Fair Use Under Attack - The Son of the DMCA Is Here
Well, "fair-use" advocates have been trying for years to roll back the DMCA's provisions, and it looks as if Congress is going to blow them off and do exactly the opposite. A new bill, the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006, is a Bu$hCo backed hodgepodge of laws that the RIAA and their ilk are drooling over.
Remember Sony's "Root kit", the bit-o-software installed when you played their CDs on your computer? It not only opened up your PC to Sony but exposed it to the rest of the world. Under DMCA, the Princeton researchers who uncovered the root-kit could have been prosecuted for revealing it to the world. Under DMCA-II, they could be prosecuted merely for discovering it's presence.
And what about the issue of piracy itself? Well DMCA criminalizes the act of bypassing copyright protection with the intent to redistribute. DMCA-II makes it a crime merely to possess the means to bypass copyright protection. This also has an interesting side-effect: Researchers of security vulnerabilities could be prosecuted under DMCA-II just for going about their work, even if they choose not to publish their findings.
Finally, here's a little gem for all of you bloggers out there, DMCA-II boosts penalties for non-commercial piracy of photos, news, or video from 5 to 10 years in prison when the damage can be demonstrated to be over $1000.00.
All in all, this bill is a messy giveaway to Big Content that is backed by the Justice Department (duh!) and a gaggle of representatives with ties to the entertainment industry.
That's one of the main reasons I never put up advertising so I am totally no-profit. I've thought alot about the risk in the use of the pictures. Really, one of the reasons I often don't credit them is to make them less likely to show up if somebody's looking for them. I go back and forth on that.
Quick, go acquire the domain, and I'll draw up the business plan! :-)
Lew, let me get this straight...you feel that ripping the CDs that you own is stealing? Or CDs that you do not own?
If it's the latter, than I agree. An artist that chooses to participate in the existing distribution system deserves my respect by my not stealing their work. But if you talking about what I myself own...then uh, uh! The RIAA can make that argument, and they're trying, but they're wrong despite their twisting of copyright law.
"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."
God.. how can they attach fearmongering to a digital copyrights bill? I guess that time I bought a bootleg screener of Lord of the Rings from some shady guy in my office, I was supporting terrorism.
Make it stop! please!