This is NOT the way to go about solving the problem. P2P is just a way to get the files... if P2P eventually fades out of existence it will only be a matter of time before someone comes out with a new way of obtaining pirated software, movies, music, or what have you. Granted piracy is very wrong, but I think there has to be a better way to solve this problem than just deleting stuff on a pirates computer. Like the article said, what if someone has a home video named snow white, and it gets deleted by a film company... too bad for that person. If congress wants to effectively combat piracy like they say they do, (anyone remember "fight technology with technology" from the article?) they should find a way that isn't going to allow major corporations to circumvent the laws. Whats to stop those corporations from covertly digging "just a little deeper" and doing some hacking of their own? If they can look at the files on someones computer to "see if they are pirated videos", and they "accidentally" come across some kind of sensitive documents and exploit that document... then aren't they worse than the pirates?

It is my opinion (wrong or right, i don't care) that these companies that are being hurt by new technology should stop looking for a way to shut down P2P and start looking for a way to make some legitimate money off of it. It would be interesting to see if any of the creative wincustomize users could come up with some ideas to turn a profit from a filesharing company, here's my idea (just a start, somebody improve on it): A particular movie studio could charge XX dollars a month for download access to all the movies they produce (could work the same with record labels). I know this is similar to what Napster tried to do, but by charging the movie companies could promise virus free downloads, no ads, or even exclusive access to behind the scenes footage or something. The problem with this is what's to prevent someone who downloads the movie from this network to re-distribute it? So essentially my idea will not work at all, so howsabout we do a little brainstorming and try and come up with something that would actually work?

~Capn
Be constructive, not destructive

Oops, I meant to say ".....exempt from any damage under $250....."

Politicians.... geez...... is anyone else reminded of big brother here?

The bad outweighs the good on this one.

Granted, but keep in mind that this is also an invasion of privacy. Also, those with money don't keep it forever, especially when they do something illegal (ENRON!) so while corporate America is very formidable, its not invincible and they can't get away with whatever they want. And it only a matter of time that someone exploits their newly legal hacking ability for corporate gain.

7dave7: The government isn't breaking into the computers, the corporations are. It's stupid, and if the corps decide to hurt P2P systesm through hacking and virii, expect the hacking world and those who want these services to counterattack swiftly and severely.

I am sorry to report that the play you recorded of your daughter on your camcorder called "snow white" has now been toasted.. Tough luck that you do not have another copy.

( And on that page it's fine with them? )

I am not worried about this law.. I do not download this type of media, Maybe they will be immune from U.S law but what about european ?

Hey you have just trashed my drive and lost my daughters play forever ... I am taking you to european court.

Would this not be taken as an infringement of privacy to begin with in the first place ?

As for cookies i am not worried about them i delete them every day.

Not only this there are a number of places on the web where you can buy music for download.. There is no way this can be handled they would have to be crazy as is would be impossible to police.

Oh yeah i found this it's a part of...(there may be more in there)

The Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
.....
Have a nice day you all

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It sounds nice and makes you feel a little secure at first glance but if you look closer the corporations can get around this amendment because they are providing a "probable cause" or in this case "reasonable basis". That means if they can dig up a shred of data that could be used to prove that your computer is a P2P trading nexus then they are given the right to do as they see fit. They can, in effect, trash your hard-drives and render your system useless and you get nothing out of them unless the damage is over US$250.

Then if you want to sue for loss of important data or whatever you have to seek permission from the US Governor General?!?!

If major corporations are backed by governments, the populace can only grin and bear it. The corps have the money to back whatever silly ideas pop into their heads and the governments are getting their share of the action too. Quid pro quo.

Despite all that, there will still be ways to get around all the red tape. Someone always comes up with something.

Good luck to us all.

I've said it before to my friends, if the record companies would start selling individual songs for a small fee of something like $2 each I think that would find a rather nice new market. Digitally sign the files of some sort to prevent casual pirating. Die hard hackers/pirates are still going to get the files regardless of what you do. So make it real simple and a good price and they will probably have a flood of new revenue. I personally don't buy too much music any more. I think we have only bought about 3 CD's in the last 2 years. Simply because I do not feel like paying $16 for only 2 songs that I like. But I would be more than willing to pay a couple dollars for the songs I do like, download them and burn them to my own CD's. I think its a win win situation.

That this kind of twisted thinking even sees the light of day, let alone is put up as a bill to be voted on, distresses me.

Company A attacks and shreds Company B's computers and network. "We thought they were using an illegal copy of X."
What evidence do you have? "It was on those computers we destroyed." How convienant.

And before you think this is just smoke look who is backing this bastard. "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." some pretty big heavy hitters. BTW, since when are Demecrats so worried about giant corperations getting hurt? I thought Republicans were the only ones supposed to have friends in the board rooms. Hypocrits. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. This is the media that is getting hurt. Can't have those nice left leaning people hurt.

Keep in mind that the Constitution and its amendments only limit the actions of the Government and its agencies. They do no apply to private organizations/corporations. If Congress passes a law that entitles RIAA members to pursue their property when it has been illegally obtained, it won't be unconstitutional unless it involves government agencies.

(For example, the agents of bail bondsmen, a.k.a. bounty hunters, are not limited by the same constitutional prohibitions as police. They can search and seize without a warrant.)

"Legally", the RIAA members are only "pursuing" their property which has been illegally obtained. Their legal copyright may be held to supercede an individual's right to privacy if that individual has already broken the law by illegally obtaining copyrighted materials.

But simply because something is "legal" does not make it either right or just. Write your senator and representative. Send them snail mail and explain your position. (Real letters count, e-mail doesn't.)

If the RIAA really wants to know why sales are down, they should look at the quality of their products. I've bought probably 2 CDs in the last year. Why? Because there's so much CRAP being sold and it isn't worth 15 bucks to find that out. I've gone to listening to Henry Mancini and Harry Belafonte (etc.) albums from the 60s. And I wasn't even alive when they were recorded.

Raise a hand, those who would spend more money on entertainment if Sony was allowed to hack P2P networks.

Let's keep this simple.

A really powerful group wants to be immune from punishment when they commit a certain crime. They would not ask unless they plan to commit this crime.

Yes, the peer 2 peer networks are yet another way one can commit copyright violations. But to "disable, block or otherwise impair a publicly accessible network" is a far more serious crime.

I just cannot belive the US. justice dept. will allow such immunity. Especially when they realize this can and will be used by corporation S against corporation M whenever S and M have rival products. S&M already have packs of lawyers fighting eachother all year over codelines, patented functionality and breaches in licences. Systematized piracy.

I am more afraid they will come to a compromise, not quite as serious... But still cutting in on the individual privacy.
---
voltball
[slightly paranoid engergysphere]
---