More of your freedoms are being taken away - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

BoCo · 04-27-2003, 01:04 PM

<hr>
State "Super-DMCA" Legislation:
MPAA's Stealth Attack on Your Living Room
Fred von Lohmann
Senior Intellectual Property Attorney
fred@eff.org

Recently, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has been pressing states to enact new legislation aimed at criminalizing the possession of what they call "unlawful communication and access devices." These measures represent an unprecedented attack on the rights of technologists, hobbyists, tinkerers and the public at large. In essence, these proposals would allow "communication service providers" to restrict what you can connect to your Internet connection or cable or satellite television lines.

These measures represent a stealth effort to dramatically expand the reach of the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which has already put fair use, innovation, free speech and competition in peril since being enacted in 1998.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) strongly opposes these state "super-DMCA" bills as unnecessary and overbroad. The proposed bills represent the worst kind of special interest legislation, sacrificing the public interest in favor of the self-serving interests of one industry.

Resources
For the latest news about the status of the various bills, as well as updates about what you can do to share your views with state legislators, check EFF's "Super-DMCA" Action Center page. Another excellent resource is Professor Edward Felten's page on these bills.

Background
The MPAA's state lobbyists have been stealthily pushing these state super-DMCA measures since at least 2001. Even before these activities crossed activists' radar, six states (Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wyoming) had already enacted them into law. Similar bills have been introduced and are currently pending in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Texas.

The bills are generally offered as amendments to existing state criminal laws relating to signal theft, that is, getting cable television without paying for it. Since these signal theft laws vary from state to state, the super-DMCA proposals also vary in their wording.

Nevertheless, all of the proposed bills appear to be derived from a single "model bill" developed by MPAA lobbyists and thus share common traits. First, they would all impose a new ban on the possession, development, or distribution of a broad array of "communication" and "unlawful access" devices, along with a ban on devices that enable anonymous communication. All the bills also create a new right to bring civil lawsuits to enforce these provisions.

The definitions used in the bill are absurdly broad. The bill protects "communication services," which includes any "service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation" delivered via electronic means using virtually any technology. This would include every wire in your house for which you pay a fee, including your telephone, cable TV, satellite and Internet lines. This category also sweeps in any Internet-based subscriptions services, including digital music services such as pressplay, MusicNow, or Rhapsody.

The super-DMCA bills would regulate the possession, development and use of "communication devices" and "unlawful access devices." A "communication device" is virtually any electronic device you might connect to any communication service. The definition of "unlawful communication device" is somewhat narrower, sweeping in any device that is "primarily designed, developed, …possessed, used or offered… for the purpose of defeating or circumventing" a technological protection measure used to protect a communication services.

The proposed bills generally prohibit four categories of activity:

Possession, development, distribution or use of any "communication device" in connection with a communication service without the express authorization of the service provider.
Concealing the origin or destination of any communication from the communication service provider.
Possession, development, distribution or use of any "unlawful access device."
Preparation or publication of any "plans or instructions" for making any device having reason to know that such a device will be used to violate the other prohibitions.
These proposals dramatically expand the power of entertainment companies, ISPs, cable companies and others to control what you can and can't connect to the services that you pay for. If enacted, they will slow innovation, impair competition and seriously undermine a consumer's right to choose what technologies they use in their homes.

These Bills are Unnecessary
Why is this additional law needed? The MPAA has circulated a "one-pager" explaining in vague terms that additional measures are necessary to "update" existing state laws to address the problem of "Internet piracy" and "cable theft." Copyright infringement and cable service theft, however, are already clearly prohibited under existing laws, both state and federal. The federal laws include traditional copyright infringement, as well as the DMCA, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and prohibitions on illicit cable and satellite descrambling equipment. There are a variety of existing state law remedies, as well, including laws banning signal theft and computer intrusion. Providers of communication services can also bring breach of contract actions if their customers violate any restrictions included in their subscription agreements. In short, state super-DMCA measures are redundant and unnecessary as penalties for Internet copyright infringement or cable service theft.

The MPAA has failed to identify any specific problem that the proposed bills reach that is not already addressed by existing law. In fact, when asked by Massachusetts legislators why an additional law was needed, a representative of the MPAA could only answer, "I don't know. The lawyers tell me we need this."

It is telling that state law enforcement personnel, the very people who enforce the existing cable theft laws, have not called for or supported the super-DMCA proposals.

All Things Not Expressly Permitted are Forbidden
Whatever their intended target, state super-DMCA bills represent an unprecedented intrusion into the living rooms of law-abiding citizens, giving communication service providers unilateral control over what you can connect to your home entertainment systems.

Under existing law, those who have legitimately purchased communication services (e.g., cable TV, satellite, or broadband Internet services) are free to connect whatever they like to the wires they pay for, so long as they do not violate any otherwise applicable law. So, for example, you are free to connect a new TV, PC, VCR or TiVo to a cable television connection that you pay for. Similarly, you are free to connect a Wi-Fi wireless access point to your DSL line in order to share your broadband connection among several computers in your house. This freedom has encouraged technology vendors to compete and innovate in response to the demands of consumers.

The proposed super-DMCA statutes reverse this traditional rule. Under these statutes, you would not be entitled to connect anything to your cable, satellite, or DSL line without the express permission of your service provider. The model MPAA bill accomplishes this by making it a crime to possess a device to "receive … transmit, [or] re-transmit" any communication service without the "express authorization" of the communication service provider. The various pending state bills include similar language.

This provision would make you a criminal for simply connecting a TV, PC, TiVo or VCR (all of which can "receive" communication services) to the cable TV line in your living room without your cable company's permission. It could also make you a criminal for connecting a Wi-Fi wireless gateway (which can "retransmit" Internet traffic) to your DSL or cable modem line without the permission of your ISP. The shift proposed by these bills is radical: all technology that is not expressly permitted becomes forbidden. This would give communication service providers unprecedented control over the home entertainment and the technology marketplace. For example, your broadband ISP could force you to use only certain brands of computers, or force you to pay extra if you wanted to connect more than one computer to your DSL line. Cable and satellite TV services could forbid you from using a TiVo, or could charge you extra to connect a VCR to your TV.

Bolting on the "Intent to Defraud"
In the face of mounting criticism from several quarters, the MPAA has offered to modify its proposal to reach only those who act with an "intent to defraud" a communication service provider. Rather than addressing the underlying problems with the measure, however, the "intent to defraud" revision merely further muddies the waters.

First, it is critical to note that this "intent to defraud" language has not been incorporated into all of the bills that are currently pending before state legislatures. Moreover, it is too late to include this limitation in the state statutes that have already been adopted.

While the revision addresses some concerns, it leaves many legitimate activities hip-deep in legal quicksand. For example, what if a subscriber to the MusicNow digital music service connects an analog cassette deck to her PC in order to record streaming music for later playback in her car's cassette deck? The fine print in the MusicNow subscriber agreement purports to forbid subscribers from making any copies without authorization. Has she acted with an "intent to defraud" MusicNow? What if HBO begins broadcasting a notice before every episode of the Sopranos, forbidding HBO subscribers from recording the program? If, notwithstanding this prohibition, a subscriber connects a TiVo in order to record the program for later viewing, has he acted with an "intent to defraud" HBO?

To take a third example, what if a researcher signs up for the pressplay digital music service in order to evaluate the digital rights management technologies being used by the service. Notwithstanding the fact that the pressplay user agreement forbids reverse engineering, the researcher engages in otherwise legal reverse engineering in order to develop tools that allow him to test the security of the service, and subsequently publishes his results in an academic journal. Has the researcher acted with an "intent to defraud" pressplay?

Each of these activities raises unsettled and controversial questions at the nexus of federal copyright and state contract laws. The proposed super-DMCA statutes, however, constitute a sneaky, self-serving attempt by one industry to legislate an answer to these important questions under cover of dark without public interest input. Bolting on an ambiguous "intent to defraud" qualifier does not redeem this flaw.

Attacking Anonymity
Another provision of the various state super-DMCA statutes that has attracted considerable attention is the ban on devices that "conceal … the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication." At a time when consumer privacy and the constitutional right to anonymous speech are under attack from a variety of sources, this provision is particularly misguided.

A simple ban on devices capable of concealing communication would make a wide range of multi-purpose tools illegal. Widely-used home networking equipment could be banned because it often includes "network address translation" (NAT) and firewall features that incidentally conceal the origin and destinations of Internet communication. Some forms of encryption for email and web traffic might fall within this provision. The use of "virtual private networking" (VPN) software by corporations to secure communication with off-site employees would also be swept up by this provision. Products like Anonymizer that aim to protect the privacy of Internet users against advertisers like Doubleclick might also be imperiled. Perhaps recognizing the absurd overbreadth of this provision, the MPAA has offered to revise the language in its model bill to apply only where "such concealment is for the purpose of committing a violation" of the prohibition on connecting a device without the express authorization of a communication service provider.

Although this change represents a step in the right direction, it does not adequately address the failings of the provision. For example, as noted above, the ban on connecting unauthorized devices to your broadband DSL connection could reach home networking equipment that was not authorized by your ISP. By installing a $50 Linksys router that includes NAT and firewall functions, you could be liable for "concealing" communication even under the revised MPAA language. Employees who use VPN software to access their corporate network without the express authorization of their home ISPs would also run afoul of even the revised provision.

A Chill on Computer Security Research
The proposed legislation will also chill legitimate computer security research. Security researchers advance their science by testing existing security systems for weaknesses. By discovering, documenting and reporting these weaknesses, security researchers teach vendors how to improve their systems, as well as warning customers when those systems are compromised.

Unfortunately, the proposed state "super-DMCA" bills will chill legitimate research in two ways. First, these measures make it unlawful to develop or possess the tools that security researchers need in order to carry out their work. Researchers often design their own software tools in the course of carrying out their research and must distribute these tools to their colleagues in order to enable peer-review of research results. These tools, moreover, may be designed for the sole purpose of breaking the security systems that are under examination. As a result, these tools would be banned by the proposed state statutes, which lump all tools "primarily designed" to circumvent any protection system into the category of "unlawful communication devices." Early experience with the DMCA suggests that computer security research has already suffered at the hands of overbroad and poorly drafted legislation. The proposed state super-DMCA statutes will only exacerbate this problem.

Second, the statutes interfere with a researcher's ability to publish the results of her research by banning the distribution of "plans or instructions" for making an "unlawful access device." By describing the weaknesses of a security technology, and describing research in enough detail to enable peer review, researchers could well run afoul of this prohibition. This creates an unnecessary burden on the free speech rights of researchers and the publications that seek to disseminate their work. This provision also represents a substantial expansion beyond the boundaries of the DMCA, which reaches only "technology," stopping short of "plans or instructions." In a country where the First Amendment protects the publication of bomb making plans, it seems particularly unwarranted to crack down on the publication of information regarding computer security.

Although the "intent to defraud" limitation may ameliorate these harms to some extent, for the reasons noted above, this last minute addition raises as many questions as it answers. Legal ambiguities in this context will only chill security researchers and their institutions from engaging in sorely needed research activities.

A Threat to Innovation and Competition
As discussed above, the proposed state super-DMCA proposals forbid a consumer from connecting anything to a communication service without the service provider's express authorization. This creates an enormous opportunity for anticompetitive conduct. Broadband ISPs, for example, could require that their subscribers use only a particular brand of PC or operating system. AOL could effectively ban its subscribers from using any instant messanging software other than its own. Cable TV providers could limit subscribers to using only certain brands of VCRs and could ban TiVo in favor of their own proprietary PVR technologies. This outcome would be particularly ironic in the face of the FCC's decade-long effort to encourage the development of open, interoperable standards for cable-compatible televisions.

These scenarios are not far-fetched. Recent experience with the DMCA makes it clear that companies will not hesitate to use new legal protections in order to rid themselves of competition. For example, Lexmark recently invoked the DMCA in an effort to eliminate the aftermarket for Lexmark laser printer toner cartridges. A leading garage door opener maker has also invoked the DMCA in an effort to eliminate a competitor in the market for universal garage door remotes.

Recognizing the importance of interoperability, Congress included a reverse engineering exception in the DMCA. The MPAA's proposed state super-DMCA measures include no such exception, making them an even more severe threat to competition and consumer freedom of choice.

Transferring law enforcement from public to private hands.
The proposed state super-DMCA statutes transfer considerable new enforcement powers from law enforcement authorities into private hands.

Each of the pending state bills starts from an existing state penal law provision, extending its reach by adding a civil cause of action to what was previously a criminal statute. In other words, the bills authorize private parties to sue in addition to local district attorneys. This change alone has important consequences. When enacting criminal statutes, legislatures are often willing to adopt broad and ambiguous language that they might not accept in a civil provision, counting on the discretion of a district attorney (who is often an elected official) to prevent abusive application of the law. Private parties are not subject to these institutional checks. In addition, where a criminal statute is involved, the state must prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt" and courts must interpret statutes narrowly. In civil cases, in contrast, a private party can prevail under the more lenient "more likely than not" standard and there is no similar policy of narrow interpretation.

Before new legal enforcement powers are delegated into private hands, prudent policy-makers should ask whether these new powers are justified and whether they can be too easily abused to the detriment of the public interest. Here, the MPAA has made virtually no showing that these additional powers should be transferred from the state into private hands.

Dangerous Remedies
The proposed state law measures impose a variety of unreasonably one-sided remedies on defendants.

Remote Downgrades. The MPAA's proposed model bill authorizes a court to order "the remedial modification…of any communication or unlawful access device…that is in the…control of the violator." When coupled with an "auto-update" feature, this provision could empower state courts to order technology companies to force "downgrades" on consumers nation-wide. For example, TiVo retains the ability to upgrade remotely the software on all TiVo units. AOL, Microsoft and Apple also provide automatic upgrade functionality in their software, aimed at giving customers the latest security and feature upgrades. If state court concludes that these vendors have the power to "control" their software, the court would have the power to order the "downgrade" of devices in homes nation-wide (and perhaps world-wide). Bestowing this remedial power on a state court would be unprecedented.

One-Sided Attorneys' Fees. All of the proposed bills include one-sided "fee-shifting" clauses authorizing a court to force a losing defendant to pay for the attorneys of the prevailing plaintiff. One proposed measure, in fact, goes so far as to automatically require that a losing defendant pay the attorneys' fees of the victorious service provider.

These provisions are not reciprocal, however. When a service provider wins, it can collect attorneys' fees, but an innocent defendant is never entitled to a reimbursement of fees. This is remarkable, when you consider that in most cases the communication service provider will be a large business, while the defendants are likely to be individuals or small businesses with limited ability to defend a lawsuit.

Automatic Injunctions. The proposed state bills include provisions that would effectively entitle plaintiffs to automatic preliminary injunctions, without having to satisfy the traditional requirements of showing actual damage, irreparable harm or an inadequate remedy at law. Especially where software, instructions and plans are concerned, each of which has been recognized as protected expression under the First Amendment, this sort of automatic injunction threatens constitutional interests.

Abusive damages. The proposed state bills would also give prevailing plaintiffs the right to demand "statutory damages" in an amount ranging from $1,500 to $10,000 for each prohibited device. These statutory damages would apply even if a plaintiff were unable to prove that it had suffered any actual damage at all. The bills also create enhanced criminal penalties based on the number of prohibited devices and creates a separate offense for each device and for each day that a person violates any provision.

Multiplying remedies by the number of devices is an approach that quickly leads to absurd results in the digital context. Where software is concerned, the number of copies has no necessary relationship to the harm suffered by a service provider. For example, if a security researcher were to publish a paper that included software held to be an "unlawful access device," and that paper were downloaded by only 100 academic colleagues, the researcher would face damages of at least $150,000. Similarly, because the proposed statutes criminalize mere possession of an "unlawful access device," a researcher could face serious penalties simply for installing a tool on several computers in his own research lab. The number of devices simply has no necessary relationship to the harm involved, and thus should not be the basis for a penalty multiplier.

What You Can Do
These bills are often whipping through state legislatures with very little opportunity for public comment. MPAA lobbyists are presenting the measures as "consensus" bills, suggesting that no one opposes them. Even a few concerned letters from constituents can upset this lie, leading a state legislator to ask questions.

Please take a moment to express your opposition to this measure to your state legislators, should it be introduced in your state.
<hr>
LINK

phoenix1002 · 04-27-2003, 01:10 PM

The more I read about this stuff, the more I think the MPAA people should be hauled out back and shot...

MSD · 04-27-2003, 01:48 PM

If this I'm going to write to my representatives and inform them that I'm going to be basing my voting solely on their views on privacy laws. This is worse than fascism. We cannot let this kind of stuff pass.

gov135 · 04-27-2003, 02:07 PM

Hmmmm... I know this is not gonna be a popular statement here... so I hesitate to make it, but...

The MPAA is not gonna take your freedoms away. FAIR use (i am emphasizing the fair) should be enforced. You actually need to have a right to use this stuff, you know.

The article cited here is one sided and appears to be an op-ed.

I agree, the penalties here are aggressive, etc. But they are just asking for it, they won't get it. The real question is, "If I invest heavily in something, achieve copyright status with it, should I be protected?" The answer should be yes.

SecretMethod70 · 04-27-2003, 02:29 PM

gov135, you obviously don't know about the DMCA. They've already got them, they're just asking for STRICTER penalties and a wider range of things. And, as far as fair use is concerned, THAT is also being taken away - that's why this is a problem. The way the industry wants it - and the way it's heading at this rate - is for it to be illegal to do ANYTHING to the things you bought from them. That means you can't copy the D you BOUGHT onto your computer for your own personal use. You can't make a copy of it so you can have one in your car and one in your home, you can't do ANYTHING.

That is wrong.

chains · 04-27-2003, 03:18 PM

Crap I hate what they are trying to do! I hope the people we voted for in the last and every election going forward have some clue as to the real reasons behind this. I have personally written my congress men and told them I am watching how they vote and I don't like it...I will not ever vote for them again!

SecretMethod70 · 04-27-2003, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chains
Crap I hate what they are trying to do! I hope the people we voted for in the last and every election going forward have some clue as to the real reasons behind this. I have personally written my congress men and told them I am watching how they vote and I don't like it...I will not ever vote for them again!

The unfortunate thing here is that most don't have a clue. Aside for not understanding technological issues, the people who they trust to explain the issues to them are representatives from the MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, etc. When the DMCA (not the Super-DMCA) was passed, only ONE senator actually read the entire thing. They rely on summations - most of the time given by people who support the bill - as their basis for voting. Let your representatives know how you feel. And PLEASE do your best to thoughtfully EXPLAIN why as well. "Don't vote for this" does very little in swaying their opinion.

SecretMethod70 · 05-01-2003, 01:09 AM

Saw a related article today:

Quote:

Heading off film piracy

Movie trade group staying one step ahead in lobbying efforts

Benny Evangelista, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, April 28, 2003

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...8/BU269543.DTL

Three weeks ago, technology groups and digital rights advocates were startled to discover that the motion picture industry had successfully pushed legislation in several states that strengthened cable TV piracy laws.

Groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Consumer Electronics Association claimed the new laws could potentially turn consumers into criminals. But just as alarming for these groups -- which are normally on top of such developments -- was the fact that they hadn't noticed that Hollywood had been pushing the bills since 2001.

Even critics had to begrudgingly tip their caps to the Motion Picture Association of America, the film industry's powerful trade group, for its sophisticated, multifaceted approach to protecting Hollywood from the kind of digital piracy that has put the recording industry on the ropes.

"These guys are everywhere," said Fred von Lohmann, senior intellectual property attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital rights advocacy group in San Francisco. "They're pushing their agenda in places we haven't even begun to look at."

"Everywhere I turn over a stone, there's been a bevy of MPAA people who have been working that area for years," he added. "I almost never encountered that with the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America)."

The MPAA's efforts run the gamut, from joining arcane groups like the Content Protection Technical Work Group, which writes standards for future technology, to producing a series of antipiracy movie trailers, featuring stars like Ben Affleck, that are due in theaters next month.

The industry lobby has even stationed people with night-vision goggles in theaters to stop pirates from recording movies.

HOLISTIC STRATEGY

Indeed, the MPAA in the last three years has quietly crafted a holistic strategy to take charge of its digital future, said Scott Dinsdale, a former record label executive hired by the MPAA in early 2001 to organize its anti- digital piracy efforts.

For the $13 billion per year industry, it was a simple business decision: Take proactive steps to guard its valuable content or sit back and become subject to Napster-type assaults.

"The great foresight was watching the music industry go through the tunnel first and not necessarily recognizing that the light at the end of the tunnel was in fact a train," said Dinsdale, the MPAA's executive vice president for digital strategy.

The U.S. recording industry, meanwhile, has seen sales drop by nearly 14 percent since reaching a high of $14.6 billion in 1999. The international recording industry puts much of the blame for its three-year decline in sales on the rise of online file-sharing programs like Napster and its successors.

To be sure, the movie industry hasn't been immune to piracy. The MPAA estimates that studios lose more than $3 billion in potential revenue annually from piracy. The industry does not have an estimate for losses due to Internet piracy. One research firm has said as many as 600,000 films are downloaded each day, still a relative handful compared with the millions of song files being swapped online.

CUMBERSOME ADVANTAGE

Still, the movie industry has enjoyed a major advantage over its record industry counterparts because it's still technically cumbersome for most average consumers to share movies online as easily as they can songs. But Hollywood isn't content to rest on that.

Later this week, the focus of this continuing battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley will shift to San Francisco, as a federal judge considers arguments in a case involving a Missouri startup, 321 Studios Inc.

The company filed a pre-emptive civil suit against seven major movie studios to have a judge rule that its products, DVD X Copy and DVD Copy Plus, are legal ways for consumers to make a backup copy of a prerecorded DVD movie they already own.

The movie industry has prepared a strong legal challenge, with a team headed by Russell Frackman, the attorney who headed the record industry's successful bid to shut down Napster Inc. of Redwood City. The MPAA argues 321 Studios' products are blatantly violating copyright laws, especially the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

321 Studios' products aren't runaway mass consumer hits like Napster or its successors, but in Hollywood's view, the programs are a dangerous first step toward rampant piracy.

On another legal front, the MPAA and the RIAA were dealt a surprising blow on Friday when a Los Angeles judge ruled that the distributors of online file- sharing programs Grokster and Morpheus could not be held liable for copyright infringement. The movie studios and record labels plan to appeal.

However, lawsuits are only a portion of the MPAA's strategy.

BRIDGES NEEDED

The MPAA wants to make sure that as technology gives consumers new ways of seeing movies, the transition doesn't throw the economics of the industry out of whack, Dinsdale said.

"We need bridges to the next cliff, not just a canyon in between," Dinsdale said. "We always have to be thinking three to five years ahead of ourselves."

One such effort on the part of the MPAA is a series of bills critics have dubbed "super-DMCAs," complaining that they extend the reach of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Critics only became aware of this effort late last month, when telecommunications industry lobbyists in Texas and Massachusetts began looking at proposed amendments to state criminal laws on signal theft, legislation designed to make it tougher to steal cable TV signals, von Lohmann said.

The lobbyists discovered that similar bills, proposed by the MPAA since 2001, had already passed without opposition in six states -- Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wyoming -- and were pending in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee.

The amendments were based on model legislation drafted by the MPAA, banning the use or connection of any device to a communication service without the consent of the communications service provider.

The digital rights advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation claims that the bills as they are worded could allow cable TV providers to "limit subscribers to using only certain brands of VCRs and could ban TiVo in favor of their own proprietary PVR technologies."

Intellectual property attorney Evan Cox, a partner at Covington & Burling in San Francisco, agreed the bills were "tremendously open-ended and create theoretical and potential criminal liabilities for just about anybody on the planet."

They also cover future devices "that can't be imagined now," Cox said.

Critics like Electronic Frontier's von Lohmann say Hollywood is the "quintessential special interest group" and is using the threat of piracy to grab more control of every new technology. "It's not about piracy. It's about being able to control the pace and nature of innovation," he said.

News of the super-DMCA legislation also drew a sharp rebuke from groups like the Consumer Electronics Association, which represents about 1,000 electronics firms.

"These bills are wolves in sheep's clothing," the association's president, Gary Shapiro, said in a statement April 3. "It's clear that Hollywood's new strategy is to sneak around Congress and go to state legislatures, hoping to gain the anti-consumer restrictions that they have been repeatedly denied on a federal level."

By April 7, after meetings between consumer electronics makers, the MPAA and individual studios, the association softened its stance, saying it is hopeful the MPAA is ready to work on striking "the right balance between protecting against theft of service and interfering with other activity."

The MPAA has offered changes to the proposed amendments that would allow for legal uses of multipurpose devices and would require an intent to defraud to prove a criminal case.

DVD SUCCESS STORY

The MPAA's Dinsdale noted that the spectacular rise of the DVD is a good example of how dialogue between Hollywood and technology firms can benefit all parties. DVD players, now installed in more than 50 million U.S. households, were made possible by agreements in the mid-1990s between software makers, manufacturers and Hollywood that protected prerecorded DVD movies from illegal copying.

"DVDs are protected to the hilt," he said "It plays by the rules and ends up being a great consumer experience."

In another sign that Hollywood is trying to stay ahead of the curve, Disney Chief Executive Officer Michael Eisner announced plans earlier this month to test a new digital video-on-demand service, now dubbed "Movie Beam," later this year.

"At Disney, we are mindful of the perils of piracy, but we will not let the fear of piracy prevent us from fueling the fundamental impulse to innovate and improve our products and how they are distributed," Eisner said in a speech at a broadcasters' convention. "To be blunt, if we don't provide consumers with our product in a timely manner, the pirates will."

Entertainment industry observers said his comments were significant because they sent the message Hollywood is ready to embrace new distribution technology.

This stands in sharp contrast to the strategy of the recording industry, which relied on obstructive litigation, "as opposed to creating a new business, " said Ryan Jones, an analyst with the Yankee Group. "Their attempts to solve the problem became more frantic, so they became less effective," he said.

Hollywood, however, doesn't face as immediate a threat because most consumers are still not ready or willing to download huge movie files, which can take hours, if not days.

"So that gives (the movie industry) time to figure out an elegant solution, " Jones said.

TYPES OF MOVIE PIRACY

Optical disc: Pirated laser discs (LD), video compact discs (VCD) and digital versatile discs (DVD) are inexpensive to manufacture and easy to distribute. In 2000, more than 20 million pirate optical discs were seized.

Internet: Pirates offer film files using online communication avenues such as chat rooms, FTP sites, newsgroups, file-swapping utilities and Web sites.

Videocassette: Illicit duplicating facilities often are capable of producing hundreds of thousands of illegal videocassette copies each year.

Signal: Pirates have made businesses out of supplying consumers with illegally tampered cable decoders or satellite descramblers.

Theatrical print: Though extremely rare, theft of a 35mm or 16mm film print allows the pirate to make a relatively high-quality videotape, which then serves as the master for the duplication of unauthorized videocassettes.

Source: MPAA

E-mail Benny Evangelista at bevangelista@sfchronicle.com.

Sun Tzu · 05-01-2003, 01:27 AM

ONly terrorists would need that stuff anyway . . . right??!!? huh

The_Dude · 05-01-2003, 04:37 AM

where did my right to property go?

Daval · 05-01-2003, 04:58 AM

it's pretty scary the way the trends are moving in the last 5 - 10 years. After September 11th things are only getting worse as well.

billege · 05-01-2003, 05:12 AM

These people are assholes. When corporations start passing laws to further their fucking of consumers it will be time for armed revolt. This is serious bullshit.

troit · 05-01-2003, 07:08 AM

That's the problem with technology -- the better it gets, the easier it gets for them to track us....

Big Brother IS out there....

Minus000 · 05-01-2003, 08:02 AM

I wonder what will happen if there ever is a consumer revolt. It seems ridiculous that the DMCA should try to tell me what I can and can't attach to the wires. Although there are laws to prevent theft/fraud of services, attaching legitamet devices being illegal now it some states. What were they thinking!

Spungfoo · 05-01-2003, 08:54 AM

Unfortunately I see a strong possibility of this passing. The MPAA has proven themselves to be sneaky cunning motherfuckers with connections almost everywhere. They already have the ball rolling at almost full speed; if we as consumers don't speak up now it's going to be next to impossible to repeal this short of a consumer revolt.

Mango · 05-01-2003, 09:27 AM

I'm glad I am in Canada.

BBtB · 05-01-2003, 09:59 AM

Quote:

One-Sided Attorneys' Fees. All of the proposed bills include one-sided "fee-shifting" clauses authorizing a court to force a losing defendant to pay for the attorneys of the prevailing plaintiff. One proposed measure, in fact, goes so far as to automatically require that a losing defendant pay the attorneys' fees of the victorious service provider.

These provisions are not reciprocal, however. When a service provider wins, it can collect attorneys' fees, but an innocent defendant is never entitled to a reimbursement of fees. This is remarkable, when you consider that in most cases the communication service provider will be a large business, while the defendants are likely to be individuals or small businesses with limited ability to defend a lawsuit.

That is what really gets me.

Somenosuke · 05-01-2003, 10:04 AM

God Bless America!!

BBtB · 05-01-2003, 10:32 AM

So how is canada this time of year?

YzermanS19 · 05-01-2003, 11:03 AM

MPAA, RIAA, they're all corrupt spy agencies. Personally, I support everything against them. They have no right do do any of this.

Pheatius · 05-01-2003, 11:25 AM

All your recordings are belong to us.

guthmund · 05-01-2003, 11:53 AM

I've been reading a lot about the MPAA lately and it seems they're a bigger threat than the RIAA. It seems that while the RIAA is pretty blatant about what they are attempting to do, the MPAA has been working behind the scenes at all different kinds of levels to push their agenda.

I read a press release from the EFF, and John Gilmore (one of the co-founders) said something to the effect that when the EFF starts to make their presence known in a particular area or at a certain level to thwart the MPAA, they find that the MPAA has been there for years.

It seems that the MPAA has been infilitrating and lobbying behind the scenes to such vast extent and very quietly and nobody's been paying attention and keeping track

Here's another story about the original DMCA and the unintended consequences of the past 4 years under it.

It's pretty big, so here's the link.

http://eff.org/IP/DMCA/20030102_dmca...sequences.html

Heavy reading and really pretty scary

04-27-2003, 01:04 PM	#1 (permalink)
BoCo Fear the bunny Location: Hanging off the tip of the Right Wing	More of your freedoms are being taken away <hr> State "Super-DMCA" Legislation: MPAA's Stealth Attack on Your Living Room Fred von Lohmann Senior Intellectual Property Attorney fred@eff.org Recently, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has been pressing states to enact new legislation aimed at criminalizing the possession of what they call "unlawful communication and access devices." These measures represent an unprecedented attack on the rights of technologists, hobbyists, tinkerers and the public at large. In essence, these proposals would allow "communication service providers" to restrict what you can connect to your Internet connection or cable or satellite television lines. These measures represent a stealth effort to dramatically expand the reach of the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which has already put fair use, innovation, free speech and competition in peril since being enacted in 1998. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) strongly opposes these state "super-DMCA" bills as unnecessary and overbroad. The proposed bills represent the worst kind of special interest legislation, sacrificing the public interest in favor of the self-serving interests of one industry. Resources For the latest news about the status of the various bills, as well as updates about what you can do to share your views with state legislators, check EFF's "Super-DMCA" Action Center page. Another excellent resource is Professor Edward Felten's page on these bills. Background The MPAA's state lobbyists have been stealthily pushing these state super-DMCA measures since at least 2001. Even before these activities crossed activists' radar, six states (Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wyoming) had already enacted them into law. Similar bills have been introduced and are currently pending in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Texas. The bills are generally offered as amendments to existing state criminal laws relating to signal theft, that is, getting cable television without paying for it. Since these signal theft laws vary from state to state, the super-DMCA proposals also vary in their wording. Nevertheless, all of the proposed bills appear to be derived from a single "model bill" developed by MPAA lobbyists and thus share common traits. First, they would all impose a new ban on the possession, development, or distribution of a broad array of "communication" and "unlawful access" devices, along with a ban on devices that enable anonymous communication. All the bills also create a new right to bring civil lawsuits to enforce these provisions. The definitions used in the bill are absurdly broad. The bill protects "communication services," which includes any "service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation" delivered via electronic means using virtually any technology. This would include every wire in your house for which you pay a fee, including your telephone, cable TV, satellite and Internet lines. This category also sweeps in any Internet-based subscriptions services, including digital music services such as pressplay, MusicNow, or Rhapsody. The super-DMCA bills would regulate the possession, development and use of "communication devices" and "unlawful access devices." A "communication device" is virtually any electronic device you might connect to any communication service. The definition of "unlawful communication device" is somewhat narrower, sweeping in any device that is "primarily designed, developed, …possessed, used or offered… for the purpose of defeating or circumventing" a technological protection measure used to protect a communication services. The proposed bills generally prohibit four categories of activity: Possession, development, distribution or use of any "communication device" in connection with a communication service without the express authorization of the service provider. Concealing the origin or destination of any communication from the communication service provider. Possession, development, distribution or use of any "unlawful access device." Preparation or publication of any "plans or instructions" for making any device having reason to know that such a device will be used to violate the other prohibitions. These proposals dramatically expand the power of entertainment companies, ISPs, cable companies and others to control what you can and can't connect to the services that you pay for. If enacted, they will slow innovation, impair competition and seriously undermine a consumer's right to choose what technologies they use in their homes. These Bills are Unnecessary Why is this additional law needed? The MPAA has circulated a "one-pager" explaining in vague terms that additional measures are necessary to "update" existing state laws to address the problem of "Internet piracy" and "cable theft." Copyright infringement and cable service theft, however, are already clearly prohibited under existing laws, both state and federal. The federal laws include traditional copyright infringement, as well as the DMCA, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and prohibitions on illicit cable and satellite descrambling equipment. There are a variety of existing state law remedies, as well, including laws banning signal theft and computer intrusion. Providers of communication services can also bring breach of contract actions if their customers violate any restrictions included in their subscription agreements. In short, state super-DMCA measures are redundant and unnecessary as penalties for Internet copyright infringement or cable service theft. The MPAA has failed to identify any specific problem that the proposed bills reach that is not already addressed by existing law. In fact, when asked by Massachusetts legislators why an additional law was needed, a representative of the MPAA could only answer, "I don't know. The lawyers tell me we need this." It is telling that state law enforcement personnel, the very people who enforce the existing cable theft laws, have not called for or supported the super-DMCA proposals. All Things Not Expressly Permitted are Forbidden Whatever their intended target, state super-DMCA bills represent an unprecedented intrusion into the living rooms of law-abiding citizens, giving communication service providers unilateral control over what you can connect to your home entertainment systems. Under existing law, those who have legitimately purchased communication services (e.g., cable TV, satellite, or broadband Internet services) are free to connect whatever they like to the wires they pay for, so long as they do not violate any otherwise applicable law. So, for example, you are free to connect a new TV, PC, VCR or TiVo to a cable television connection that you pay for. Similarly, you are free to connect a Wi-Fi wireless access point to your DSL line in order to share your broadband connection among several computers in your house. This freedom has encouraged technology vendors to compete and innovate in response to the demands of consumers. The proposed super-DMCA statutes reverse this traditional rule. Under these statutes, you would not be entitled to connect anything to your cable, satellite, or DSL line without the express permission of your service provider. The model MPAA bill accomplishes this by making it a crime to possess a device to "receive … transmit, [or] re-transmit" any communication service without the "express authorization" of the communication service provider. The various pending state bills include similar language. This provision would make you a criminal for simply connecting a TV, PC, TiVo or VCR (all of which can "receive" communication services) to the cable TV line in your living room without your cable company's permission. It could also make you a criminal for connecting a Wi-Fi wireless gateway (which can "retransmit" Internet traffic) to your DSL or cable modem line without the permission of your ISP. The shift proposed by these bills is radical: all technology that is not expressly permitted becomes forbidden. This would give communication service providers unprecedented control over the home entertainment and the technology marketplace. For example, your broadband ISP could force you to use only certain brands of computers, or force you to pay extra if you wanted to connect more than one computer to your DSL line. Cable and satellite TV services could forbid you from using a TiVo, or could charge you extra to connect a VCR to your TV. Bolting on the "Intent to Defraud" In the face of mounting criticism from several quarters, the MPAA has offered to modify its proposal to reach only those who act with an "intent to defraud" a communication service provider. Rather than addressing the underlying problems with the measure, however, the "intent to defraud" revision merely further muddies the waters. First, it is critical to note that this "intent to defraud" language has not been incorporated into all of the bills that are currently pending before state legislatures. Moreover, it is too late to include this limitation in the state statutes that have already been adopted. While the revision addresses some concerns, it leaves many legitimate activities hip-deep in legal quicksand. For example, what if a subscriber to the MusicNow digital music service connects an analog cassette deck to her PC in order to record streaming music for later playback in her car's cassette deck? The fine print in the MusicNow subscriber agreement purports to forbid subscribers from making any copies without authorization. Has she acted with an "intent to defraud" MusicNow? What if HBO begins broadcasting a notice before every episode of the Sopranos, forbidding HBO subscribers from recording the program? If, notwithstanding this prohibition, a subscriber connects a TiVo in order to record the program for later viewing, has he acted with an "intent to defraud" HBO? To take a third example, what if a researcher signs up for the pressplay digital music service in order to evaluate the digital rights management technologies being used by the service. Notwithstanding the fact that the pressplay user agreement forbids reverse engineering, the researcher engages in otherwise legal reverse engineering in order to develop tools that allow him to test the security of the service, and subsequently publishes his results in an academic journal. Has the researcher acted with an "intent to defraud" pressplay? Each of these activities raises unsettled and controversial questions at the nexus of federal copyright and state contract laws. The proposed super-DMCA statutes, however, constitute a sneaky, self-serving attempt by one industry to legislate an answer to these important questions under cover of dark without public interest input. Bolting on an ambiguous "intent to defraud" qualifier does not redeem this flaw. Attacking Anonymity Another provision of the various state super-DMCA statutes that has attracted considerable attention is the ban on devices that "conceal … the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication." At a time when consumer privacy and the constitutional right to anonymous speech are under attack from a variety of sources, this provision is particularly misguided. A simple ban on devices capable of concealing communication would make a wide range of multi-purpose tools illegal. Widely-used home networking equipment could be banned because it often includes "network address translation" (NAT) and firewall features that incidentally conceal the origin and destinations of Internet communication. Some forms of encryption for email and web traffic might fall within this provision. The use of "virtual private networking" (VPN) software by corporations to secure communication with off-site employees would also be swept up by this provision. Products like Anonymizer that aim to protect the privacy of Internet users against advertisers like Doubleclick might also be imperiled. Perhaps recognizing the absurd overbreadth of this provision, the MPAA has offered to revise the language in its model bill to apply only where "such concealment is for the purpose of committing a violation" of the prohibition on connecting a device without the express authorization of a communication service provider. Although this change represents a step in the right direction, it does not adequately address the failings of the provision. For example, as noted above, the ban on connecting unauthorized devices to your broadband DSL connection could reach home networking equipment that was not authorized by your ISP. By installing a $50 Linksys router that includes NAT and firewall functions, you could be liable for "concealing" communication even under the revised MPAA language. Employees who use VPN software to access their corporate network without the express authorization of their home ISPs would also run afoul of even the revised provision. A Chill on Computer Security Research The proposed legislation will also chill legitimate computer security research. Security researchers advance their science by testing existing security systems for weaknesses. By discovering, documenting and reporting these weaknesses, security researchers teach vendors how to improve their systems, as well as warning customers when those systems are compromised. Unfortunately, the proposed state "super-DMCA" bills will chill legitimate research in two ways. First, these measures make it unlawful to develop or possess the tools that security researchers need in order to carry out their work. Researchers often design their own software tools in the course of carrying out their research and must distribute these tools to their colleagues in order to enable peer-review of research results. These tools, moreover, may be designed for the sole purpose of breaking the security systems that are under examination. As a result, these tools would be banned by the proposed state statutes, which lump all tools "primarily designed" to circumvent any protection system into the category of "unlawful communication devices." Early experience with the DMCA suggests that computer security research has already suffered at the hands of overbroad and poorly drafted legislation. The proposed state super-DMCA statutes will only exacerbate this problem. Second, the statutes interfere with a researcher's ability to publish the results of her research by banning the distribution of "plans or instructions" for making an "unlawful access device." By describing the weaknesses of a security technology, and describing research in enough detail to enable peer review, researchers could well run afoul of this prohibition. This creates an unnecessary burden on the free speech rights of researchers and the publications that seek to disseminate their work. This provision also represents a substantial expansion beyond the boundaries of the DMCA, which reaches only "technology," stopping short of "plans or instructions." In a country where the First Amendment protects the publication of bomb making plans, it seems particularly unwarranted to crack down on the publication of information regarding computer security. Although the "intent to defraud" limitation may ameliorate these harms to some extent, for the reasons noted above, this last minute addition raises as many questions as it answers. Legal ambiguities in this context will only chill security researchers and their institutions from engaging in sorely needed research activities. A Threat to Innovation and Competition As discussed above, the proposed state super-DMCA proposals forbid a consumer from connecting anything to a communication service without the service provider's express authorization. This creates an enormous opportunity for anticompetitive conduct. Broadband ISPs, for example, could require that their subscribers use only a particular brand of PC or operating system. AOL could effectively ban its subscribers from using any instant messanging software other than its own. Cable TV providers could limit subscribers to using only certain brands of VCRs and could ban TiVo in favor of their own proprietary PVR technologies. This outcome would be particularly ironic in the face of the FCC's decade-long effort to encourage the development of open, interoperable standards for cable-compatible televisions. These scenarios are not far-fetched. Recent experience with the DMCA makes it clear that companies will not hesitate to use new legal protections in order to rid themselves of competition. For example, Lexmark recently invoked the DMCA in an effort to eliminate the aftermarket for Lexmark laser printer toner cartridges. A leading garage door opener maker has also invoked the DMCA in an effort to eliminate a competitor in the market for universal garage door remotes. Recognizing the importance of interoperability, Congress included a reverse engineering exception in the DMCA. The MPAA's proposed state super-DMCA measures include no such exception, making them an even more severe threat to competition and consumer freedom of choice. Transferring law enforcement from public to private hands. The proposed state super-DMCA statutes transfer considerable new enforcement powers from law enforcement authorities into private hands. Each of the pending state bills starts from an existing state penal law provision, extending its reach by adding a civil cause of action to what was previously a criminal statute. In other words, the bills authorize private parties to sue in addition to local district attorneys. This change alone has important consequences. When enacting criminal statutes, legislatures are often willing to adopt broad and ambiguous language that they might not accept in a civil provision, counting on the discretion of a district attorney (who is often an elected official) to prevent abusive application of the law. Private parties are not subject to these institutional checks. In addition, where a criminal statute is involved, the state must prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt" and courts must interpret statutes narrowly. In civil cases, in contrast, a private party can prevail under the more lenient "more likely than not" standard and there is no similar policy of narrow interpretation. Before new legal enforcement powers are delegated into private hands, prudent policy-makers should ask whether these new powers are justified and whether they can be too easily abused to the detriment of the public interest. Here, the MPAA has made virtually no showing that these additional powers should be transferred from the state into private hands. Dangerous Remedies The proposed state law measures impose a variety of unreasonably one-sided remedies on defendants. Remote Downgrades. The MPAA's proposed model bill authorizes a court to order "the remedial modification…of any communication or unlawful access device…that is in the…control of the violator." When coupled with an "auto-update" feature, this provision could empower state courts to order technology companies to force "downgrades" on consumers nation-wide. For example, TiVo retains the ability to upgrade remotely the software on all TiVo units. AOL, Microsoft and Apple also provide automatic upgrade functionality in their software, aimed at giving customers the latest security and feature upgrades. If state court concludes that these vendors have the power to "control" their software, the court would have the power to order the "downgrade" of devices in homes nation-wide (and perhaps world-wide). Bestowing this remedial power on a state court would be unprecedented. One-Sided Attorneys' Fees. All of the proposed bills include one-sided "fee-shifting" clauses authorizing a court to force a losing defendant to pay for the attorneys of the prevailing plaintiff. One proposed measure, in fact, goes so far as to automatically require that a losing defendant pay the attorneys' fees of the victorious service provider. These provisions are not reciprocal, however. When a service provider wins, it can collect attorneys' fees, but an innocent defendant is never entitled to a reimbursement of fees. This is remarkable, when you consider that in most cases the communication service provider will be a large business, while the defendants are likely to be individuals or small businesses with limited ability to defend a lawsuit. Automatic Injunctions. The proposed state bills include provisions that would effectively entitle plaintiffs to automatic preliminary injunctions, without having to satisfy the traditional requirements of showing actual damage, irreparable harm or an inadequate remedy at law. Especially where software, instructions and plans are concerned, each of which has been recognized as protected expression under the First Amendment, this sort of automatic injunction threatens constitutional interests. Abusive damages. The proposed state bills would also give prevailing plaintiffs the right to demand "statutory damages" in an amount ranging from $1,500 to $10,000 for each prohibited device. These statutory damages would apply even if a plaintiff were unable to prove that it had suffered any actual damage at all. The bills also create enhanced criminal penalties based on the number of prohibited devices and creates a separate offense for each device and for each day that a person violates any provision. Multiplying remedies by the number of devices is an approach that quickly leads to absurd results in the digital context. Where software is concerned, the number of copies has no necessary relationship to the harm suffered by a service provider. For example, if a security researcher were to publish a paper that included software held to be an "unlawful access device," and that paper were downloaded by only 100 academic colleagues, the researcher would face damages of at least $150,000. Similarly, because the proposed statutes criminalize mere possession of an "unlawful access device," a researcher could face serious penalties simply for installing a tool on several computers in his own research lab. The number of devices simply has no necessary relationship to the harm involved, and thus should not be the basis for a penalty multiplier. What You Can Do These bills are often whipping through state legislatures with very little opportunity for public comment. MPAA lobbyists are presenting the measures as "consensus" bills, suggesting that no one opposes them. Even a few concerned letters from constituents can upset this lie, leading a state legislator to ask questions. Please take a moment to express your opposition to this measure to your state legislators, should it be introduced in your state. <hr> LINK __________________ Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

04-27-2003, 01:10 PM	#2 (permalink)
phoenix1002 Psycho Location: lost	The more I read about this stuff, the more I think the MPAA people should be hauled out back and shot... __________________ I'd rather be climbing... I approach college much like a recovering alcoholic--one day at a time...

04-27-2003, 02:29 PM	#5 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	gov135, you obviously don't know about the DMCA. They've already got them, they're just asking for STRICTER penalties and a wider range of things. And, as far as fair use is concerned, THAT is also being taken away - that's why this is a problem. The way the industry wants it - and the way it's heading at this rate - is for it to be illegal to do ANYTHING to the things you bought from them. That means you can't copy the D you BOUGHT onto your computer for your own personal use. You can't make a copy of it so you can have one in your car and one in your home, you can't do ANYTHING. That is wrong. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

05-01-2003, 01:27 AM	#9 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	ONly terrorists would need that stuff anyway . . . right??!!? huh __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

05-01-2003, 04:37 AM	#10 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	where did my right to property go? __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

04-27-2003, 01:48 PM	#3 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	If this I'm going to write to my representatives and inform them that I'm going to be basing my voting solely on their views on privacy laws. This is worse than fascism. We cannot let this kind of stuff pass.

04-27-2003, 02:07 PM	#4 (permalink)
gov135 Junkie Location: Midwest	Hmmmm... I know this is not gonna be a popular statement here... so I hesitate to make it, but... The MPAA is not gonna take your freedoms away. FAIR use (i am emphasizing the fair) should be enforced. You actually need to have a right to use this stuff, you know. The article cited here is one sided and appears to be an op-ed. I agree, the penalties here are aggressive, etc. But they are just asking for it, they won't get it. The real question is, "If I invest heavily in something, achieve copyright status with it, should I be protected?" The answer should be yes.

04-27-2003, 03:18 PM	#6 (permalink)
chains Crazy	Crap I hate what they are trying to do! I hope the people we voted for in the last and every election going forward have some clue as to the real reasons behind this. I have personally written my congress men and told them I am watching how they vote and I don't like it...I will not ever vote for them again!

05-01-2003, 04:58 AM	#11 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	it's pretty scary the way the trends are moving in the last 5 - 10 years. After September 11th things are only getting worse as well. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

05-01-2003, 05:12 AM	#12 (permalink)
billege Watcher Location: Ohio	These people are assholes. When corporations start passing laws to further their fucking of consumers it will be time for armed revolt. This is serious bullshit. __________________ I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence: "My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

05-01-2003, 07:08 AM	#13 (permalink)
troit Transfer Agent Location: NYC	That's the problem with technology -- the better it gets, the easier it gets for them to track us.... Big Brother IS out there.... __________________ I've yet to dephile myself...

05-01-2003, 08:02 AM	#14 (permalink)
Minus000 Banned	I wonder what will happen if there ever is a consumer revolt. It seems ridiculous that the DMCA should try to tell me what I can and can't attach to the wires. Although there are laws to prevent theft/fraud of services, attaching legitamet devices being illegal now it some states. What were they thinking!

05-01-2003, 08:54 AM	#15 (permalink)
Spungfoo Insane Location: Pittsburgh, PA	Unfortunately I see a strong possibility of this passing. The MPAA has proven themselves to be sneaky cunning motherfuckers with connections almost everywhere. They already have the ball rolling at almost full speed; if we as consumers don't speak up now it's going to be next to impossible to repeal this short of a consumer revolt.

05-01-2003, 09:27 AM	#16 (permalink)
Mango Banned	I'm glad I am in Canada.

05-01-2003, 10:04 AM	#18 (permalink)
Somenosuke Insane Location: The 7th Level..	God Bless America!! __________________ Sex is not the answer. Sex is the question. Yes is the answer.

05-01-2003, 10:32 AM	#19 (permalink)
BBtB ClerkMan! Location: Tulsa, Ok.	So how is canada this time of year? __________________ Meridae'n once played "death" at a game of chess that lasted for over two years. He finally beat death in a best 34 out of 67 match. At that time he could ask for any one thing and he could wish for the hope of all mankind... he looked death right in the eye and said ... "I would like about three fiddy"

05-01-2003, 11:03 AM	#20 (permalink)
YzermanS19 not your typical god-fearing junkie Location: State of Confusion	MPAA, RIAA, they're all corrupt spy agencies. Personally, I support everything against them. They have no right do do any of this. __________________ the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long and you have burned so very, very brightly

05-01-2003, 11:25 AM	#21 (permalink)
Pheatius Insane Location: The South	All your recordings are belong to us.

05-01-2003, 11:53 AM	#22 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	I've been reading a lot about the MPAA lately and it seems they're a bigger threat than the RIAA. It seems that while the RIAA is pretty blatant about what they are attempting to do, the MPAA has been working behind the scenes at all different kinds of levels to push their agenda. I read a press release from the EFF, and John Gilmore (one of the co-founders) said something to the effect that when the EFF starts to make their presence known in a particular area or at a certain level to thwart the MPAA, they find that the MPAA has been there for years. It seems that the MPAA has been infilitrating and lobbying behind the scenes to such vast extent and very quietly and nobody's been paying attention and keeping track Here's another story about the original DMCA and the unintended consequences of the past 4 years under it. It's pretty big, so here's the link. http://eff.org/IP/DMCA/20030102_dmca...sequences.html Heavy reading and really pretty scary __________________ No signature. None. Seriously. Last edited by guthmund; 05-01-2003 at 12:03 PM..