In comp.os.linux.advocacy, BearItAll
<spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:58:29 +0000
<1164041910.18280.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> July 23, 2002, 4:45 PM PDT
>>
>> Could Hollywood hack your PC?
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Congress is about to consider an entertainment industry proposal
>> | that would authorize copyright holders to disable PCs used for
>> | illicit file trading.
>> `----
>>
>> http://news.com.com/2100-1023-945923.html
>
> There seems to me too many possibilities of mistakes.
>
> Send an email to someone with an attached file and their machine might be
> disabled. If they happend to be a home user then their damage is likely to
> be deemed less than $250 so they can not do anything about it.
>
> Play a DVD of the niece dancing in the school play at the infants school
> 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarves' and you might get a disabled computer.
>
> I wonder how they intend to decide when a file is an illegal copy, now that
> we are very likely to be able to buy more video's online. Plus we can use
> on DVB TV to record programs just like a video recorder. How on earth could
> they say those are legitimate copies or not, they are nothing more than a
> file.
>
> I actually don't mind them going after people making illegal copies to sell,
> they are taking money away that could be used for the next block buster
> (Police Academy 27 or something) and I know they are having a hard time
> coming up with a way to catch the criminals. But this isn't the way to do
> it really.
>
I was under the impression that media personnell are
*already* authorized to disable devices such as DVD burners
from copying copyrighted material, since the 1998 DMCA
(Public Law 105-304, Title 17, Chapter 12, Sections 1201
through 1205, specifically 1203(b)(6), though that only
applies if the owner is granted a court order).
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ304.105
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001203----000-.html
The method of modification or destruction is not specified,
but presumably remote modification or destruction is
perfectly permissible, pending further court action
invalidating this particular provision.
(Remember that this was passed under the *Clinton*
administration. I'm not sure I can blame him specifically,
though. The entire federal government is suffering under
brain/information overload, and was even back then.)
Therefore, it appears the efforts of Rep Berman and Rep
Coble are somewhat redundant, as long as the MPA and the
RIAA get a court order first.
(Disclaimer: IANAL.)
As for mistakes: there are always possibilities for
mistakes, but that's life; obviously there's a lot
of potential for abuse of the public networks, and this
is but one method by which they can ensure that material
is properly distributed.
Don't like it? Don't copy copyrighted material, and/or
petition for a change in the law. I'll admit I do wonder
how the techical types (myself included) will be able to
distinguish "fair use" (e.g., ripping tracks into one's
personal "mix disk") from "wholesale infringement".
Especially if one creates a bunch of mix disks, all different,
from a rather large but legitimate personal collection.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
