April 23, 2006 6:00 AM PDT
Congress readies broad new digital copyright bill
- Related Stories
-
Silicon money
March 27, 2006 -
Congress raises broadcast flag for audio
March 2, 2006 -
Ruling on refilled printer cartridges touches DMCA
October 26, 2004 -
Congress mulls revisions to DMCA
May 12, 2004 -
Court: RIAA lawsuit strategy illegal
December 19, 2003 -
RIAA: Child porn rife on P2P networks
September 9, 2003 -
Congress asked to unpick copy lock laws
October 3, 2002 -
Could Hollywood hack your PC?
July 23, 2002 -
Time to rewrite the DMCA
January 29, 2002
Now Congress is preparing to do precisely the opposite. A proposed copyright law seen by CNET News.com would expand the DMCA's restrictions on software that can bypass copy protections and grant federal police more wiretapping and enforcement powers.
The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith, already enjoys the support of large copyright holders such as the Recording Industry Association of America. Smith, a Texas Republican, is the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees intellectual-property law.
A spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee said Friday that the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006 is expected to "be introduced in the near future." Beth Frigola, Smith's press secretary, added Monday that Wisconsin Republican F. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the full House Judiciary Committee, will be leading the effort.
"The bill as a whole does a lot of good things," said Keith Kupferschmid, vice president for intellectual property and enforcement at the Software and Information Industry Association in Washington, D.C. "It gives the (Justice Department) the ability to do things to combat IP crime that they now can't presently do."
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."
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.
It also represents a political setback for critics of expanding copyright law, who have been backing federal legislation that veers in the opposite direction and permits bypassing copy protection for "fair use" purposes. That bill--introduced in 2002 by Rep. Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat--has been bottled up in a subcommittee ever since.
A DMCA dispute
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.
Even the current wording of the DMCA has alarmed security researchers. Ed Felten, the Princeton professor, told the Copyright Office last month that he and a colleague were the first to uncover the so-called "rootkit" on some Sony BMG Music Entertainment CDs--but delayed publishing their findings for fear of being sued under the DMCA. A report prepared by critics of the DMCA says it quashes free speech and chokes innovation.
The SIIA's Kupferschmid, though, downplayed concerns about the expansion of the DMCA. "We really see this provision as far as any changes to the DMCA go as merely a housekeeping provision, not really a substantive change whatsoever," he said. "They're really to just make the definition of trafficking consistent throughout the DMCA and other provisions within copyright law uniform."
The SIIA's board of directors includes Symantec, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Intuit and Red Hat.
Jessica Litman, who teaches copyright law at Wayne State University, views the DMCA expansion as more than just a minor change. "If Sony had decided to stand on its rights and either McAfee or Norton Antivirus had tried to remove the rootkit from my hard drive, we'd all be violating this expanded definition," Litman said.
The proposed law scheduled to be introduced by Rep. Smith also does the following:
Permits wiretaps in investigations of copyright crimes, trade secret theft and economic espionage. It would establish a new copyright unit inside the FBI and budgets $20 million on topics including creating "advanced tools of forensic science to investigate" copyright crimes.
Amends existing law to permit criminal enforcement of copyright violations even if the work was not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
Boosts criminal penalties for copyright infringement originally created by the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 from five years to 10 years (and 10 years to 20 years for subsequent offenses). The NET Act targets noncommercial piracy including posting copyrighted photos, videos or news articles on a Web site if the value exceeds $1,000.
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.
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."
CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report.
See more CNET content tagged:
DMCA, copyright law, intellectual property, copy protection, legislation
170 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
Plain and simple..its reach people trying to get richer, by taking money from the poor people and the people that are capabaly of seeing past the crap the goverment wants the people of what used to be a great country, to believe.
I dont steal from the poor to better myself...thats why i am democrat. I hate H.Clinton and have no want what so ever to give all my money away to deadbeats. So dont even bother coming back with that crap. come up with a better defense. I want what is best for the people and Republicans ARENT IT
There's an extra "r" in the second word of that sentence.
Jim
Just my two cents :-D
proposed bill. Everyone should do the same.
they are Wrong
F. the lies
I want proof
People need to stand up and DEMAND PROOF before these kinds
of things are allowed. "Oh, we can't because the terrorists will
(whatever)" BS! If there's so many terrorists all around, why
don't we hear about them?
