×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA & MPAA Seek Authority To Pretext

kdawson posted about 7 years ago | from the lie-if-we-want-to dept.

Privacy 263

msblack writes "The RIAA and MPAA are lobbying California legislators for an exemption to proposed legislation that would outlaw pretexting. Pretexting is the practice of pretending to be someone else in order to obtain personal information on a person, such as telephone or banking records. According to an article in the LA Times, the RIAA and MPAA sometimes need to lie in their pursuit of bootleggers. They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting. An interesting line from the article is, '[RIAA's Brad] Buckles said the recording industry had never, nor would it ever, assume someone's identity to access that person's phone or bank records.' Fortunately, Senator Corbert, the bill's author, is unlikely to accept these hostile changes."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

263 comments

Burden of Proof (3, Insightful)

pipingguy (566974) | about 7 years ago | (#18649559)

Pretexting is the practice of pretending to be someone else in order to obtain personal information on a person

Is it appropriate for government to have a Department of Sock-Puppetism? This rings a lot of alarm bells and there's probably something about this in the constitution already.

Re:Burden of Proof (5, Insightful)

Dun Malg (230075) | about 7 years ago | (#18650331)

Pretexting is the practice of pretending to be someone else in order to obtain personal information on a person

Is it appropriate for government to have a Department of Sock-Puppetism? This rings a lot of alarm bells and there's probably something about this in the constitution already.
No, you don't seem to understand what the US constitution is. The constitution is an enumeration of the limited powers of the federal government, and nothing else. Pretexting is essentially a form of fraud, which is generally covered by state laws.

Re:Burden of Proof (1)

cultrhetor (961872) | about 7 years ago | (#18650371)

Senator Corbert, the bill's author, is unlikely to accept these hostile changes.
What's the point of the story? If the bill's author won't accept these changes, they aren't likely to be included, and are even less likely to pass, especially in a state as protective of consumer privacy rights as California.

Anyone who owns a copyright? (4, Interesting)

nietsch (112711) | about 7 years ago | (#18649583)

Copyright is by default AFAIK, so anyone who has ever written some original text is exempt from this proposed law? So actually they wish to neuter this law?

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright? (0)

snarkh (118018) | about 7 years ago | (#18649639)


Perhaps you can read the article?

Actually, no I can't (1)

nietsch (112711) | about 7 years ago | (#18649735)

Somehow firefox on my Ubuntu laptop keeps crashing on that page, Xorg is claiming gecko did something illegal. Maybe it's in fact firefox pretextting to be gecko?

(yes I know the rendering engine Gecko is part of firefox...)

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright? (5, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | about 7 years ago | (#18649851)

FTFA"

The trade group asked that any owner of a copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret be able to use "pretexting or other investigative techniques to obtain personal information about a customer or employee" when seeking to enforce intellectual property rights.
So they DO want everyone who's a copyright owner (which includes anyone who's ever written anything original) to be exempt. If this passes, you can pretext them on the "pretext" that you're looking for any evidence of them infringing, say, your copyright on your slashdot posts.

Also:

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, the RIAA's executive vice president for anti-piracy.

Can't argue with the RIAA calling themselves a bunch of criminals ... its truth in advertising.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18649689)

Probably mean a registered copyright for a published work. So you publish a PHP script, register the copyright and are then immune from prosecution for using fraudulent credentials to gain information relating to suspected use of the script by the MAFIAA. Endless fun to be had using social engineering to gain wide ranging information on the MAFIAA, their employees and contractors... or anyone else for that matter.

 

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18650323)

Virtually every american citizen holds a copyright. Did your 2 year old draw a smiley face with a crayon? BAM, it's copyrighted.

Anyone who owns a copyright? (5, Informative)

jakosc (649857) | about 7 years ago | (#18649589)

So I since I own the copyright to this post, I should be free of restrictions against pretexting?

"They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting."

