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.
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?