Posted on 04/24/2006 7:51:04 AM PDT by FewsOrange
For the last few years, a coalition of technology companies, academics and computer programmers has been trying to persuade Congress to scale back the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Now Congress is preparing to do precisely the opposite. A proposed copyright law seen by CNET News.com would expand the DMCA's restrictions on software that can bypass copy protections and grant federal police more wiretapping and enforcement powers.
The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith, already enjoys the support of large copyright holders such as the Recording Industry Association of America. Smith is the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees intellectual-property law.
Smith's press secretary, Terry Shawn, said Friday that the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006 is expected to "be introduced in the near future."
"The bill as a whole does a lot of good things," said Keith Kupferschmid, vice president for intellectual property and enforcement at the Software and Information Industry Association in Washington, D.C. "It gives the (Justice Department) the ability to do things to combat IP crime that they now can't presently do."
During a speech in November, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales endorsed the idea and said at the time that he would send Congress draft legislation. Such changes are necessary because new technology is "encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual-property theft," Gonzales said, adding that proceeds from the illicit businesses are used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities."
The 24-page bill is a far-reaching medley of different proposals cobbled together. One would, for instance, create a new federal crime of just trying to commit copyright infringement. Such willful attempts at piracy, even if they fail, could be punished by up to 10 years in prison...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.com ...
I am MS-free. I can even play WMV files under Linux.
I don't buy that, unless you're looking for smoke that can't be seen through even where none exists. Pretty consistently throughout this thread, you've suggested that copyright protections are not sufficient. That's not a terrible position by any means, particularly if you have some measure of involvement with the RIAA or the MPAA. But you failed to respond with anything resembling logic to the points made by savedbygrace when it comes to the RIAA wanting to have it both ways. I wonder why? Rings true to me. Their position is that you have not physically purchased music, only a license to listen to it. If the end product ceases to function properly, then it's simply a physical product. You've said nothing that addresses this except to cloud the issue yourself with something about retailers.
If the government wants to try to connect terrorism activities to the piracy of intellectual property, that's a tough sell. Drug dealing might make more sense. There are said to be hotbeds of piracy throughout East Asia, long-established, firmly entrenched. Something tells me that the criminals engaged in these activities wouldn't take too kindly to religious fanatics stepping on their turf. The desire of the terrorists is to raise money for their foul causes; the desire of the pirates is simply money. Does it make sense that terrorists would have found a way to get involved in their own piracy with no recourse from the established pirates, without word leaking to the West in one form or another? Maybe you've heard something about such activities, perhaps you could share that with us.
It seems that only someone involved with the RIAA or MPAA would support the sorts of revisions to the DMCA as suggested in this article. Although I did see posts on this site that didn't take issue with Sony BMG's hidden rootkits in their XCP copy protection, it is true that Sysinternals was in fact in violation of the DMCA by even unearthing the rootkit in the first place. But then Sony BMG was potentially violating it themselves by offering downloadable patches. However, I doubt First4Internet will pursue legal remedies to this action.
I did see something that made reference to Sony wanting to restrict their Blu-Ray technology discs to one device only. Based on what you've posted in this thread, it seems folks like you would think highly of that idea. Perhaps you could let us know how that would reduce terrorism.
Your own selfishness aside, why shouldn't IP owners be able to protect it? From unquestionable illegal duplication, or do you even disagree such a thing exists?
My position is and has been simple.
1 - owners of property have the right to protect it, however they wish, within the law
2 - those that acquire it illegally need to suffer for it when apprehended
3 - if they're not, something needs to change
Which of those do you have aproblem with?
Either you're satisfied with the laws as they exist, or you aren't. My position, personally, is that the law has not caught up to technology, and what I've read of the DMCA leaves me with the impression that it lags further & further behind as time passes. However, I do not see further restrictions making much sense. What I do see is a lot of hyperbole attempting to link garden-variety copyright infringement such as illegal downloading to terrorism.
From people like you.
I don't buy it. Show me some contrary examples to your #2 stated position, and I might just adjust my view.
Perhaps you'd care to address some of the points I made?
This new law makes possession of the tools needed to break copy protection a federal crime with a penalty of up to 10 years in jail.
That is the strongest argument against this new bill.
I have already contacted my congressman about this bill, and you should too.
As somebody who has a strong affinity to security protocols and research, it makes my hobby, and some of my work criminal, when all I want to do is make things safer for everyone.
It's not about getting free music/movies/media, it is about being able to use the music/movies/media we have fairly purchased within our rights of "fair use".
If you think this is bad, wait until all your computers have "Trusted Computing" hardware, then we can add our own computers that we no longer fully own.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju85643.000/hju85643_0.htm
INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT PIRACY: A GROWING PROBLEM WITH LINKS TO ORGANIZED CRIME AND TERRORISM
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa88392.000/hfa88392_0.htm
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CRIMES: ARE PROCEEDS FROM COUNTERFEITED GOODS FUNDING TERRORISM?
A link to the title of a congressionalhearing is *not* "a study that shows most suicide bombers or the September 11th attacks were funded in a large way by Arabs making copies of Britney Spears and selling them on the street. Let's see the stats."
This is a response to any of my points? Something tells me you're the sort who's all too aware of Sony's patent for Blu-Ray which will make their discs of various types playable in one device only.
No renting of discs, no borrowing from the library.
These activities have nothing to do with piracy or terrorism.
You beg to differ? You'll have to try just a bit harder. And I disagree that "The copyright industries drive the engine of the American economy." 'Trademark' might be just a bit more accurate.
Running cover for copyleftists AND terrorists now I see.
Hmm Someone ask for proof you clim to provide it but offer nothing... I point this out and somehow I am running cover.. So your inability to provide what someone asked for is cover?
China and the rest of the world come next. We always have to better civilize the US first, obviously.
According to this law having a copy of Nero or any other program provided with a cd burner and a cd burner drive is illegal. So most PCs in the country would be illegal.
It's a lot more proof of links between piracy and terrorism than you have showing there is none. In fact, none of you have any proof of that, you appear to be attempting defend piracy and its funding of terrorism completely on your own.
Ping me when you can show me funds generated by some kid copying a cd or moving it to an IPOD were a large part of the suicide bombings or September 11th. Until then, keep fighting the VCR, Jack. Someday you'll get those dirty bastards who want to tape tv shows. Someday, Jack.
I'm talking about legal copying for personal, private use. If existing restrictions are enhanced, it is likely this will become increasingly difficult, and probably illegal. I don't believe that the current laws are so deficient with regards to criminal penalties for illegal uses that new laws are required that work towards criminalizing activity that is currently legal. You obviously feel otherwise.
Don't characterize my posts as 'attempting to defend piracy.' I have done no such thing. I don't like the idea that a Blu-Ray disc will be a product that I can use in one device and not another. Perhaps you like the idea of having to purchase a second copy of a DVD so you can watch it in your computer rather than your home entertainment system, or a third if you want to watch it in your bedroom. I like the idea that it can be brought to an alternate location for a personal, noncommercial, private use. What I'm seeing from you is that you support similar restrictions such as those an enhanced DMCA will provide for.
I find this difficult to believe, yet there it is in black and white. Well, there is the power of the free market, I suppose. I don't have to purchase any such product, do I, now. Oh, I forgot. I've boycotted Sony BMG since the rootkit story broke. I have sworn to never again purchase at retail anything that says Sony on it. Ever.
Explain again how making a legal copy of a CD supports terrorism?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.