There's a bill working its way through congress that will criminalize sale of technology that intentionally induces a person to infringe copyright. That places all recording media under threat. This is one of those bills which is written at the behest of major corporations looking to compete via legislation rather than the marketplace.

Information simply cannot be force fit into the conventional mold of property rights law that originated in the ownership of land. Patents are workable as a means of protecting intellectual property, though they have been abused somewhat recently. Copyrights on the other hand are being abused and manipulated to an unprecedented degree. We recently saw the extension of copyright by an additional 20 years (thanks to some heavy lobbying by Disney, among others), and there's no doubt that when those 20 years are up efforts will be well under way to extend by another 20. The copyright system is broken, and this latest bill will just break it still further. We need to completely rethink the way we handle copyrights from the ground up. I can't claim to know what the answer is, but it's clear what it isn't: banning technologies just because they can infringe copyright. That is an idiotic route that leads to making pen and paper technically illegal.

A bright idea will only become brighter if two people can hold their candles together instead of eachother standing apart.

Does this mean that the photocopier that I've used to make copies of books and magazine articles in my research projects is going to need a license?

It's time to free Mickey Mouse from the clutches of Disney.

Luckily, the electronics industry is deadset against this bill, since it would ruin their business. This will be a true clash of the Titans. It is another example of the people in the media companies that don't have a clue: Yes, they lose money to piracy. But that is nothing compared to the money they will lose if they ruin the industry that USES their media.

I have to concur with Andrew.

Digital media products are by their nature easy to copy and share with high fidelity. Encryption provides a way to secure the data, but once a device exists to decrypt and view the data it becomes open to copying.

I believe people should retain the rights to their works, but I do not believe that the gov't should impose restrictions on the sale of digital (and other) devise just to attempt to protect in advance other's copyrights. That would be like banning chain saws because someone might use one to cut down my trees.

If Disney wishes to protect its property that much, it can release the movies only to theaters (and hope it isn't camcorded) and give up the DVD sales. Most consumers don't want to pirate movies, they want easy, convienent, legal, and quick access to the movie -- and they will pay for that.

Perhaps its time to send a check to the EFF.

--Fred

I would love to see some real statistics on the "piracy problem". Implausible numbers get tossed around with abandon, but it's unclear just how many people are seriously using piracy as an alternative to paying for software (and I lump "music" in with software). Even if copy-protection schemes really worked, it's unlikely software pirates would be legitimately buying the software they steal.