From www.copyright.gov [copyright.gov] Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright? (4, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 7 years ago | (#18649855)

Give me your name and address and I'll send you a free information booklet on this fascinating legal subject.

Re:Anyone who owns a copyright? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18649969)

"They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting."
Actually that was just an error by the lawyers. They really only want to have the right for pretexting given solely to them. As you can see in this flowchart [bbspot.com], it fits in the area where they want to lobby Congress for stronger laws (read stronger laws and additional government enforced corporate privileges like the DMCA). This helps prevent them from having to pray for someone to cave from an extortion letter when they could easily make something up with their extra privileges and sue them outright (not that they don't do that anyways).

By writing this comment (-1, Redundant)

Kjella (173770) | about 7 years ago | (#18649593)

They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting.

By writing this comment, I am now officially exempt from this legislation, since copyright is automatic and valid even for me a foreigner. So, does this mean I can call up anyone in the US and pretend to be someone else with impunity?

Let us call it what it IS (4, Interesting)

zoomshorts (137587) | about 7 years ago | (#18649647)

FRAUD.

Re:Let us call it what it IS (5, Insightful)

Artifakt (700173) | about 7 years ago | (#18650187)

Exactly!

To all you peple who have been argueing that copyright violation is theft, and saying all those 'clever' things about how the people who oppose the RIAA really merely want to steal copies, etc. - By your own logic, the RIAA is now obviously and openly a criminal organization, that wants to commit FRAUD with impunity, and so ALL of you who support it are also Liars, Cheats, Con-artists, Carney Shills, and most of all, FELONS. No-good, Criminal, Scum! You cons all deserve the chair, if we can figure out how to get your high horses in there under you.
Let's call it waht it IS! Let's call ALL the criminals what they ARE!

Almost everyone owns copyrights (1, Redundant)

saterdaies (842986) | about 7 years ago | (#18649651)

I own tonnes of copyrights myself. In fact, any creative, original work is automatically copyrighted by the author. So, even this comment here could qualify as a copyright that I own. Never mind the many web sites that I've created for myself (personal, non-commercial stuff, but it's still a copyright).

The biggest problem with this proposed exemption (other than giving evil organizations an out) is that it is an exemption that EVERYONE can take advantage of. Any scammer who wanted to pretext could simply pen a short haiku and then be considered a copyright owner.

Re:Almost everyone owns copyrights (4, Funny)

El Torico (732160) | about 7 years ago | (#18650181)

Proposed amendment
Allows them to trick others
Merely pretexting

© 2007 El Torico

trade secret (4, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | about 7 years ago | (#18649669)

Any case involving "Copyright, Patent, Trademark or Trade Secret"?

Wasn't the whole HP thing about the leaking of trade secrets? Wasn't the whole HP thing the inspiration for this long-overdue-but-should-never-have-been-necessary legislation in the first place?

I.e. Make the legislation worthless (4, Funny)

dghcasp (459766) | about 7 years ago | (#18649679)

... They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting.

Since copyright is attached at the moment of creation, anyone who has ever written a letter, blog post, or even a comment on slashdot owns a copyright.

In other words, "everyone should be exempt from this legislation, except possibly pets."

Re:I.e. Make the legislation worthless (2, Funny)

denmarkw00t (892627) | about 7 years ago | (#18650011)

except possibly pets

Actually, my dog's shit coils in a very artistic way - he must have 60 copyrights for whats in the back yard

Re:I.e. Make the legislation worthless (4, Funny)

JordanL (886154) | about 7 years ago | (#18650079)

I don't know, I'm pretty sure my pet has left some copyrighted material on par with RIAA's in the back yard from time to time...

Pretexting? (5, Insightful)

OpenGLFan (56206) | about 7 years ago | (#18649685)

Pretexting? What's that?
Pretexting is the practice of pretending to be someone else in order to obtain personal information on a person, such as telephone or banking records.
Ohh. You mean wire fraud [wikipedia.org] .

