backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 57 comment(s) - last by SailorRipley.. on Apr 12 at 5:22 PM
The RIAA and MPAA want to use pretexting to be able to gain information and make cases against pirates

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are working together to lobby state legislators to sign a proposed amendment to a California bill that deals with pretexting.  The amendment would allow the trade organizations to use pretexting to enforce copyright laws.

In letters sent to Sen. Ellen Corbett, both trade groups said that the legislation would undermine their anti-piracy efforts -- investigators must be able to pose as a regular person to be able to acquire pirated material.

Both the MPAA and RIAA claim they need to use deceptive practices to help monitor and catch bootleggers on the Internet.   The RIAA and MPAA both said they would not assume a person's identity to get personal information during an investigation.  However, both entities want to make sure they legally are able to hide any type of industry connection when pursuing leads into the black market.

"Basically we want criminals to feel comfortable that who they're dealing with is probably some other criminal and let us in on what's going on," said Brad Buckles, RIAA executive vice president for anti-piracy.

Pretexting was brought into the spotlight after a pretexting scandal rocked Hewlett-Packard late last year.  Investigators hired by HP used pretexting to get personal records of journalists and employees of the company, a move that led to a boardroom shakeup.

Late last year, President Bush signed the Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006; the U.S. federal anti-pretexting bill.  The law makes it illegal for people to "knowingly and intentionally" obtain phone records by any type of deception.

In addition, the FCC just set its regulations for pretexting over voice communication devices.  These regulations include contacting customers and the FBI during breaches of customer privacy, as well as holding phone companies responsible for pretexting incidents.

Neither associations have a loophole in the new FCC regulation or Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act, but the MPAA has successfully lobbied similar legislation in the past.  Last year, the proposed California bill to ban pretexting was shot down by a 33-27 vote in the California House.  Three months prior, the California State Senate voted unamiously in favor of the bill.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RIAA is above the law?
By Pops on 4/10/2007 2:08:33 PM , Rating: 5
This law was only created to protect people from this, why does the RIAA think they should be the exception to the rule? Some times it amazes me just how disconnected from reality corporate types become.

ps. Did the last sentence make any sense to anyone? Seemed to end too soon.




RE: RIAA is above the law?
By Tsuwamono on 4/10/2007 2:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
ya i noticed that too man.. seems like he was going somewhere with that sentence and just cut off.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/10/2007 2:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
Some text got cut off. It should all be there now.


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By Mitch101 on 4/10/2007 2:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
Because a good portion of the people who approve the laws are clueless much like those that allow for the rediculous patents. There is stupid in every reach of every part of the world.

If you submit something enough times it eventually winds up in front of a stupid person or group of stupid and gets approved.

Try petenting tying your shoes the traditional way but file it as a specialty knot with fancy terminology. Keep doing this until it finds its way into the hands of someone stupid who doesnt recognize it and grants you the patent. Then hire a lawyer to hand everyone you see with thier shoes tied a lawsuit.

You can learn this tactic from Children if Mom says no then go try DAD.


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By masher2 (blog) on 4/10/2007 2:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
The law was created to protect people from having their identity assumed.. What the MPAA/RIAA want is something else-- to simply fail to notify people that they are an investigating agent.

That's a far cry from assuming the specific identity of another person, to gain that person's personal information.


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/10/2007 2:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
Naturally. The MPAA just outsources that stuff.

http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6087146.html


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By edpsx on 4/10/2007 2:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
Once again the RIAA and MPAA are trying to prove they are better than the police and should not have to follow laws like the rest of the planet.

Even cops have to tell you they are a cop if you ask them. Why do you think they bang on your door and say "This is the police, open the @#$% up!"

"This isnt the RIAA, we just really sound like them"


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By masher2 (blog) on 4/10/2007 3:07:18 PM , Rating: 6
> "the RIAA and MPAA are trying to prove they...should not have to follow laws..."

They're trying to change and clarify the law, not disregard it. I know this is an emotional issue for many people, but lets try to accurately represent the situation.


