Proposed digital copy protection legislation (MANY USEFUL LINKS) (1 Viewer)

[Thomas Newton]

Looks like the House is about to consider a measure that, according to CNET, would "permit copyright holders to perform nearly unchecked electronic hacking" and "immunize groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America from all state and federal [computer crime] laws" when they attack "publically-accessible peer-to-peer networks."
NOTE: The Internet is a publically-accessible, peer-to-peer network.
These Representatives (committee chairmen and ranking members on "IP" subcommittees) have also written another draft bill to "sharply limit Americans' rights relating to copying music and taping TV shows" -- giving a tape of a broadcast TV show to your mother would become copyright infringement under their proposal. Even just loaning an iPod (for listening, not copying) was mentioned as being a possible "infringement."
See:
CNET News - Could Hollywood Hack Your PC?
CNET News - Lawmakers: Keep your tunes to yourself

 

[MickeS]

Someimes I wonder where the hell this country is heading. :frowning:
I wonder how much MPAA and RIAA are paying members of congress to buy these laws?
/Mike

 

[Kevin P]

They're definitely going too far. What's next, making it legal to shoot to kill people selling pirated DVDs on street corners?

All I can say is if the bill passes, I'm getting into the computer security business. Of course, then they'll try to make firewalls illegal.

KJP

 

[Thomas Newton]

The FCC is at it again ... CNET reports that they will be discussing digital broadcast copy protection this Thursday.

Didn't the Supreme Court already decide that timeshifting was legal?

 

[MickeS]

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-948597.html?tag=fd_top
So I guess it makes sense that US computer criminals,even if they happen to be the record industry people, are treated the same way that non-US criminals are.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Rights issue rocks the music world -- click here. An excellent USA today article on how artists are fighting the RIAA, and what the RIAA is doing when they are not busy passing legislation that allows them to hack into your computer...
Click here for the related Slashdot article.
Ted

 

[Patrick McCart]

OK, so there's no Macrovision on HP&TSS ... is there CSS?

Warner seems to only do copyguarding on certain titles. The DVDs for The Thin Man and Citizen Kane aren't protected either.

 

[Dana Fillhart]

Just thought I'd briefly relay some of my extreme disappointment with the outcome of the Eldred vs. Ashcroft earlier this week.
(Note: The following is not meant to be taken in any way politically, but rather from a legal standpoint only)
I honestly believe this is one of THE worst decisions the Court has made in modern times. I understand and fully support Lawrence Lessig's position -- read this ("The silent five"), and you'll gain a better understanding on why the decision was not just wrong on principle, but on a legal and technical level as well. It's a very fascinating look at the fine distinctions of power Congress has, and how this case was fashioned to take advantage of recent Court interpretations of limits on the enumerated power to Congress under the Commerce Clause.
Lessig's tactics with the case were extremely clever: If the Court found in favor of Eldred, Eldred wins. If Ashcroft won (as was the case), Eldred still wins in the long run, because the Court would have explicitly stated Congress' enumerated power under the Copyright Clause is unlimited, and that (in theory, if we could ever elect honest folk ) we could get Congress to enact a rollback of Copyright terms, and there wouldn't be a single thing the Court could do about it, as they'd have already established the unlimited nature of Congress' enumerated power.
Except that...the case loss didn't exactly work out the way Lessig had anticipated, because (get this) the Court did not even explain their reasoning on the fundamental issue brought by the suit, choosing instead to gloss over it completely in their published Majority Opinion! They merely stated, without support of legal reason, Congress has de facto unlimited power enumerated under the Copyright Clause*. Without establishing a solid foundation of legal reason behind their decision, then, any future restriction on Copyright terms could in theory be challenged in the courts, while at the same time, because of the precedent, any future challenges to Copyright term extensions will likely be ignored by the courts.
Ouch!
After picking your jaw up off the floor from reading the unbelievable statements and broad-sweeping assumptions given by Ginsburg in the Majority Opinion, read the Dissenting Opinion for a better stated Opinion that at least has some grounded-in-reality rationalization behind its Dissent (and also explains some of the fundamental flaws in the Majority Opinion).
Truly a sad day for the country (in my view, of course), the outcome of this decision. :frowning:
(Disclaimer: IANAL )
* (The Opinion does give a case or two that attempts to establish a basis for such unlimited power, but it in no way establishes it -- the Dissenting Opinion quite clearly demonstrates the flaws in using those cases, and, as Lessig points out, the Majority Opinion doesn't even address whatsoever how the Copyright Clause differs any from the Commerce Clause such that the Court establishes limits on the latter but recognizes no limits on the former.)

 

[Dana Fillhart]

Addendum:
I found this article after I posted the above.
Guess every dark cloud really might have a silver lining after all...

 

[Jake_Mathews]

yea, im not into burning dvds but i am big into burning music and i have also heard that along with this bill comes having to pay to download any and all music from the web, and that cds wont be able to be burned, like from a purchased cd, cant be burnt to your compy, this is dumb, but im sure the music industry is losing a ton of money.

 

[Thomas Newton]

We have the FCC trying to shove copy protection flags into HDTV, essentially thumbing their noses at the Betamax decision.
Now we have yet another Congressman trying to outdo them.

Democrat Rep. Howard Berman, whose Southern California district borders Hollywood, said he was worried that the FCC could veer in a direction that might mandate "fair use" rights that would not be favorable to the entertainment industry.

(Congress questions FCC copyright plan)

 

[Steve Owen]

Here we go again...
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/states/
"Many states are being pressured by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to adopt legislation that would have serious consequences for freedom of speech, encryption, and the public's rights."
-Steve

 

[Thomas Newton]

Yahoo has a story about Senator Hatch's latest comments.
Seems that he's interested in technology to

remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Internet

Looks like the the earlier vigilante proposal ("Oops! we are so sorry that we 'accidentally' harmed your PC / trashed your business's Internet connection"), with a twist. The twist being that now private interests could set out to deliberately destroy other people's computers, with few or no checks and balances.

 

[Thomas Newton]

Oops ... just noticed the separate thread on this. Please direct replies on the "destroy-your-computer" topic there.