Nope. We'll keep that illegal, thanks.

Re:Pretexting? (1)

jovetoo (629494) | about 7 years ago | (#18650033)

The wikipedia article says:

... any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, ...

IANAL, but that does not seem to include personal information.

Re:Pretexting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18650051)

You don't get to make that decision. Thank you for your input.

Signed,
Your Public Servants

Re:Pretexting? (1, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 7 years ago | (#18650067)

Ohh. You mean wire fraud.

Uh, no.

From your own link, wire-fraud necessarily includes, "to defraud, or for obtaining money or property." The MAFIAA do not claim to want to do any of those, only to get the information so as to further their actions in court.

Re:Pretexting? (1)

TheSkyIsPurple (901118) | about 7 years ago | (#18650335)

But these are the folks that argue for intellectual property. My information could easily fall under "intellectual property".

Re:Pretexting? (1)

Wordplay (54438) | about 7 years ago | (#18650351)

And why does someone sue in court for copyright infringement? To obtain money or property.

I agree with the OP's interpretation.

Re:Pretexting? (4, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 7 years ago | (#18650383)

From your own link, wire-fraud necessarily includes, "to defraud, or for obtaining money or property."

Note the 'or' in the phrase. They could be seeking just to defraud. And "defraud", according to the dictionary, is "to deprive of a right, money, or property by fraud". So the losses could be rights, such as protection from self incrimination, or the security of ones papers and effects, that were being deprived by fraud.

Re:Pretexting? (1)

pallmall1 (882819) | about 7 years ago | (#18650429)

From your own link, wire-fraud necessarily includes, "to defraud, or for obtaining money or property." The MAFIAA do not claim to want to do any of those, only to get the information so as to further their actions in court.
Oh, you mean those RIAA letters aren't asking for real money?

Re:Pretexting? (1)

OakLEE (91103) | about 7 years ago | (#18650089)

No, wire fraud requires as one of its elements, that the perpetrator be using deception to "obtain[] money or property." [wikipedia.org] Pretexting, while related to wire fraud, encompasses the broader act of obtaining information through deception. I understand your sentiments, but do not call this something it is not.

Re:Pretexting? (1)

pipingguy (566974) | about 7 years ago | (#18650091)

In order to confuse the maximum amount of unsophisticated people, use acronyms as much as possible. Is that good to go?

If it walks like a duck... (2, Interesting)

MollyB (162595) | about 7 years ago | (#18649687)

From TFA:
"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, the RIAA's executive vice president for anti-piracy.

I think the word "other" in the preceding should have been given the emphasis. What these clowns want to do is play a criminal in real life, but not be accountable for it. Disgusting, IMO.

Don't they already do it? (2, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 7 years ago | (#18649699)

I mean, sure they don't get names and addresses directly, but when the **AAs put files up on P2P called "madonna.mp3" or "dirty_dancing.avi", let people download them (often dud files but hey, it's the name that counts), log IPs of people who downloaded them and pressure ISPs to disclose whose computers these IPs were at the time of the d/l, isn't this baiting people? IANAL, but I would think it's just as crass and illegal as outright pretexting.

Re:Don't they already do it? (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 years ago | (#18649843)

you know what though, they even suck at that. Most people that are big into the "scene" can spot the crap quite easily. the big release guys have a specific pattern to their file names and setup and the RIAA/MPAA shills that try and poison the files are not smart enough to see the patterns.

It really easy to spot their crap and avoid it. The ony ones that get caught are the kiddies that download everything in sight and dont have the IQ to clean up their shared folder (most dont even know that they have a shared folder) coupled with guys that compile lists of ip address blocks to blacklist and they are going to do nothing but lose. They will never catch the big time guys as they know what to look for and how to deal with it. Hell the biggest trend right now is to have the files rar packed just to screw with them. I've seen 7z packing showing up as well to throw off the sniffers.