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By Oregonian2 on 4/10/2007 3:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe HP can get an exception for them written in too, and make it retroactive.

:-)


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By geeg on 4/11/2007 10:39:13 AM , Rating: 4
why do you have green banner? are you above the law?


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By mindless1 on 4/12/2007 10:02:59 AM , Rating: 2
No the law is new enough they are trying to disregard it with their obvious special-interest attempt at changing it.


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By Pops on 4/10/2007 3:30:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
They're trying to change and clarify the law, not disregard it. I know this is an emotional issue for many people, but lets try to accurately represent the situation.


They want to be able to withhold information about who they really are. The present law forbids this, as I understand it.

I have worked as a collector, calling people who are late on bills. If people asked who we are we HAD to tell them. Withholding your ID is a very powerful tool and can get people to do things they normally would not. You dont even need to pretend to be someone else. For example:

"Hi hows it going buddy, is Jonny home?" - They think you are a friend of Jonny and get him on the phone.

"Hello, this is Rick from bill collecting services..." - *click*

Thats just the start of the conversation. The RIAA wants to withhold their ID for the entire conversation, thats very powerful and misleading. Exactly what the law is designed to protect people from, or at least what it should be for imo.


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By grenableu on 4/10/2007 6:58:30 PM , Rating: 1
The pretexting law is to protect people from having their personal information stolen by someone pretending to be them. Its not meant to allow them to freely steal songs and movies.


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By mindless1 on 4/12/2007 10:06:09 AM , Rating: 2
Actually NO. It is meant to prohibit behavior, it is not meant to be reinterpreted as you see fit as to cause and effect. Just like any other law, you can't claim "but officer, as I understand it the DUI law was meant to prevent accidents and as you can clearly see when you pulled me over, I wasn't getting into an accident at the time".


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By techfuzz on 4/10/2007 4:28:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Even cops have to tell you they are a cop if you ask them. Why do you think they bang on your door and say "This is the police, open the @#$% up!"

Members of law enforcement do NOT have to say whether they are an officer or whatever. That is an urban legend that an officer cannot lie or if he does you will have a defense to your crime. And don't get me started entrapment because if the police are at your door, they probably already have a good enough reason to be there in the first place.

Also, they bang on your door and say "This is police, open the door" because legal precedent states that if the police don't have a warrant and enter before announcing their presence, any evidence that they find is inadmissible in court.


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By BMFPitt on 4/10/2007 10:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
Think of how much "The Departed" would have sucked if that really were true.

Jack Nicholson: Are you a cop?
Leonardo DiCaprio: Yeah.
BANG!
The End


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By mindless1 on 4/12/2007 10:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
They also bang and announce themselves to avoid getting attacked so often as would happen if they suddenly startled someone.

Also, legal precedent doesn't state what you claim, it states they can't just forcibly enter at all without cause whether presence is announced or not. With cause they do have to identify themselves, in fact, they cannot just enter without stating anything.


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By FITCamaro on 4/10/2007 6:22:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are working together to lobby state legislators to sign...


This actually means "
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are working together to payoff and buy state legislators to sign..."


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By blagishnessosity on 4/10/2007 7:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This actually means "The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are working together to payoff and buy state legislators to sign..."

couldn't have said it better myself. Except that this wouldn't be the first time they've done that.


RE: RIAA is above the law?
By grenableu on 4/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: RIAA is above the law?
By Howard on 4/10/2007 10:15:16 PM , Rating: 3
Which economic problems?


Intimidation tactics and racketeering
By povomi1 on 4/10/2007 2:25:57 PM , Rating: 4
Does anyone else see this as an opening to racketeering and intimidation if the RIAA has their way? Identity theft and lose of personal information would definitely rise. There needs to be more politicians who take an active stand on these issues. If a 2008 contender made this into a big issue, I think that it would have a significant effect on the elections, granted the issue was worked up correctly.
(Unfortunately, both Democrats and Republicans are indeed financed by Movie and Music industries. Anyone know who has more financing & connections?)

Anyone know if a State can supercede Federal laws? I thought that Federal held the authority over State laws.

