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 ...
"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."
???????????????????????
Muslims copying stuff on the net and selling it to make money to fund terrorism??
I think Dilberto is stretching it.
"Sparkles"...
hahaha!
Face it, if you oppose this, you're for terrorists and against protecting our children. You really don't think we should do it for the children?
/sarcasm
I disagree with you. I think your sarcasm is very funny.
Removing the Sony rootkit is already illegal under the DMCA.
Rootkits are malware, not copy protection. That's why not one of the millions who removed this one will ever be prosecuted for it.
Removing the Sony rootkit is a violation of the DMCA. Actual enforcement is entirely irrelevant to the fact that it IS a violation.
Lets see the section of the DCMA that makes such a distinction. You keep saying that the DCMA would allow the removal of a rootkit whos puporse was copy protection lets see the part of the DCMA which addresses such a copy protection scheme.
Furthermore, let's dispense with the deliberate obfuscation regarding enforcement. If no one is prosecuted for a violation of the law, the law is nonetheless violated. If I drive 85 down the interstate, I am violating the law, whether I am caught and cited or not.
This may be irrelevant, but I will never buy anything from Sony again, and when people ask, I will recommend against Sony. My protest is tiny and unorganized, but I find when I have a position like this, I am seldom alone.
The categories "malware" and "copy protection" are not mutually exclusive. You are introducing a false dichotomy.
The Sony rootkit was an implementation of copy protection in malware.
Sony wouldn't say so. Who defines what copy protection is, the manufacturer or the consumer?
IMHO, the quality of their products have been going steadily downhill. My brother used to swear by Sony, but he's changing his mind.
He's had 3 Playstations. They all refuse to work now for no apparent reason, well before such a device should have failed (His PS2 is about four or five years old, in a house with no children. It's a $200 paperweight now). My son's ancient Nintendo 64, btw, still works just fine.
He bought a Sony television around 2000. The thing has already failed. It plays audio but shows no picture. My GE television has worked since 1996 or so.
His last computer was a Sony Vaio. The thing literally exploded less than two weeks after he got it (now he has an HP). My homebuilt pieces-parts model has been happily chugging along since 2002.
I'm not sure, but I think he told me his Sony DVD player failed also.
Apparently, they're putting most of their quality control funds into developing software to hijack and compromise your computer.
My respect for their products and their ethics has gone steadily downhill over the past few years.
The format business is why I will not use any compressed format except MP3. I really don't care if others are better.
Yep. We're moving toward pay-per-play. That's the goal of this legislation, and the music companies have a willing accomplice in the Feddl' Gubmint.
Pathetic that they have to turn to legislation and lawsuits to save their anachronistic business model, but it's even more pathetic that the government caves in to them every time.
No it was obviously an ATTEMPT to confuse malware with copy protection. Just as you are attempting to do now yourself.
"quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities."
The magic words to pass any legislation.
###
Yeah, to hear this POS talk everybody is a terrorist. He makes Janet Reno look like a constitutionalist.
Nonsense. The Sony rootkit was malware AND the Sony rootkit was copy protection. You're not entitled to your own set of facts.
Just as you are attempting to do now yourself.
LOL
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.