US wants to inhibit the use of new media technologies for private persons

[Fana]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004340.php

A new law might be passed in the US that will stop new technologies from being used in media equipment, as well as making it compolsary to have any new gadgets fitted with inhibiting tech that will stop them from performing functions that might make them useful for software/music/movie piracy.

As stated in the article - If this law had been in effect in the 1970's there would have been no cassete recorder, in the 1980's no videorecorder, in 2000 no mp3 players, for private use. Frankly it makes me sick and angry to see how the billion dollar music and movie industry can buy legislation like this, all to support their monopolies and frantically hold on to the position they have occupied for so long. Once this goes "live" in the US its only a matter of time until we see similar legislation in the EU.

 

[dysfunction]

This will never happen. There is too much money in selling gadgets to the individual. You would have to put an end to the PC, HI FI etc etc etc

 

[ECA]

The real scandal is that US politics is in a state that this abuse of rights can even be considered.

 

[Ormorof]

the land of freedom and liberty

 

[SoWat]

The land of the political lobbyist.

 

[Tom]

Its just an organisation seeking to protect its member's interests. It happens all the time, all over the world.

Even this country has significant industry lobbying.

Personally I think that at its root, the entertainment industry is quite frightened by the prospect that advertising revenues will become worthless and that they'll all be out of a job.

Thank god we have the BBC tbh.

 

[xane]

The real scandal is that US politics is in a state that this abuse of rights can even be considered.

On the contrary, it is the sign of a healthy liberal democracy that ideas, no matter how subversive, are discussed and debated openly.

 

[Calaen]

Its just an organisation seeking to protect its member's interests. It happens all the time, all over the world.

Even this country has significant industry lobbying.

Personally I think that at its root, the entertainment industry is quite frightened by the prospect that advertising revenues will become worthless and that they'll all be out of a job.

Thank god we have the BBC tbh.

While I understand what you are saying, I just cant agree with the BBC I do not listen to their radio and I dont use their website, I most certainly do not watch the shite programmes on TV either. So can you remind me why I pay over the odds for something I dont use?

 

[Tom]

I don't use the NHS either, or claim benefits, or use schools. Can you remind me why I pay over the odds for something I don't use?

 

[DaGaffer]

While I understand what you are saying, I just cant agree with the BBC I do not listen to their radio and I dont use their website, I most certainly do not watch the shite programmes on TV either. So can you remind me why I pay over the odds for something I dont use?

So who's shite programs on TV do you watch? Bear in mind that even if you don't watch the BBC, its ad-free output serves as a brake on the commercial channels' ad-output. Without the licence fee, we'd have ads every few minutes, just like the US. And frankly, if you bother with news output at all then you're being wilfully stupid if you don't use the BBC (tv and web).

 

[ECA]

On the contrary, it is the sign of a healthy liberal democracy that ideas, no matter how subversive, are discussed and debated openly.

No, its a sign of nutbags, fruitcakes and crumpets.
Err, I mean, blatant corruption and dishonesty.

 

[ECA]

I mean shit, the MPAA and RIAA are still laughing about getting the DMCA through.