Stuff like this makes me angry because TO ME this isn't the same as gun control. This is about my, and my family's, personal information not only getting jeopardized and compromised, but also as a precedent for the future. If someone isn't concerned, even a little bit, then I would think it a mistake.

The really important thing is not just if something like this goes through or not, because I doubt that it would, but the audacity, the arrogance and nerve of the RIAA, which troubles me. Either they're getting more and more desperate or a certain megalomaniacal condition is emboldening them. Either way its becoming more and more of a threat to the rights and freedoms that, ever since emigrating in '93 and becoming a US citizen, I have practiced and taken for granted.




RE: Intimidation tactics and racketeering
By alerider on 4/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: Intimidation tactics and racketeering
By povomi1 on 4/10/2007 2:53:06 PM , Rating: 5
Please don't say that I didn't read the article. I did, thats why I typed my comment. What "they" say and what "they" do isn't always the same thing. It opens doors to abuse, and like I wrote, the RIAA is becoming more and more bold. Whatever the reason driving them, I think that they are trying to maintain and afix their control on Movies & Music.

Instead of innovation and originality, the RIAA is striving for control. Open vs. Closed, DRM vs. DRM-free, etc. etc. this is very familiar. RIAA and its members are afraid and worried for its business. Instead of offering more and better to the customer with the option of CHOICE and FLEXIBILITY, they are using pressure and control.

I think Piracy is wrong. I don't do it. But I think such actions naturally creately anarchial/chaotic tendancies, ie piracy. Its a response to tight control. When someone says that the market will readjust itself, this is an example. Paying $400 for an operating system is very very expensive. It may (or may not) be better to just buy a new system.

I think that fighting consumers, even former disgruntled consumers, is the wrong approach. Innovation, and control of the market through incentive business practices is probably more morally ethical and may, notice that I say MAY, provide larger profits.

RIAA is taking what I would call the easy way... laywers, courts, force, suberfuge, sabotage, w/e else is shady or forceful or controlling. All done instead of working hard for the consumer, their clients.

But what do I know at the age of 21? Not much business experience, except working part-time in retail. Seeing all kinds of abuses and policies. But I do think that in general people value and go with honesty as consumers in the US, than be forced knowingly (US citizens don't like to be forced into anything, too much Historical examples). Unknowingly yes, but when you know someone is trying to bend you over, most people don't like to take it with a smile on their face, if at all.

So, yes, I did in fact read the article. And my opinion stands that such a precedent would open doors and possibilities for much much broader abuses (its not guaranteed but likelihood in my opinion definite).


RE: Intimidation tactics and racketeering
By masher2 (blog) on 4/10/2007 3:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
> "[piracy is] a response to tight control..."

So you think if music and videos were unprotected, that no one would pirate them? I suggest you visit any open-air market in China or Vietnam then.

> "Please don't say that I didn't read the article."

If you read it, you didn't understand it, not if you think this would lead to more cases of "identity theft" as your first post stated. The previous poster was correct; you're off base here.

> "Instead of innovation and originality, the RIAA is striving for control..."

The RIAA is an industry trade group; they exist to protect the industry, not to make great music. The artists themselves are the ones who should be striving for "innovation and originality".


RE: Intimidation tactics and racketeering
By jay401 on 4/10/2007 3:40:19 PM , Rating: 1
[quote]"> "[piracy is] a response to tight control..."

So you think if music and videos were unprotected, that no one would pirate them? I suggest you visit any open-air market in China or Vietnam then."[/quote]

No, that would be you putting words into his mouth by taking the opposite extreme of what he said and trying to make it apply to him when he's said nothing of the sort. Just because he lists one source of piracy doesn't mean he denies all other sources.

There's some term related to debate that describes what you're doing there but I can't think of what it is. It's one of the fallacious debating tactics.


RE: Intimidation tactics and racketeering
By masher2 (blog) on 4/10/2007 4:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
You are probably referring to reductio ad absurdum, but what I'm actually doing is the (valid) technique of presenting the corollary argument. If one claims that piracy is merely a response to restrictions, then that implies a weakening of restrictions would lead to less piracy.

