Follow-up to copyright post

So I have done some more reading and I have some more news.

First off, apparently the actual bill has not been amended but merely proposed and has yet to become law. However, it seems that the timing, and content of the bill, have made it more likely that this will never actually become law.

That having been said, the biggest issue people have with this new amendment is that it would become illegal to circumvent a DRM in any fashion, and therefore punishable by large fines and possible jail time.

What does that mean? It means that if you use any means of any kind to break the copy protection of any digital file, you are breaking the law.

As an example, you buy some music off iTunes and listen to it on your iPod, but then decide you want those same tunes on your MP3 player. In order to do that, you need to use software the breaks the encryption off the iPod. That is illegal.

You own a pile of DVD’s and a few of them are more important than others. So, you download a program that lets you make a backup (copy of) your own DVD. By making that backup, you are breaking the law.

You use a piece of software to copy a DVD you own to your iPod video player or Sony Playstation. You are breaking the law.

There are a LOT of people who are throwing massive fits because this law apparently makes it illegal for you to do anything with content you already own. The problem is, it’s not designed for that at all and I think people are over-reacting.

No company, or cop, or judge, is going to come after you and fine you 20K because you copied your own DVD’s to your own video players. The law is designed to prevent people from breaking these encryption schemes and selling that material for others.

What they need to add into the proposed additions is a clause that says something to the effect that, “circumvention of the DRM (encryption) is acceptable when the use of such methods is for personal use only”.

Simply translated, that if you own copyrighted work, you are legally allowed to use software/hardware to get around the encryption as long as you are using it for your own personal use. That’s it. Not a big deal.

Even if they don’t add that, any reasonable judge is not going to throw the book at you because you paid money for a song that you copied onto a device that you own. How many lawsuits of that kind have happened in the US? I’d dare anyone to show me one.