 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« A Warning to Iran? | Main | Cable Companies May Try to Keep Your Tax Refund » January 29, 2004Your Digital Freedoms Are At StakeNew legislation has been filed that would rewrite the offense of communication theft, punish offenses as theft, provide civil remedies and statutory damages, and include the present offense of cable television theft. It is sponsored by a different group of legislators than last year's onerous legislation - written by the Motion Picture Association of America and backed by the cable television industry - that would have given the cable industry the authority to ban you from connecting any device to the cable outlet in your home that they did not "authorize." Further, any "unauthorized" connection would be consider slam-dunk evidence of the crime of intent to defraud the cable television industry. The Tennessee Digital Freedom Network took the lead in opposing that legislation last year, and it was shelved, though the MPAA and the cable industry remain committed to controlling how you use your cable service and their movies. Many of my posts on this topic last year are collected in my Internet & Technology category. HobbsOnline will monitor this developing story... Comments
Bill, I just read this latest release and it does deserve attention for the fact that it is different in many ways then the past incarnation of the bill. For one, the author of this version was not the MPAA. Here are MY notes and initial impressions: Perhaps I am wrong, but I think Xxx Xxxxx is the author and probably relished the thought of surprising both sides. Quick initial reaction: 1) The subject of protection, the actual theft construct is still WRONG. Mostly because of the broad and overly general nature of the definitions in use. 2) The style and efficacy of the bill, assuming its subject is valid, is greatly IMPROVED. It appears that Xxx was listening to both sides and agreed with our side on the inappropriate proscriptions for due process, punishments, and determinations of guilt in the original bill. I think he has acceded to the nebulous theft issue without understanding the subtle difference between existing laws and that requested by the MPAA and cable industry. Certainly, I think I have to acknowledge the true compromise he has produced to move this thing forward, however, compromise does not translate into just law in this case. We have to hammer on the scope of the theft issue and this current incarnation IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Posted by: Jody Leavell at January 29, 2004 10:38 PMBill writes: "... though the MPAA and the cable industry remain committed to controlling how you use your cable service and their movies." But shouldn't that be "your movies"? At least as much as it's your cable service. When you buy a copy of a movie, you own it. Posted by: Michael Williams at January 30, 2004 3:01 PMMichael said: Yes, it should read that way, but Bill was making a point intentionally by wording it that way. This is the crux of the disagreement between the Intellectual Property Industry and everyone else. Here is some recommended reading on what is really at stake here: http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=789 Posted by: Jody at January 30, 2004 5:34 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