However, in the real world, we see the exact opposite of this. Hence his argument is disproven.


RE: Intimidation tactics and racketeering
By SailorRipley on 4/11/2007 1:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but that is wrong.....

What you are doing is probably the most (incorrectly) used type of argument. The basis lies in math, and is much clearer there:

a => b <=> !b => !a

(a automatically means b) equiv. with (not b automatically means not a)

that is a mathematical certainty, even outside the realm of mathematics, example:

I make the statement: when it rains, I always use an umbrella

rain => umbrella

which automatically means that if you see me without an umbrella, you can be sure it's not raining

no umbrella => no rain

however, when you see it's not raining, you don't know whether or not I will have an umbrella with me (and equally: when you see me with an umbrealla, you can't determine whether or not it is raining, because all you know is: if it is raining, I carry an umbrella (I have said nothing of what I do or don't do when it is not raining))

The widespread technique in discussions is to do this:

person 1 says: a => b

person 2 says: if a => b then !a => !b and since the latter is not true, the former can't be either...when in reality, with disproving !a => !b he only (also) disproves b => a, but (dis)proves absolutely nothing about a => b. Sadly, a lot of people fall for this, and even more sadly, a lot of the people using that technique don't even realize it is bogus

so, to be clear

the original position was: tight restrictions => piracy, which means he is also saying: if there's less piracy it means restrictions have to be less tight.

It does not imply a weakening of restrictions would lead to less piracy. In fact, nothing is implied about that particular situation.

Of course, you could argue that the original statement is not meant as a "a => b" but as a "a <=> b" (in which case the counter-argument would hold, that's probably the base of it's popularity and high rate of success in misleading people), however although that might be intended, it's not what he says, so you can't argue it


RE: Intimidation tactics and racketeering
By masher2 (blog) on 4/11/2007 2:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "I make the statement: when it rains, I always use an umbrella...[snip]"

What you're trying to state is correctly known as the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent". In formal symbolic logic, the error is:

P -> Q
Q [assumption]
P [conclusion]

However, that is not my argument at all. In symbolic logic, my statement was:

P -> Q [OP's assumption]
~P [my assumption]
~Q [conclusion]

Technically, this is known as "denying the antecedent". To use your "raining" example, the argument is:

If it's raining, then the streets are wet.
It isn't raining.
Conclusion: the streets aren't wet.

Obviously, the streets could be wet from another cause. And yes, obviously the fact that piracy explodes in nations which remove controls against it could be due to other factors. Logically, I haven't proven my statement beyond any shadow of a doubt. However, I've established a strong positive correlation. That, along with a causal theory to explain the correlation, is logically very compelling. Certainly, when compared to the alternative argument (which, so far, consists of nothing more than a "because I think so" defense) is by far the more compelling.


RE: Intimidation tactics and racketeering
By SailorRipley on 4/11/2007 4:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
nice try but no cigar.

What I stated in my post is not a logical fallacy of any kind. Don't put words in my mouth.

The example you give, with regard to "affirming the consequent" is correct:

If P then Q (P -> Q)

Q,
therefore P.

to use the raining/wet example, it would be:

If it's raining, then the streets are wet.

the streets are wet,
therefor it is raining

this is indeed the logical fallacy know as affirming the consequent (and a logical fallacy, as there could be plenty of other reasons the street is wet)

However, the only thing I talk about is modus ponens, which is not a logical fallacy but on the contrary is a valid and rather simple argument form.

P -> Q

P,
therefore Q

(a lot of people will go "well duh" now :-) )

or

If it's raining, then the streets are wet

it's raining
Conclusion: the streets are wet

(additionally, I said, which again, is solid logic, that

(P -> Q) is equivalent with (not Q -> not P)

if the streets aren't wet, then it isn't raining

streets aren't wet
Conclusion: it isn't raining

Modus ponens has two premises:

1) the if-then (conditional claim) (P implies Q)
2) the antecedent of the conditional claim is true (P is true)

if either of the 2 premises isn't true, the argument fails.

in the discussion this is: if restrictions are tight, then there's a lot of piracy (1) and restrictions are tight (2)

you can disprove this by either debunking the conditional claim, which means proving that there are countries where tight restrictions do not lead to (a significant amount of) piracy, or disproving that the antecedent (restrictions are tight) is true

what you did:

quote:
...what I'm actually doing is the (valid) technique of presenting the corollary argument. If one claims that piracy is merely a response to restrictions, then that implies a weakening of restrictions would lead to less piracy.