These companies are simply lobbying to have the right to commit wire fraud. And if it passes this sill be complete and irrefutable proof that the US government is completely and utterly corrupt.

Re:Don't they already do it? (0, Flamebait)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | about 7 years ago | (#18649883)

We already have complete and irrefutable proof that the federal government is completely and utterly corrupt, less so but still applicable to state level governments.

More fuel for the fire is always welcome.

Re:Don't they already do it? (2, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 years ago | (#18650443)

Could I use the defense that the fucking RIAA put the files there, why was I supposed to know I couldn't do it?

I wonder if this would pan out in court.

Judge: how do you plead in the charges of illegaly downloading and distributing copyrighted materials.

ME: no guilty your honor.

Judge: would the prosecution like to present their evidence.

RIAA: we put these files on a program designed to share songs videos and other files and this program automatically re-shares the files when you down load them. We noticed this person downloaded these files and we logged the information necessary to track him down

Me: Your honor, if they placed the stuff in a program that they understand to operate in this fasion, doesn't that imply they gave consent to download and redistribute?

Judge: Umm.. case dismissed.

If only it were true..lol

HP and this law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18649715)

The reason why this bill was created from the fall out of the HP board issue. Where the PIs used pretexting to figure out which board memory was leaking information. Now isn't that the same as what RIAA & MPAA want to do? I think so. Guess RIAA/MPAA, HP style of pretexting to be legal.

Deep cover investigations continue (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 7 years ago | (#18649717)

Deep cover investigations continue for the relevant people

ie the police.

If they want to start playing private detective treating some cookie stealing as a hangable offence then I hope they get caught and sentenced for the fraudulent methods they use.

The Would Have Exempted HP (3, Insightful)

Benedick (737361) | about 7 years ago | (#18649719)

Remember the big stink about the HP board hiring people who used pretexting to investigate board leaks? Wanna bet HP might have a couple of copyrights and patents? This little exemption the RIAA wants would mean HP was exempt from fraud for that.

One step further: Probably all large corporations hold copyrights and patents. Does this mean they should all be exempt from fraud charges? Oh, wow, is this a bad, bad idea! I sure hope congress is smarter than this.

Law on the Fritz... (1)

Speare (84249) | about 7 years ago | (#18649727)

This reminds me of Senator Fritz "representing Hollywood from afar" Hollings, and his attempt at legalizing vigilante destruction of alleged infringers' machines. Wouldn't it be nice if the representatives represented people, not industries? Bah, what am I saying... the check(books) and (account) balances of Democracy will fix that.

Re:Law on the Fritz... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 7 years ago | (#18649811)

Orrin Hatch made similar commentary, that it should be legal to destroy the computers of copyright infringers. If I were from his home state that one comment would have lost him my vote.

Re:Law on the Fritz... (1)

pallmall1 (882819) | about 7 years ago | (#18650491)

Orrin Hatch made similar commentary, that it should be legal to destroy the computers of copyright infringers.
Orrin's son Brent is an attorney for the infamous SCO, which would mean that if Orrin and Brent got their way, all computers running linux could be legally destroyed.

What??!? This is way too slipperly slope (3, Insightful)

Servo (9177) | about 7 years ago | (#18649729)

1)

"Pretexting" aka social engineering aka phishing aka identify theft. RIAA/MPAA should be treated like the criminals they are.

2)

Wouldn't it make it easier for anyone to legally commit "pretexting" by simply filing a copyright or patent? Seems like a legal loophole like this would give too much leeway to would-be professional identity thieves who already out there today.

I love lawyers and their doublespeak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18649753)

pretext is when a company or a private investigator or police commits fraud to gain information.

Sorry, it needs to be called what it really is. the MPAA and RIAA are looking for the government to give them the right to commit fraud.

this pretext bullshit is proof that lawyers are complete and utter scumbags.

