Testing the Network
If Coble's office is going to stonewall by maintaining that the digital vigilante bill doesn't say what it says, then those of us interested in changing the bill have to work harder to get over or around or through that wall. The EFF has a page explaining some of the issues involved. I've asked Tarheel Pundit, a blogger at UNC law school, for his input. Allen Johnson, the editorial-page boss at the News & Record, is standing firm and insisting on a close reading of the bill. I'm writing on this weblog and continuing to talk with Coble's office.
But we are up against a rich and ruthless entertainment industry and a congressman who needs to be educated on the technical issues involved. This would be a good time for the weblog network to flex itself and generate a high volume of intelligent response via commentary and links and email to howard.coble@mail.house.gov.
Dave's Question
Does the RIAA own Howard Coble? I think Dave's choices are too limited--my answer would be that Coble does not understand the technical issues, and that he is influenced by the entertainment industry.
Expert Commentary
From an email from Fred von Lohmann, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation:
Under the bill, "...a copyright owner *can* invade your computer if it has your "authorization." When would you ever authorize such a thing? When it's hidden in a "clickwrap" license agreement! If the bill passed, there's nothing to stop PressPlay, Microsoft, or any other copyright owners, from putting a "pre-authorization" into their service agreements.
The worst thing about the bill is that it entitles copyright owners to ignore *any law*, so long as they stay within the (murky) bounds of the statute...Copyright owners are saying that, unlike the rest of us, they should be above the law. This is a power that we as a society don't give to anyone, even to the FBI."
Get Your War On
It's back for round 13.
12:42:55 PM 
|