However, in the real world, we see the exact opposite of this. Hence his argument is disproven.


is actually that "denying the antecedent" you mention and surprise, surprise...."denying the antecedent" is a logical fallacy, not a valid technique.

again, he says P -> Q, you being able to prove that not P leads to whatever does not disprove his point, as what you are doing is the logical fallacy known as "denying the antecedent"

and I didn't "affirm the consequent" (Q therefore P). All I said is: P therefore Q also means NOT Q therefore NOT P

(and that you are trying to disprove P->Q by proving that not P-> not Q isn't true)

at no point did I try to prove either NOT P -> NOT Q or Q -> P, or at no point did I try to "affirm the consequent" or "deny the antecedent"


RE: Intimidation tactics and racketeering
By masher2 (blog) on 4/11/2007 6:16:10 PM , Rating: 1
> "at no point did I try to prove either NOT P -> NOT Q or Q -> P, or at no point did I try to "affirm the consequent" or "deny the antecedent"...

I suggest you reread my post, as I never said you did. The fact remains that the fallacy you were describing (not using yourself) was "affirming the consequent", which isn't relevant whatsoever.

As for my own statement, as I already pointed out, "denying the antecedent" is indeed a logical fallacy. However, it does establish a strong correlation, which is more than the original poster did for his own argument.

Furthermore, my usage isn't even a fallacy, if you interpret his original statement as a biconditional, rather than a conditional, e.g.

P <-> Q
~P [assumption]
~Q [valid conclusion]

In other words, if you interpret his statement as "piracy is ONLY the result of tight controls", then it becomes a biconditional, and my statement is indeed, an airight, logical disproof of it.

Personally, I think the latter interpretion more closely fits his original insinuation. He wasn't simply statin that "tight controls" are one of many factors that can lead to piracy, he was trying to establish it as the primary cause. Therefore, my usage was valid.


RE: Intimidation tactics and racketeering
By SailorRipley on 4/12/2007 10:07:06 AM , Rating: 2
indeed, my fault, you do admit that what you were doing was denying the antecedent.

And if you assume his statement was a biconditional, your argument is logically valid.

As for the content of your argument: where exactly in the world are restrictions (much) less tight?

Furthermore, even if he meant it as a biconditional, that doesn't necessarily mean it is, and disproving the validity of it as a biconditional does not disprove it as a modus ponens...

So he might have meant it as "piracy is ONLY the result of tight controls", but even if he meant it like that and if you can indeed give examples of countries/territories where loose restrictions do not result in lower piracy, you've only disproved that it's not the ONLY "trigger", not that it isn't one of several triggers.

It all depends on what you set out to do:

- if you only wanted to demonstrate that his statement was wrong as a biconditional: provided you have the aforementioned examples, you will have succeeded...

- if you wanted to argue that restrictions have no influence on piracy, you fall short of that goal: as even if you provide examples, you only disprove(d) tight restrictions are not the only cause of piracy, not that it's not one of several.

Personally, I think it's much more likely that the latter was your intention...

Personally, I think tight restrictions is one of several causes of piracy.


RE: Intimidation tactics and racketeering
By masher2 (blog) on 4/12/2007 12:38:37 PM , Rating: 1
> "indeed, my fault, you do admit that what you were doing was denying the antecedent...if you assume his statement was a biconditional, your argument is logically valid..."

We're making progress. We've both agreed that the OP's argument-- as interpreted-- was incorrect. Now, lets move on to your version of the argument:

> ""Tight controls are one of several factors leading to piracy."