Re:I love lawyers and their doublespeak (3, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 7 years ago | (#18649809)

this pretext bullshit is proof that lawyers are complete and utter scumbags.

No, it's worse: the very fact that scumbag lawyers are even trying to get this exemption proves that they feel they have a chance to get it, which says a lot about the incompetence and/or corruption of the legislators. That alone is sad and worrying.

This should be proof enough (3, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | about 7 years ago | (#18649761)

for anyone to see that the **AA are purely criminal in nature. What they can't get away with in the courts they are now asking for permission to break the law, or be exempt from it.

Since it would be illegal, never mind impractical, killing off the **AA is not an option. I wish it was easy enough to simply boycott them out of existence. Perhaps this kind of move by the **AA will lead to a boycott that does really hurt them. I hope so.

So now... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18649775)

So now the RIAA and the MPAA want to actually pose as me and download music and movies, so that they can sue me?

In other news... (3, Funny)

CharonX (522492) | about 7 years ago | (#18649787)

The RIAA and MPAA have been lobbying for a bill that would allow them to shoot people, whom they suspect of being so-called pirates, on sight.
They promise they would never shoot innocent people, and in fact, added that being shot by a RIMPAA anti-piracy squad is actually proof that the target was a pirate.

WTB Worthless Legislation? (2, Insightful)

neverpsyked (578012) | about 7 years ago | (#18649813)

They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting.

IANAL, but wouldn't this pretty much make the bill in question completely worthless? I'm thinking that companies like HP, Microsoft, etc. would be exempt if the **AA gets what they're asking for here.

Fascist mentality and methods (2, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | about 7 years ago | (#18649817)

This is what the RIAA has and demands. It is one thing to harass people with lawsuits and it is other to demand special powers for themselves to enforce their own interests. This is akin to the difference between a rich individual saying very stupid things and using the law to his own advantage and this [wikipedia.org].

Oh that's good logic. (5, Insightful)

Tokerat (150341) | about 7 years ago | (#18649823)

When it comes to capturing murderers, rapists, druglords, and pedophiles, the government has decided that this method has too much potential for misuse, even in cases of good intent. ...but the RIAA feels it's ok to use it for something as minor as copyright infringement? A prefect example of what is wrong with this world. Rampant fucking greed.

Re:Oh that's good logic. (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 7 years ago | (#18650107)

When it comes to capturing murderers, rapists, druglords, and pedophiles,

<SARCASM>
Hey, only people are hurt by them. When it comes to [alleged] copyright infringement, *CORPORATION* might be losing money! Get your priorities straight!!!!
</SARCASM>

Re:Oh that's good logic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18650513)

When it comes to capturing murderers, rapists, druglords, and pedophiles, the government has decided that this method has too much potential for misuse, even in cases of good intent.
Um, the idea is to make unsanctioned pretexting illegal. This doesn't impact the ability of law enforcement to exercise warrants, subpoenas, etc etc.

United Corporate Police States of America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18649827)

Sorry RIAA and MPAA you are not a law enforcement agency no matter how you are trying to behave like one.
By the way, with this logic, anyone can register a corporation, create copyright content and trademark something and be exempt from restrictions against pretexting. Why don't we just amend the constitution and change the name of the country to United Corporate Police States of America?

Enough is enough (1)

mattr (78516) | about 7 years ago | (#18649845)

It is time for people to ask the PR departments of each of the companies behind these front organizations why their company thinks they can ethically do, even through a proxy, what HP did or worse?

The word pretexting itself does not express the sheer anger at the wire fraud that Sony and their coinvestors are attempting to buy with the grubby con-men they have on salary at the RIAA and MPAA.

Re:Enough is enough (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 7 years ago | (#18650265)

why their company thinks they can ethically do, even through a proxy, what HP did or worse?

      Because HP got away with it?

Sure, I'll support this bill... (4, Funny)

Firethorn (177587) | about 7 years ago | (#18649847)

The moment they add on a rider making it legal to hunt and stuff lawyers.

