According to CNET News, there's a new copyright bill in the works that takes those anti-technology, anti-consumer DMCA regulations that we loathe and the corporate juggernauts love, and gets them all jacked up on steroids. This does not bode well at all for those of us interested in reasonable copyright policies.
CNET recounts the tale of Alberto Gonzales tossing out an argumentum ad terrorism, the newest and silliest of the logical fallacies:
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."
That's right, when you didn't think the discussion on copyright infringement could get any more stupid, the Attorney General of the United States has now branded copyright infringement a threat to national security. Not only is "intellectual-property theft" allegedly being used to "fund terrorism activities," it's being done so "quite frankly." It's amazingly convenient, then, how the potential resolution to this oh-so-frank concern involves legislation that protects the interests of corporate conglomerates. That's how these things seem to work, though - by reducing the parameters of the discussion from "does copyright law as it now exists do what it's supposed to do?" to "is sweet, precious money being removed from the pockets of corporations, and can we frame the people who could concievably be responsible as terrorists?" Oh, and meanwhile artists and consumers suffer. But you already knew that part.
The 24-page bill is a far-reaching medley of different proposals cobbled together. One would, for instance, create a new federal crime of just trying to commit copyright infringement. Such willful attempts at piracy, even if they fail, could be punished by up to 10 years in prison.
This is quality stuff - it will make trying to commit copyright infringment a crime that'll get you thrown in the federal pokey for a decade. I don't even know how I would go about trying to commit copyright infringement, but it sounds like the type of thing I could get in trouble for just walking down the street. "Willfully attempting to commit piracy"? I'd love to know what that actually means in practical terms, but my initial reaction is that it's a phrase that once again has George Orwell doing backflips in the netherworld.
But one of the more controversial sections may be the changes to the DMCA. Under current law, Section 1201 of the law generally prohibits distributing or trafficking in any software or hardware that can be used to bypass copy-protection devices. (That section already has been used against a Princeton computer science professor, Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov and a toner cartridge remanufacturer.)
Smith's measure would expand those civil and criminal restrictions. Instead of merely targeting distribution, the new language says nobody may "make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess" such anticircumvention tools if they may be redistributed to someone else.
"It's one degree more likely that mere communication about the means of accomplishing a hack would be subject to penalties," said Peter Jaszi, who teaches copyright law at American University and is critical of attempts to expand it.
That's right, according to Jaszi, we may be looking at thoughtcrimes galore - techies beware - the last load of DRM bull raised enough issues, but now - even discussing how one might reverse engineer a turd like DRM software to see if it's eating your computer alive and making your childrens' personal information available to perverts nationwide (and according to the hysterical news media, 95% of the people currently using Myspace are gunning for the a/s/l of LOLing tweens)- could be illegal.
It's pretty clear why the RIAA loves this so much, now let's take a look at one final element of the legislation:
• Says copyright holders can impound "records documenting the manufacture, sale or receipt of items involved in" infringements.
Jason Schultz, a staff attorney at the digital-rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the recording industry would be delighted to have the right to impound records. In a piracy lawsuit, "they want server logs," Schultz said. "They want to know every single person who's ever downloaded (certain files)--their IP addresses, everything."
not to mention:
Creates civil asset forfeiture penalties for anything used in copyright piracy. Computers or other equipment seized must be "destroyed" or otherwise disposed of, for instance at a government auction. Criminal asset forfeiture will be done following the rules established by federal drug laws.
Yes, your iPod now may become tantamount to your stash.
