Be afraid--be very afraid! The music industry Gestapo is prepared to unleash a blitzkrieg against illegal mp3 trading and Peer 2 Peer networking. When Adolph Hitler began to annex other sovereign nations in the 30’s he found an unwitting accomplice in Great Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.  In fact, in Chamberlain’s quest to maintain the peace he helped hand over Czechoslovakia to Hitler on a silver platter, without a shot being fired. 

A similar storm of cold warfare is occurring right now in the music industry. The RIAA has found a willing ally in their fight against online MP3 file sharing, the United States Congress. 

Earlier this year Congressman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) introduced a bill that in affect will allow copyright holders or their agents (read RIAA) to become hackers. The bill H.R. 5211 also known as the "Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act," gives copyright holders a freer hand in battling the swapping of copyrighted material over the web by placing some exemptions in current anti-hacking laws that limits the copyright holders liability for taking actions to stop their material from being traded online through Peer 2 Peer networks like Kazaa. 

What exactly does that mean and why is it that important? This bill if passed would give an organization like the RIAA a “get out of jail” free card exempting them from criminal or civil penalties if they sabotage a Peer 2 Peer network or the files that are available through such a network that reside on a user’s computer. 

This is yet the next battle in the war against online music piracy. Don’t think it is a real war? Just look at the Warner Music Group’s job posting for a new Chief Technology Officer; part of the job description includes a curious responsibility called “P2P Warfare”. 

The five major record labels are very serious about battling the proliferation of illegal mp3’s on the web. Through their trade organization, the RIAA, they have already successful shutdown Napster and other P2P companies and now they have a Congressman in their pocket that is giving them a major new weapon to add to their arsenal. 

Let’s look at H.R. 5211 and some of its provisions and why the bill has some people up in arms. 

“…a copyright owner shall not be liable in any criminal or civil action 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, if such impairment does not, without authorization, alter, delete, or otherwise impair the integrity of any computer file or data residing on the computer of a file trader.”

So basically this says that a copyright holder can take some limited action in stopping their material from being shared through a Peer 2 Peer network, as long as “such impairment does not, without authorization, alter, delete, or otherwise impair the integrity of any computer file or data residing on the computer of a file trader.” 

That doesn’t sound too threatening on the surface, they can take steps to stop the trading but they can’t mess with your files. But wait a minute there is a key phrase here, “without authorization”. So in reality a copyright holder COULD “alter, delete, or otherwise impair the integrity of any computer file or data residing on the computer of a file trader”, as long as they have “authorization” to do so. Hum, these politicians are slick, just look at this next excerpt that more or less makes the “authorization” mute; “Actions taken by a copyright owner pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be considered by a court for any other purpose under this title, including in determining whether a particular use of a work is infringing.”  So basically this says that copyright holders can not be taken to court if they take actions to “disable, interfere with, bloc, divert, 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” 

Wait, they have more in this wonderful bill that gives them a free reign to wage cyber warfare. The copyright holder cannot take actions if it “causes economic loss to any person other than affected file traders” and/or “causes economic loss of more than $50.00 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader, other than economic loss involving computer files or data made available through a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network that contain works in which the owner has an exclusive right.” 

So basically the copyright holder can “alter, delete, or otherwise impair the integrity of any computer file or data residing on the computer of a file trader,” as long as the economic loss “per impairment” (read mp3) does not cause an economic loss of more than $50.00. Individual mp3 files are hardly worth over $50.00 each and this bill spells out “per impairment” which means per file. 

If this bill passes, copyright holders and their agents (RIAA) will be given a lot of legal leeway to sabotage Peer 2 Peer networks and the files traded over them. The biggest concern that opponents of this bill have voiced is the fact that this bill does not specify what actions the copyright holders can take to stop their files from being traded. It’s conceivable that they could, under the provisions of this bill, launch a “legal” denial of service attack against Peer 2 Peer networks or worst flood those networks with virus files that are disguised as MP3’s, that in effect could automatically delete all mp3’s on an end users system as long as it leaves other files alone, because each individual mp3 file’s value falls below the $50 threshold. But wait, even that value doesn’t apply because the provisions in the bill that outline the cause of action for those who were victims of “wrongful impairment” states, “If, pursuant to the authority provided by subsection (a), a copyright owner knowingly and intentionally impairs the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of a particular computer file or data, and has no reasonable basis to believe that such distribution, display, performance, or reproduction constitutes an infringement of copyright, and an affected file trader suffers economic loss in excess of $250 as a result of the act by the copyright owner, the affected file trader may seek compensation for such economic loss.”

The user having an MP3 on their system give the copyright holder a “reasonable basis” to believe that the user is infringing, even if in reality the file is a legal copy from a CD the user owns. 

Another omission from the bill that is a real concern for opponents of this bill is the fact that there is not a provision in the bill that prevents copyright owners from placing malicious files on a user's computer. Like the virus information above, conceivably the copyright holder could place a “sniffer” program on the individual user’s computer that would broadcast information about the user to the copyright holders. For exapmle, which files he/she has on their system and other useful information that could be used by the copyright holder to track-down and take legal action against the file trader. If that doesn’t scare you, then there is something wrong! 

The only requirements on the part of copyright holders is that they give the Attorney General prior notice that they are going to take action under this bill and inform the violator or their ISP prior to taking such actions.  Here is how it is laid out in H.R. 5211

(c) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—(1) A copyright owner shall not be liable under subsection (a) for an act to which subsection (a) applies only if—
 

 (A) the copyright owner has notified the Department of Justice, in such manner as the Attorney General shall specify, of the specific technologies the copyright owner  intends to use to impair the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of the owner's copyrighted works over a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network; and

 (B) the notification under paragraph (1) was made at least 7 days before the copyright owner engaged in the act.

(2) At the request of an affected file trader or the assignee of an Internet Protocol address used by an affected file trader, a copyright owner shall provide notice to the affected file trader or assignee (as the case may be) of—

 (A) the reason for impairing trading in the computer file or data containing the copyrighted work of the copyright owner;

 (B) the name and address of the copyright owner; and

 (C) the right of the affected file trader to bring an action described in subsection (d).

 (3) The notification by a copyright owner under paragraph (1) shall not be construed for any purpose as an admission of an unlawful act. 

Click here for the conclusion of this rant, links to useful sites about H.R. 5211 and Voice your opinion in the Fan Speak section
d