Re:Sure, I'll support this bill... (2, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 7 years ago | (#18649985)

The moment they add on a rider making it legal to hunt and stuff lawyers.

They probably wouldn't mind, so long as you stuffed them with money.

Re:Sure, I'll support this bill... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 7 years ago | (#18650227)

They probably wouldn't mind, so long as you stuffed them with money.

      Oh I think they would, since it's their own money I intend to stuff them with...

Where's the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18649861)

"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, the RIAA's executive vice president for anti-piracy.

So where's the difficulty there? Isn't that how you get your cut from the cartel^w labels extorting artists?

Another thing, Brad Buckles is a fucking stupid name for anybody who is not a kids cartoon character. Come back Captain Copyright, all is forgiven.

Yeah, right. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 7 years ago | (#18649867)

[RIAA's Brad] Buckles said the recording industry had never, nor would it ever, assume someone's identity to access that person's phone or bank records.

Why should we believe anything any RIAA mouthpiece says? I might believe that they haven't done this yet, but if they aren't intending to then why are they lobbying for this exemption? What is with these people?

Re:Yeah, right. (1)

zappepcs (820751) | about 7 years ago | (#18650141)

I think you missed the point. They have been doing this, but can't use it in court yet as they don't yet have permission to use it.

By getting an ok on this, they will be able to use most of the information that they have collected fraudulently.

I'm trying to lobby for a drunk driving exemption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18649873)

...but I promise I won't run into people.

geez... (4, Insightful)

um... Lucas (13147) | about 7 years ago | (#18649879)

it seems like everyone's missing the point of this. or else i'm seeing it as being something else.

they're not trying to legallize "pretexting" so that that can pretend to be any one in particular, or in general. I THINK (key word) that they're trying for this so that they can legally run P2P client/servers and then use the resulting log files as a way of gathering evidence.

Currently, if they did so, the easiest case someone could make would be to say "well, THEY made those files available on a P2P network, they should have known someone would download them" or it could go so far as "that was entrapment".

If this goes through for them, then they can set up servers that do nothing but send files to P2P clients, log the IP addresses and forward requests for information about those addresses to DSL and cable companies.

Re:geez... (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about 7 years ago | (#18649953)

then they can set up servers that do nothing but send files to P2P clients

There is nothing to stop them from doing that now.

For them to seek this kind of exemption, or in other words to allow themselves to be placed above the law shows just how hard these idiots have fallen off their rocker.

Re:geez... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18650113)

IANAL, however afaik the definition of entrapment in a legal sense is this.

(from dictionary.com)

entrapment /ntræpmnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[en-trap-muhnt] -noun
1. the luring by a law-enforcement agent of a person into committing a crime.

Heads will roll (1)

Quzak (1047922) | about 7 years ago | (#18649913)

I personally would love to see this happen just to see how long it takes to kill the assholes.

Call it what it is. (1)

jcr (53032) | about 7 years ago | (#18649975)

"Pretexting", my ass. What they're asking for is a license to commit fraud.

-jcr

Why stop there? (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 7 years ago | (#18650013)

What they are asking for is a license to defraud.

But why stop there? Why not go all the way and ask for a license to kill?

Re:Why stop there? (1)

Pitr (33016) | about 7 years ago | (#18650527)

But why stop there? Why not go all the way and ask for a license to kill?
Maybe they've finally learned you can't get money from dead people?

Warning, warning, bullshit overload... (4, Informative)

The Master Control P (655590) | about 7 years ago | (#18650015)

"[RIAA's Brad] Buckles said the recording industry had never, nor would it ever, assume someone's identity to access that person's phone or bank records."