There's still a lot of time left in the Bush term, so we need to
protect our rights by questioning every new legislation that
takes away any rights. Demand proof of why the "new
protections" are needed.
This part makes think this article isn't exactly on solid ground.
The EFF has no info about this new bill on their site, and there is no bill # in the article to lookup for more information about it.
How can you write to your senator's about something if you don't even have the Bill # to reference?
I say shenanagins and FUD until something more concrete is given here.
You make multiple false assumptions. First, you assume that draft legislation that has not been introduced yet has a bill number (it doesn't). Second, you assume that something isn't real unless it appears on EFF's web site (also untrue, and silly to boot). The article quoted EFF's position on this, anyway, so that should be good enough for you. Third, you didn't read the article closely enough to realize that Gonzales has been talking about this for a while:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/Justice+Dept.+pushes+stiffer+antipiracy+laws/2100-1028_3-5944612.html" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/Justice+Dept.+pushes+stiffer+antipiracy+laws/2100-1028_3-5944612.html</a>
now. Symantec in court defending it's reverse engineering of the
latest virus against the DMCA.
:-)
According to the Constitution of the United States, the executive
branch of the United States government cannot introduce bills in
congress. If the excerp quoted above is correct, then this situation
can be compared to the 2000 elections, when the judiciary branch
overstepped its Constitutional rights and decided the outcome of
the Presidential race.
Excuse me, I need to catch a flight to Canada.
This happens all the time. Congressmen of the incumbent presidents party always introduce legislation on behalf of their president.
Congratulations to Declan McCullagh on a well written, thought provoking, article. Great reporting!
Examples: DOS, they bought that, and for peanuts. Windows, they copied both Apple and Xerox on that. The Windows layout was never copyrighted. Stacker, a disk compression program, they copied that, lost when sued, and then bought them out. The BEOS operating system, they drove them out of business, was sued and lost in court, and had to pay millions.
Microsoft has an on staff collection of lawyers. I'm sure they still research the copyrights and patents on products, then weigh in the costs of either buying, copying, or the penelties when sued, or if the company, whose product(s) they've copied, would, or even could sue them in court.
I don't know of anything that Microsoft came up with, from scratch. It's always been someone else's ideas that Microsoft built upon, which they've been very successful at.
We have seen how the government (mis)handled dealing with Microsoft's misbehavior, so the only viable solution is a general boycott of their products. Spread the word!
As to the string of infringement you have alleged, the more fitting accusation is monopolistic and anticompetitive practices.
The only people who "lose" money here are the movie company or the software publisher.
Therefore, I fail to understand why congress is ready to even consider passing a bill that would put people in jail for 10 years just because of copyright infringement (hey, that's more than what some felons who committed assault get).
When are people going to get it? Theft is theft. Doesn't matter whether you appropriate your neighbor's car, a stranger's TV, or intellectual property. Taking it without payment or permission is stealing.
Sorry, I have to take issue with that. A culture of piracy is a culture that kills creativity. How many new creative ideas do you see coming out of China these days? Not many considering the size, education, and technical expertise of the Chinese population.
It's like bootleg liquor. Taking a drink didn't impact society, but the organised crime that sprang up to supply those drinks was a catastrophy.
Who is going to sit down and write a novel, let alone make a movie, if they are never going to get paid for doing it? Unless you want such people retained by the state like the "People's Artists" of the Soviet Union, you need some sort of copyright enforcement. Leaving it to civil law means letting the fat cats win every time. A law that isn't enforced is a waste of time.
>are used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities.
Oh really. Had to throw the old "but what about the terrists?" in
there. These SOBs will use that card to justify anything. He
forgot to mention the overwhelming role that $73 per barrel oil
plays in funding the terrists. He is either the most ignorant man
alive (were talking Lois Lane ignorant here) or an evil
Machiavellian liar. Either way, there is no excuse to have
someone like him as the US attorney general.
Vote Democrat in November.
Hell, a handbasket and the USA sure seem to have a lot in common these days.
Congress and the Bush administration keep trampling our rights because they are despots. They are ****** that depend upon the likes of the entertainment industry to keep their pockets lined. The citizenry has no say in a government that refuses to listen. Democracy, in that case, is dead.
If 'copyright holders can impound "records documenting the manufacture, sale or receipt of items involved in" infringements' then the FSF would be able to do it with records related in violations of the GPL, including the source code of closed source applications suspected in violationg the GPL.
