 palmer_j_rCongenital OptimistPremium
join:2000-06-08
Chicago, IL | said by bgraham:
this is just another politician who has no idea about technology, probably hounded by lobbyists from the recording industry.
Laws aimed at preventing illegal copying are useless and are just introduced as desperation measures until the recording industry can come up with real copy protection.
and if I can add to bgraham's comments, the media always loves to hype it up for us gullible public. Nothing like a juicy story to add to their vaults of subscriber money. I was hoodwinked once or twice until I read the actual text of the bill. Read it first, then look at how the media adds extra details and fails to state that there's a big loophole:
(2) PERSONAL USE COPIES- No person may apply a security measure that uses a standard security technology to prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use in the home of programming at the time it is lawfully performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or non-premium cable channel, or premium or non-premium satellite channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in section 122(j)(5)(A) of title 17, United States Code), a cable system (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such title).
------------------------------------------
--
-----
Joey
jpenterprisescomputing.com
-activities director for shady pines our moto: Live Today, You might die tomorrow  |
 Polaris5All Hail, The Vulture From Van Nuys
join:2002-03-26
old RIA of A | This post provides an interesting citation, but the provision falls way short, for 4 reasons:
1.) The language is legislative mumbo-jumbo. What is a "lawful use" anyway? Does that mean a consumer can record any program they want, on any device they choose? Or will the copyright holder make those determinations? "Broadcast flags" suggest that control will lie entirely with the holder.
2.) The CBDTPA is not the end all, be all of copy control/restriction legislation. Analogizing to the DMCA, NOTHING stops Congress from revisiting the issue at a later date, to pass legislation that takes away, or limits the consumer's right to copy video transmissions. For example, Congress could limit consumers to the right to copy analog transmissions on VCR, while prohibiting copies of HDTV transmissions on Tivo, without violating the language of that provision.
3.) This provision entirely ignores copyrighted audio products. Making a copy (such as a mix) of one's purchased music, is, or should be, entirely legal. The oversight appears to reflect the true purpose of the legislation, to assail 'file sharing,' rather than "promote high quality digital content leading to the consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and digital television products." There's plenty of content and an efficient distribution system. But it's not locked up.
4.) What we have here is a bill. This provision could be left out of its House counterpart, removed or altered in a Mark-up, or changed at a Committee reconciliation. With all those lobbyists and all that cash, you can count on it! |
·
·