How does this legislation make it okay to attack me in my own home? Are you referring to the "corrupted" downloads? I see no problem with the release of a message advertising the album, and giving me a sample of the music from it. Problems could arise with less benign artists who would release viral files, but they would be subject to prosecution for that even under this legislation. While I agree it's a bad bill, there are legitimate ways to debate it that don't involve unwarranted fearmongering. Posted by: Greg, on August 30, 2002 08:47 AM

I could be wrong, but I believe the reference is to the RIAA being given the right (in some bill currently in Congress somewhere) to HACK YOUR COMPUTER if the SUSPECT you have engaged in illegal file sharing. OK, read that again. Now, realize that, under that bill, it would be LEGAL for them to do so. It's kinda like giving me (a normal citizen not employed by the governemtn or special in any other way) the right to arrest anyone I SUSPECT may have stolen a piece of gum. Not that I SAW them do, but I SUSPECT that they did. I arrest them, put them in hand cuffs, strip search them, and when I don't find anything, I say, "Oh, sorry, you're free to go," and the persoan can't do JACK about it. Nice, huh? Posted by: Deoxy, on August 30, 2002 09:00 AM

I didn't read the bill, so please pardon my ignorance. I just reread the review, and it doesn't mention anything about the RIAA hacking my computer. I certainly disapprove of others hacking my computer without my knowledge or permission. But it seems like a massive oversight on the part of Katherin Mangu-Ward to not mention that aspect of the bill in a review of the bill. Posted by: Greg, again, on August 30, 2002 09:21 AM

What happened to your picture? What a disappointment when I came today! Posted by: Kirk, on August 30, 2002 10:49 AM

Also, note that if they suspect your neighbor of trading files, they can legally launch an attack on your neighbor's entire network. If you happen to share a broadband connection with them (eg a cable modem), their attack can LEGALLY disrupt your network. I wonder why congress is considering issuing letters of marque and reprisal to these clowns. Posted by: Tim H, http://www.oddpost.com on August 30, 2002 10:52 AM

I think it's time to finally put the sit-down movie theatres out of their decades-long misery. Stop going. C'mon, you know you didn't want to pay $9.50 to watch the latest hollywood palablum in a small, smelly theatre anyway, didya? The goddam candy is too expensive, and they won't even let you smoke inside. Not even reefer. So to hell with Hollywood. Let's make some serious trouble for their bottom line, since that's the only thing they care about anyway. Maybe if they start losing money on every single picture they put out for a theatrical run, they'll get the idea. Posted by: mojo, on August 30, 2002 11:30 AM

In re RIAA hacking, that is another bill - I think Berman's. What it says is that if a copyright-holder (RIAA or MPAA mostly) suspects a site of having copyrighted material which was not paid for, or paid for but being distributed without copyright permision from that site (either free or for pay), then upon notifying the Attorney General of intent they may launch a DoS attack, hack in and destroy the suspected files, etc. The claim is that the affected entity (you and I) can counter this. Note, however, that this is after the fact, that our intent to file a suit must be given a go-ahead by the AG (didn't see that above, now did you?), and the suit must start withiin seven days of the request to the AG... No weighting there, right? And the AG is really going to respond to an individual user within a week, right? Nothing wrong with giving RIAA "rights" that even the FBI has a hard time justifying - no judicial review, allowing deliberate destruction of property, maximum allowable for said deliberate destruction of property $500 rather than cost (if you get permission to sue, and win the case), etc. Posted by: teqjack, on August 30, 2002 12:37 PM

Do you mean a standing army or a militia? This got me started on a tangent, which I've posted to my site. Posted by: Aubrey Turner, http://www.aubreyturner.org on August 30, 2002 02:22 PM

"According to the US Code, [the militia consists] only able-bodied males between the age of 17 and 45." I've read in more than one place that the male-only qualification would not stand up to an equal-protection challenge, if the Militia clause gets judicial notice at all (post-Emerson, that is bound to happen). And I think Glenn Reynolds is one of the people to have written it. Posted by: Fuze, http://weckuptothees.blogspot.com on August 30, 2002 03:59 PM

I'm a published author. What if I suspect that an MPAA member has stolen something I wrote? Can I file notice with the DoJ and then hack them? Hmm. Okay, everybody, this is how we're going to fight it, if it passes. Everybody write something (a sentence, a poem, song lyrics, whatever) put a copyright notice on it, publish it to the Web, then (to make sure), register your copyright, and file notice with the DoJ. Then, we'll tear RIAA and MPAA multiple new ones. Posted by: The Quiet One, on August 31, 2002 05:05 AM

One proposed amendment to U.S. copyright law, known as the "P2P (peer-to-peer) Piracy Prevention Act," is intended to "limit the liability of copyright owners for protecting their works on peer-to-peer networks." The act would give immunity of any criminal or civil action to a copyright owner who is responsible “for disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of his or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network”. This act has raised much controversy, being called ‘legalized hacking’ and ‘government-sanctioned vigilantism,’ whereby copyright owners are permitted to ignore current laws in pursuit of those who they decide are guilty. The motivations of Howard Berman, the U.S. congress member who introduced the bill, have also been questioned. Berman has received $186,851 US from members of the entertainment industry during his `01-`02 election campaign. Amoung his generous supporters are the AOL Time Warner and Walt Disney corporations, who donated about $30,000 each. But nonetheless, the bill is still being reviewed and has a very good chance of becoming law in the United States. Posted by: shaun, http://sdf on December 3, 2002 06:08 AM