Now, in this case, the relaxation of tight controls does not logically mandate the end of piracy. However, even if there are other factors which lead to piracy, the removal of this particular factor should lead to less piracy, right? If there are five contributory factors, then removing one of them should affect the overall rate. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If adding control increases piracy, then removing that added control should decrease it. This is the very definition of correlation....and if you're denying the correlation, then "tight controls" can't possibly be a factor at all.

Agree with this point, and we'll move further.


By SailorRipley on 4/12/2007 5:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
don't confuse 2 things:

just because I have no problem with admitting an error (which was the result of quick reading during a break at work, not that I want this to be interpreted as an excuse, just to show you that it's not because your arguments have been so overwhelming that you have convinced me) with me suddenly less disagreeing with you.

I assume, in your enthusiasm that I admitted to a fault, you sort of jumped the gun a little...

here's what I said:

quote:
if you only wanted to demonstrate that his statement was wrong as a biconditional: provided you have the aforementioned examples, you will have succeeded...


as I asked earlier in that post, and as I clearly state as a condition of your success for demonstrating that the biconditional statement would be wrong, please provide examples of countries where restrictions are (much) less tight yet piracy flourishes equally or even more.

however, until then, we're not making progress, and we certainly don't agree that his argument as interpreted was incorrect.

All I have said is: IF you provide examples/proof of your claim (less restrictions, equal/more piracy), you will have disproved the biconditional argument.

So far however, the OP and you both have posted a theory which you believe to be true, and unless either the OP or you backs it up with some cold hard facts, nobody is right/wrong.

The only thing we agree on are the conditions to disprove the OP's biconditional argument

So, until you provide said proof, we don't even have to move on to (disproving) my version of the argument.

However, I will already respond to the logic you address: it might be correct or it might not be. Removing one factor doesn't necessarily affect the overall rate...observe a simple, unrelated example:

One afternoon I am in my backyard, trying to enjoy a nap while one neighbor is having a party with extremely loud music, while another is cutting some trees with his very noisy chainsaw. Obviously preventing me from enjoying a nap. The neighbor stops cutting down trees, and hence removing one of the two contributory factors, yet, my overall nap rate will not change one bit.

(I will address this further in a future post, if we continue this discussion, but there are several possible mechanisms for contributory factors to interact and influence (overall) affect, the main reason I won't now is because I want to go home :) )


By mindless1 on 4/12/2007 10:17:09 AM , Rating: 2
No your usage was no valid because you were merely seeking to argue. That in itself is an invalid excuse to troll.


By AndreasM on 4/11/2007 5:51:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's some term related to debate that describes what you're doing there but I can't think of what it is. It's one of the fallacious debating tactics.


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


By Oregonian2 on 4/10/2007 3:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
Just so long as it applies to everyone and not just an exception for them specifically.

There isn't clarity in the article as to whether their intent not to be pretending to be other people to get records is just their intent (which is how it's written above) or if the law's exception still wouldn't allow them to do so. In other words is the exception one where we'll just have to just trust them to do what their current intent is or is it just a general weakening of the privacy law that's intended to apply to all.


By Christopher1 on 4/10/2007 2:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone know if a State can supercede Federal laws? I thought that Federal held the authority over State laws.


Usually, that is the case, however where there is no specific federal law regulating something in question, the states do have the right to make their own laws regarding that thing.

The states can also make laws that are MORE stringent than federal laws, but not LESS.

The RIAA and MPAA should not have the right to hide their identity from someone, just the same as the police should not have the ability to do that.
Undercover stings? Blatently illegal by the letter of the Constitution and most state constitutions, because they say that a law enforcement person HAS TO DECLARE THEMSELVES at the beginning.


This just in...
By Sahrin on 4/10/2007 2:07:47 PM , Rating: 6
RIAA and MPAA use unethical practices to enforce their will on the market.

In other news, a new study from the The Ms. Kinsey's Kindgarten class at Fourth Street Elementary has shockingly confirmed the rumors that The Earth is Round, and that The Sky is Blue.

This news brought to you by the letter A, the number 6, and the color bulls***.