Oh, that's right, you can trust us. Because [slashdot.org] the MAFIAA [slashdot.org] has a long history [slashdot.org] of adhering to the highest standards [slashdot.org] of ethics and professional conduct [slashdot.org] in all of it's affairs, [slashdot.org] and would never engage in douchebaggery [slashdot.org] or outright lying [slashdot.org] to get what it wants. It would never bully innocent people [slashdot.org] or harass schools [slashdot.org], because that's immoral. But you can trust us, we'd never lie about our identity to access your personal information. How's that quote about obvious abuses, denial of intent, and intent to do exactly that ASAP go?

Fuck the MPAA, Fuck the RIAA, Fuck the suits behind the BSA, and fuck them all for the DMCA! [futuristicsexrobotz.com]! The Recording Industry: Sometimes, the Two Minute's Hate is justified.

Criminally insane. . . (5, Insightful)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | about 7 years ago | (#18650063)

I just watched, "The Corporation" again.

The RIAA and MPAA are obviously psychotic. (The basic premise of the film is that corporations, which are considered 'people' under the law, are psychotic in nature. Real people have moral boundaries and consciences. Corporations, by comparison, don't have these handy little programs running in the background.)

My question is that if corporations are considered people under law, then shouldn't they also be subject to the same kinds of provisions set aside for the criminally insane?

--That is, shouldn't they have their citizen's rights limited so that they cannot do harm?


-FL

Pretexing (1)

p3net (1085343) | about 7 years ago | (#18650075)

So now I can pretext to gather information? I'll need to try that out at the bar... Oh, wait, they meant only themselves. Damn. Selfish bastards...

Anyone that owns a patent or copyright? (2, Insightful)

Trojan35 (910785) | about 7 years ago | (#18650085)

Isn't that almost every single corporation in america, but virtually no citizens?

Brilliant!

Re:Anyone that owns a patent or copyright? (3, Insightful)

Cid Highwind (9258) | about 7 years ago | (#18650165)

Scroll down a bit.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2007 OSTG.

Congratulations, after posting that comment you now own a copyright. Enjoy your "pretexting"* rights in California.

*a practice formerly knows as "fraud"

Re:Anyone that owns a patent or copyright? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 7 years ago | (#18650229)

Have you ever written something down? you own copyright on it.
This exception, as summerized in the post, would apply to all people.

nope (1)

nietsch (112711) | about 7 years ago | (#18650263)

Copyright applies by default. You have to take extra steps to i.e. place your works in th epublic domain. Things change when you get paid to write/sing/fsck/act, but most people are able to do that even when not being paid. Copyright even applies to a letter you write to your mother.
So everyone would be eempt form this proposed law if this amendment were included.

Re:nope (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18650543)

Of course we all know fscking admins produce Googols of copyrightable content.

Cops and criminals...what's the difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18650121)

From TFA:

  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

But the RIAA are criminals already! So they really shouldn't need to lobby this...

Who needs pretexting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18650223)

... when so much information is available for the taking?

Objections? Write to Bradley Alan Buckles (ssn 520-56-9306, dob 10/14/1949) at:

4326 ROSEDALE AVE
BETHESDA, MD 20814-4751
MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Let me ask a stupid question... (3, Insightful)

baboo_jackal (1021741) | about 7 years ago | (#18650225)

So, if piracy is a crime, then why are the *AAs worried about their own ability to investigate? Shouldn't investigation and evidence collecting be up to a piece of government that we, the people (at least on paper) control?

People are worried about governmental intrusions into privacy (i.e., Patriot Act-type stuff). Why on earth should it *ever* be OK to allow another organization, one that's even *less* accountable to the public, the ability to fraudulently obtain information from us with the intent of prosecution?

No one is above the law (1)

Comatose51 (687974) | about 7 years ago | (#18650247)

Since when have private individual have an explicit exception to the law? The members of the RIAA and MPAA are corporations, thus making them individual under the law. Fine, if they get an exception like that, I want an exception for me to the tax laws and all the criminal codes. Just me though because I'm that special.

