Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Super-DMCA not so bad (Register)
The Register carries an
alternate opinion, that Super-DMCA laws are not as bad as the
original. "In essence, the defendant would have to intend to "steal"
or assist in the "stealing" of pay-content or access. This is more limited
than even the laws that prohibit the sale of cable descramblers, and is
much more narrowly crafted than the current DMCA. Because the proposed law
requires proof of intent to defraud, those who merely wish to engage in
fair use of content would likely be protected, as would those who make
products that could be used to steal content, but intend to use them for
other purposes (e.g., reverse engineering, improving signal quality,
etc.)"
(Log in to post comments)
Super-DMCA not so bad (Register) Posted Apr 16, 2003 13:21 UTC (Wed) by dan_linder (guest, #88) [Link] What is sad is there were already laws on the books (in the United States) to handle all these things, it's just that the law makers think that they have to leave their mark on the world and re-invent yet another wheel...Dan
Freenet? Posted Apr 16, 2003 17:25 UTC (Wed) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link] So under these new laws, we could operate freenet nodes, if there was no intent to defraud using them, right? Seems to me Freenet is a big target of the "Super-DMCA" bills...
What version are they talking about? Posted Apr 16, 2003 17:55 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] The "intent" portion is NOT in the proposed laws and the laws which have already been passed. Once again the Guardian has just made things more confusing. See the bottom of this article:http://www.securityfocus.com/news/3912
Super-DMCA not so bad (Register) Posted Apr 16, 2003 21:46 UTC (Wed) by dcoolidge (guest, #1390) [Link] DMCA should not have happened.
Note quite: it argues that a MODIFIED Super-DMCA wouldn't be bad. Posted Apr 17, 2003 16:55 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] The linked-to article argues that a MODIFIED version of the law as currently passed in some states wouldn't be bad. Unfortunately, the laws as currently passed in some states CURRENTLY criminalize perfectly reasonable (and even Constitutionally-protected) behavior.
Note quite: it argues that a MODIFIED Super-DMCA wouldn't be bad. Posted Apr 18, 2003 8:58 UTC (Fri) by beejaybee (guest, #1581) [Link] ... so presumably the laws passed in state legislatures which offend against the constitution are unenforceable?Apart from the fact that it will cost a large fortune in lawyers' fees to establish this fact, what are we worried about?
|
|
||||||||||||