RE: This just in...
By SpaceRanger on 4/10/2007 2:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
Dead on right.. Why does any of this not surprise me when it comes to the MPAA and RIAA.. *sigh*


RE: This just in...
By Gatt on 4/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: This just in...
By povomi1 on 4/10/2007 3:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
If the RIAA would like, they should petition and lobby for police enforcement to enforce the law, copyright law, and w/e other law that they are supposed to enforce.
(I seriously doubt this would get very far, but it would be the proper way to go.)

Police = Law Enforcement, (local, stat, federal) & (one of numerous Law Enforcement agencies)
RIAA = NOT Law Enforcement (conglomerate of largely Movie & Music companies)

In stores like Best Buy its against policy to make physical contact with a shoplifter (BBY and execs have learned from numerous lawsuits). I doubt anyone's followed a shoplifter home, one who got out of the store un-noticed until they were in the parking lot. THAT would be a big lawsuit based on stalking. Who would win? I don't know. But BBY sure as hell ain't doing it.

If hacking is illegal then RIAA is breaking the law, in addition to pre-texting.


RE: This just in...
By Suomynona on 4/10/2007 3:08:49 PM , Rating: 5
The problem is that the RIAA and MPAA have decided that they should do the job of the police for them. This isn't an argument about whether an undercover cop can or can't buy cocaine from a drug dealer. Law enforcement is (shockingly) performed by the police, not the private sector.

The RIAA and MPAA are being vigilantes. I can understand the desire to protect your property, but you can't chase people into their homes to get it back. An average civilian, or even a security guard, can only go so far before they're crossing the line.


RE: This just in...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/10/2007 4:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
> The problem is that the RIAA and MPAA have decided that they should do the job of the police..."

There isn't an industry in the world that doesn't employ private investigators. It'd be nice if the police had the manpower to investigate every crime, but unfortunately they don't.

To put this on a more personal level, if someone stole your bicycle from the school playground, would you ask around if anyone saw who took it? Or would you consider that investigation to be strictly the realm of the police...even if it meant never getting your property back?

> "The RIAA and MPAA are being vigilantes..."

Oops..a vigilante is someone who takes the enforcement of the law into their own hands. The RIAA and the MPAA still look to the legal system for enforcement...they're merely investigating on their own.


RE: This just in...
By bhieb on 4/10/2007 5:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, but just like Best Buy you can record the criminal and gather information to give to the cops. Sure you cannot bust into the house and take back the stuff, but you can observer and report the crime. What do you think PI's do? The question is can you bait someone into a crime. Can BBY put a box of stuff out by the front door and then when someone takes one report them as a theif. Well that would probably be up to the courts, but most likely yes. I have never heard of anything that prevents companies from performing "stings".


RE: This just in...
By Gatt on 4/11/2007 12:18:08 AM , Rating: 2
The problem there is that they're not chasing them into their homes. They open themselves up the moment they enter the P2P. The MPAA/RIAA isn't setting foot in your house, they're not hacking your computer. All they're doing is writing down your IP when you attempt to commit the crime, not so different from in store security cameras.

They're not being vigalante, they're doing nothing more than recording the electronic evidence of the crimes people are commiting.

Nor is it a Law Enforcement investigation, if it were, the data would be turned over to the FBI, and the people would be subjected to the terms in the copyright notice. What is it? 10 years or 50,000$?

Privacy ends when you broadcast your IP, no one can broadcast their IP and then say "No, No, you can't look! You're invading my privacy by reading what I've just shouted to the world!"

Nor is it baiting. It's not like they're advertising on their homesites "Here's the torrent to 300!" and then sueing people.

P2P and Piracy are going to get raked over in the next couple years, and the Pretexting issue is just the begining.


RE: This just in...
By grenableu on 4/10/07, Rating: 0
Ask yourself the right questions.
By Mitch101 on 4/10/2007 4:04:20 PM , Rating: 5
If more people asked themselves is that movie really worth buying or that song so good I had to buy it? I think this would really kill the MPAA and RIAA much more.