The real source of this. (5, Informative)

tji (74570) | about 7 years ago | (#18650251)

I don't like attributing these things to the lobbying organizations, MPAA and RIAA. That helps them hide the real source of this behavior. The companies who think they are above the law, and fund those organizations to use tactics like this. Why no give full credit where it is due:

RIAA is primarily: EMI, Sony/BMG, Universal, and Warner

MPAA is primarily: Disney, Sony, Paramount/Viacom, Fox, Universal, and Warner

So, we're not talking about some evil rogue organization that wants to legalize their fraudulent activities.. We're talking about large, well known companies, which would think twice about their means if they started to get bad press.

** I'm not supporting piracy here. They have the right to protect their property, and should crack down on those pirating it. But, they should do it within the law, and without subverting our political system to buy congressmen and legislation to change the rules.

Re:The real source of this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18650389)

Thanks for your list. None of these legal entities - no matter how large and well known they are - are in the business of law enforcement.
They are in the business of selling entertainment. It would be amusing if I could hand out tickets for everyone who cuts me off on the highway, punish all speeding drivers, especially if I could get a cut from the revenue I generate. But I have to realise that this is not Disneyland and not all mickeymouse on the road is a cop.

RIAA's new tactic (1)

JustNiz (692889) | about 7 years ago | (#18650277)

Hi, I'm:

a) a friend of a friend
b) in your church
c) in your class at school

but you've never heard of or seen me before. Can you let me copy your music downloads please?

What's next... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18650309)

Why don't we all just cut off our cocks and balls, and mail it to them in a package along with a hundred dollar bill.

jeez.

In Other News... (3, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 7 years ago | (#18650325)

They would like the legislation to exempt anyone who owns a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret from restrictions against pretexting.

RIAA and MPAA lobby to be exempt from jail and fines for anything they do. Spokesman quoted saying, "Hey, diplomats have this already, so it's hardly unprecedented."

And...

Applications for copyrights, patents, trademarks, and claimed Trade Secrets rise to an all-time high, especially in California. U.S. government spokesman reports, "If this continues, soon every American and illegal immigrant will have laid claim to some piece of intellectual property. I wonder why they'd all want to do this now?"

The next step in the RIAA/MPAA Process (1)

Monsterdog (985765) | about 7 years ago | (#18650419)

This is what it's all about (and trust me, because I'm an expert, just like the RIAA's expert witness from MediaSentry, in that I have no certification and next to no knowledge on a broad range of subjects)...it's all about the Benjamins. It's always about the Benjamins when it comes to the RIAA. Hundreds of millions of people in this country have them, and the RIAA wants them.

So the plan now is this: while still suing ten year old girls, disabled people who haven't been able to actually move for years, sick grandmothers, people without computers, poor students, dead people and so, the RIAA and MPAA will branch out into a new line, where they set up Internet accounts in the names of a long list of people (purchased from data farms, telemarketers, phishers, botnet owners, and the like), which they will then set up to act as automated downloaders, probably using software built on the GPL (or, alternatively, KaaZaa or the like, because they're familiar with that.) When the downloaders download various parts of their list of MP3 files, the RIAA's crack squadron of attack lawyers will then, evidence of illegal activity in hand, sue the people whose names are those accounts, first offering them the extortion plan, and then, if they don't buy that, suing them for $1.3 trillion dollars as they did with allofmp3.com.

It's their greatest plan ever! Sue everybody in the United States and its protectorates, screw every soon to be former consumer of music for everything they have, and even pretend they're hornt fourteen eyar old chat room queens while they're doing it!

Pretexting = Fraud = Entrapment (1)

hitmanWilly1337 (1034664) | about 7 years ago | (#18650469)

What do these idiots think they're doing? Its not the place/job/right of a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION to go around playing Miami Vice on people. They seem to think they are a private police force or some such thing. I didn't think much of these folks before this, and this just confirms my suspicions. The RIAA/MPAA apparently have lost all touch with reality. They really are acting like the MAFIAA.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...