It works both ways.
Now tools should be made to protect open source software from being used in ways that are inconsistent with their licenses, so that DRM software/hardware that interferes with their function would enter the legal definition of what is not allowed by the new expanded DMCA. If redistribution is interfered with in any way the permisions granted by an open source license become void, and the tool that allows copying the software in this condition is trying to bypass the limitations that were set by the copyright owner. So it seems to me that these new laws in the right circumstances would make DRM tools into copyright protection circumvention tools.
Under this expansion, First4Internet would have gone to jail and possibly SonyBMG for being co-conspirators.
Perhaps it's time for another migration...
Don't vote Republican this year or in 2008. Don't vote Democrat this year or in 2008.
VOTE INCUMBENTS (even the ones you like) OUT OF OFFICE. One way or another, we need change.
Information, communication and the internet needs to be open and free, and other countries will develop a model to sustain these entertainment industries without copyright. Just one more industry that will go offshore, because it refused to adapt. (ghost town Hollywood)
<strong><a href="http://www.shoptiffanysilver.com/">tiffany necklace</a></strong>
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6064016.html?part=rss&tag=6064016&subj=news&refresh=1286507350477#ixzz11jXcNZmu
Ultimately force all consumers to upgrade to locked systems, just to view the contents, and if you sell it, the next owner has to repurchase the rights and keys for additional fees and charges, just the type of dream machines that control freaks like Howard Stringer at SONY central, will foist upon us all in the not too distant future!
Need one say more, congress weenies!, selling out our rights for one cent in the dollar, thanks guys for showing your true yellow colors to all, if you vote for this crap!
was a regular viewer of The Screensavers. It was there that I first
heard about the EFF. After quite a bit of research, I decided that
they were worth supporting and I've been a member ever since.
If you don't like what's going on, you might want to check them
out. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.eff.org" target="_newWindow">http://www.eff.org</a>
Freedom to drive native Americans off the land which they had been legally granted in treaties with the British?
Freedom to trade and keep human slaves?
Freedom to witch-hunt people for association with possible communists?
I really love America, but if you think that Freedom has ever been the real driving force, you need to take off the rose tinted glasses. Like EVERY other country, American is founded on "What's best for us" (and usually that means best for the ruling class).
Freedom to drive native Americans off the land which they had been legally granted in treaties with the British?
Freedom to trade and keep human slaves?
Freedom to witch-hunt people for association with possible communists?
I really love America, but if you think that Freedom has ever been the real driving force, you need to take off the rose tinted glasses. Like EVERY other country, American is founded on "What's best for us" (and usually that means best for the ruling class).
I got a few questions for you guys:
Who invented the internet? Who invented CD DVD burners and blank CD and DVD's? what about mp3? First they make all this great stuff but now they are saying, of no, it's illegal to use it? If this is the case, then that was their plan for the begining, cause any idiot knows, what good is a CD burner if you can't burn music? Similarly, they say DVD's are only to burn home movies, so what then, CD's are to burn home music? noone, nor myself what's to hear me sing, trust me.
It's all a big money scam to lure people who in essence would not even buy CD's to begin with to get them to pay for it all.
All the studies about CD sales falling are also nonsence, cause I dont see any Artist's living on welfare, do you? and have they taken into consideraing a large number of people went from buying legal CD to downloading legally?
If everone paid for every single download, the music biz would turn from a milti billion dollar industry to the multi- Trillion dollar industry, and that's what they want.
Money
- the more you got, the more you want.
Something's very wrong here. The punishment is WAY out of line with the crime.
There is no distinguishable difference between the majority of the Democrats and the majority of the Republicans.
They are all Liberals who only desire to enlarge the power and authority of the State. They aspire to be viewed as the 21st Century versions of Lenin and Marx.
Remember, if you pass a huge number of laws then you can better control the people because when you have that many laws, someone will always be in violation of at least one so you always have cause to arrest anyone.
There is no distinguishable difference between the majority of the Democrats and the majority of the Republicans.
They are all Liberals who only desire to enlarge the power and authority of the State. They aspire to be viewed as the 21st Century versions of Lenin and Marx.
Remember, if you pass a huge number of laws then you can better control the people because when you have that many laws, someone will always be in violation of at least one so you always have cause to arrest anyone.
Over here we had a rapist let out after less than a year. It sounds like the legal system really has a priority problem.