representatives at a hearing
tentatively scheduled for this fall. Coble is the
chairman of the House subcommittee on intellectual
property, and Berman is the top Democrat on the panel.


Berman wrote in an opinion article this month that
"currently, copyright owners are unable to use some
useful technological tools to deal with P2P piracy
because they face potential, if unintended, liability
under a variety of state and federal laws."

"It's a good bill," Gene Smith, a spokeswoman for
Berman, said on Monday. "It's always hard to defend
theft and piracy--this bill just puts into the hands
of the copyright owners technologies that are already
being used by the pirates."

Smith said the purpose of the draft bill was to "fight
fire with fire, fight technology with technology."

Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University
who specializes in copyright law, said the draft bill
improperly encourages "vigilante justice."

"I think it's wildly overreaching," Litman said.
"Copyright owners are in essence asking Congress to
say that peer-to-peer file trading is such a scourge,
is so bad, that stopping it is more important than
enforcing any other laws that federal or state
governments may have passed on computer security,
privacy, fraud and so forth."

Litman said that even if a copyright holder
accidentally deleted a home video titled "Snow White,"
the owner of that PC could be out of luck. "Unless I
can show economic harm, I can't even be compensated,"
Litman said. "Even if I want to be compensated, I have
to jump through procedural hoops."

The film and music industries already are developing
tools to use against rogue file swapping, though
they've remained mum on the details. The RIAA says its
members have the right to use any "lawful and
appropriate self-help measure."

Fritz Attaway, the MPAA's senior vice president for
government relations, endorsed Berman's approach on
Monday, stressing that law-abiding Internet users
should not be concerned.

"No one in the motion picture industry has any
interest in invading your computer or doing anything
malicious with your files," Attaway said. "The idea is
to make unauthorized file sharing sufficiently
inconvenient or at least unsuccessful."

The MPAA and RIAA did not respond to requests for
comment on Tuesday.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation condemned the draft
bill as a sop to Hollywood and the recording industry.


Digital lockdown?
"This is part of a greater strategy that's being
implemented by the entertainment industry to lock up
and control digital information in general," said
Robin Gross, an EFF staff attorney. "The rights that
we've enjoyed in the analog space are now being taken
away from us because we're entering a digital realm."

Gross said she was concerned by the broad grant of
immunity to copyright holders who become computer
intruders. "When they screw up, they don't want you to
be able to get some sort of retribution from them,"
she said.

Other sponsors listed on the draft bill include key
legislators such as Reps. John Conyers of Michigan,
the top Democrat on the full Judiciary committee,
Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the chairman of a crime
subcommittee, and Robert Wexler, D-Fla. Currently
there is no companion legislation in the Senate.

The next step for the draft bill is the House
Judiciary subcommittee on intellectual property. A
representative for Coble said earlier this month to
expect a hearing starting in September, when Congress
returns from its August recess.

Berman announced plans for the legislation during a
speech to a Washington trade association last month.
He represents California's San Fernando Valley,
adjacent to Los Angeles and Hollywood's cluster of
entertainment companies.

Coble and Berman have jointly written a second draft
bill that could sharply limit Americans' rights
relating to copying music, taping TV shows, or
transferring files through the Internet. But they have
said they do not necessarily endorse the plan's
details.

[Greg12]

"the right of the people to be secure in their persons and articles shall not be arbidged unless, with just and probabal cause, a warent be issued, specifically describing the place to be searched and the items to be siezed."



I don't see how that bill is consitutional

[pacmania_2001]

I dont see how this can be anything but a legal nightmare. Just think about it, as soon as the RIAA or MPAA hack a computer that is outside the U.S they are breaking the law and therefore could rightfully be sued by the computer owner.

[homerpez]

Well, it's dangerous, unconstitutional, widely overreaching, scary, a horrible intrusion on piracy, could cost billions of dollars in lawsuits and damage, abused by other entities...

So there's no doubt in my mind this will breeze through congress...

[Greg12]

if they are allowed to do this, what's to stop microsoft from saying "oh, I want to hack people's to find illegal microsoft apps?"

or the FBI "I want to hack to find child porn" or "i want to find to find terrorist stuff?"

[devinemi83]

The MPAA and RIAA guys feel they have a right into everyones data huh? This is gonna get worse before it gets better, this bill MUST be shot down. Otherwise everyone is going to be intruded upon. Their "reason to believe piracy is going on" sounds like a cop walking into your house handcuffing you and searching your place because you may have illegal items in it. This so against the constitution it isnt funny. I have zero faith in courts or politicians, why Courts- they ruled the pledge unconstituitional, and Politicians because they dont even understand the technology they are making rules for.


Mark my words, this goes through and peoples machines start getting infected with viruses and hacked, its gonna hit the fan.



Also, I have a question about a part of this, they seek the right to make anti piracy viruses, well does that mean antivirus companies wouldnt be able to make cures for them because that would also stop the antipiracy efforts?

[homerpez]

Well, it's dangerous, unconstitutional, widely overreaching, scary, a horrible intrusion on piracy-

Freudian slip, there.

[homerpez]

...and at least M$ is fighting piracy in a "not-quite-intrusive" way, by altering the scheme for XP "Corporate" licences, when you download the Service Pack 1... so basically, when you upgrade, you have to prove who you are... I guess this is fair enough. But they don't HACK YOU to DO IT.

It's like making someone type in a serial to get the latest upgrade, and if 1000 people are submitting the same number - no download. Fair enough... BUT THEY DON'T HACK INTO YOUR COMPUTER!

I was also thinking now would be a good time to point out the fact that large files (3-8MB) sent via e-mail can cause crippling "hangs" on most e-mail programs that would be used at major Entertainment companies, such as Outlook. No virus necessary, just attach a big enough file.

The last statement was for informational purposes only, and is not intended to be actually put into practice, should shite hit the fan...

Wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean, say no more...