Of the movies I have seen in the last year I can only recall about 2 worth owning. 300 and Pirates of the Carribean. Since the MPAA doesnt allow for HD over DVI. I will just wait till its on HBO/SHOWTIME in HD instead of owning it. Because of TIVO I will be able to watch it whenever. Why do I need to buy it? I may actually decide to buy the DVD becase upscale really doesnt look horrible. But then once I have watched it 3 or 4 times Im not sure I will want to again. The next time I watch it I will be switching between channels and it will be on TBS or something.

There is a reason I only own 1 disc of the Matrix trilogy and since the original wasnt shot in HD I see no need to buy it again when released in HD. I simply say 99% of the time that this movie really didnt do it for me. It was good but once you know what is going to happen you cant relive the experience the same way the first time delivers.

You have to ask yourself do you really need to own every decent song you hear or every movie you ever saw? NO!

No girl is ever impressed with your DVD collection. In fact she will probably see it as money you wasted on movies you never watch that will eventually ROT and be unplayable.

Now Im sure Im not the only one who feels this way and this reduction Im sure the MPAA and RIAA think must be the result of pirated movies and music. BTW I think we only buy about 2 CD's of music a year because well most of it isnt worth the media its on.

Most recently some of the neighbors have been sharing thier blockbuster rentals 3 out at a time and really your only going to watch 1 at a time so why not.

Stop buying every movie you ever saw and the movie and record industry will be hurt much more by this or just wait 6 months and watch it on Showtime/HBO. Try patience.




By glitchc on 4/10/2007 4:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to that. Good old Fred Astaire could sing, dance and act. That was entertainment. We now have people making millions of dollars who can't do even one of those three.

And people still pay to watch/hear them. Good taste really is hard to find... especially in Hollywood.

For those who don't about Fred Astaire was, look up "Dancing Cheek to cheek" or "Putting on the Ritz" on Youtube.


RE: Ask yourself the right questions.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/10/2007 4:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "...since the original wasnt shot in HD I see no need to buy it again when released in HD"

The original was shot in Super 35mm, which has a much higher resolution than 1080p HD content.


RE: Ask yourself the right questions.
By tk109 on 4/10/2007 5:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
It may have been shot in super 35 mm but the digital effects were done much smaller no doubt. So the entire finished product was finished in much less quality than HD.

It's only been up until recently that pretty much all digital effects are done in HD or higher. I have a friend who works for ILM (lucas films). A couple years ago I watched him work on van helsing. The digital master could fit on a 1024 x 768 screen. He pointed out though that some movies in HD would be running way off the screen and would be huge. But that was rare even a couple years ago. Now Hd is standard. Anyway around the time of the matrix original I doubt it was anywhere near full HD for the finished product. (or maybe it was by some slim chance, but as far as I know I doubt it was).


By masher2 (blog) on 4/10/2007 5:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
> " the digital effects were done much smaller no doubt."

No doubt? I see no reason to believe this. The film was originally shown in theatres, remember. If the effects were done at 720x480, then processed into the Super35 prints, it would have shown up sharply on the big screen.

If you have information to the contrary, thats one thing, but I've seen films older than The Matrix in HD, and the digital effects were considerably sharper than they were in SD.


this shows just who they are...
By Moishe on 4/10/2007 2:14:14 PM , Rating: 3
As if we didn't already know. They think they are above the law. Geez this really helps their PR problems with the average Joe. Are they running for the "Most Hated Entity" award?




By SpaceRanger on 4/10/2007 2:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
No. Jack Thompson already owns that lifetime achievement.

They are looking for a close second place finish though!


Rumor has it...
By jay401 on 4/10/2007 3:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
The RIAA claims they would have used texting instead of pretexting but their cellphone plan didn't include txt messages for free. :(




RE: Rumor has it...
By povomi1 on 4/10/2007 3:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
LoL. A little bit of skypeIN/skypeOUT on your cellphone PDA with an *unlimited* data plan, eh?


Entrapment?
By 457R4LDR34DKN07 on 4/10/2007 8:31:03 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't they just call it what it is?




"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki