Stardate
20020723.1545 (On Screen): Is there any limit to how far the entertainment industry is willing to go to protect what it thinks of as its intellectual property from digital pirates?
They want to force the computer industry to incorporate digital rights management everywhere that it might conceivably do Hollywood any good, including such places as directly in built-in controllers of hard drives. Their bright idea is that the drive would refuse to write certain data unless it had been guaranteed that it had permission by being given a certificate first.
They also are now asking Congress to pass a bill which would give them legal immunity to all laws about computer hacking, to give them permission to directly attack digital pirates online. They could even damage your computer if they had "reasonable basis" to believe that it was involved in any kind of piracy.
Generally speaking, we here in the US think that "reasonable basis" needs to be proved to a court first; that's why we have a 4th Amendment right to search warrants. But it doesn't appear that these guys would have to prove "reasonable basis" to anyone except themselves. In fact, there are a large number of constitutional issues with this, it seems to me.
For one thing, it violates the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause. Why should it be illegal for me to do something but legal for the RIAA to do the same thing?
It also de-facto sets up the RIAA and other copyright owners as judge, jury and executioner for the crime of copyright violation. They become their own police force and enforcement arm, totally outside of any court process. And if it turns out that they screwed you over by mistake, you have to get permission from the Attorney General of the US before suing them.
Enough is enough. It's time for Congress to give the entertainment industry a bloody nose. They've gotten much too big for their britches, and they seem to think that they're the center of the universe and that everything should be oriented around guaranteeing them profits.
It's time for Congress to revisit the issue of copyright, and to make a strong and explicit statement about just what "fair use" really means and to protect it by law. Not, mind, that I think they will do anything like that.
Update 20020724: Bruce Rolston comments. Just to clarify, I don't expect this bill to pass, and even if it did there's no way it would survive judicial review. On the other hand, I don't expect Congres in this case to go the other way and finally put some teeth behind the public's right to "fair use". What I expect is inaction; it's easier to just ignore it and hope it will go away because that way you don't have to take a standon either side of the issue and make someone angry.
include
+force_include -force_exclude
|