[Infowarrior] - LA Times: We aren't all pirates

[Richard Forno]

(this, from the newspaper "of Hollywood"......rf)

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-piracy10jul10,0,2000938
.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

We aren't all pirates
Anti-piracy proposals before Congress could limit innovation and legal uses
of technology.
July 10, 2006

THE INTERNET AND DIGITAL technology have been both a blessing and a curse
for the entertainment industry, opening new opportunities for selling music
and video but also fueling rampant global piracy.

To attack the latter problem, industry lobbyists are pressing Congress to
adopt at least five different proposals that would give them more control
over their works as they flow through new digital pipelines into living
rooms and portable devices. But these measures, like the technologies they
would affect, have a hard time distinguishing between illicit actions and
legitimate ones.

The bills would pressure device makers and service providers to limit or
eliminate features from some products, such as the ability to record
individual songs off satellite radio. In essence, tech companies would have
to alter what they are selling to safeguard the entertainment industry's
wares.

Protecting intellectual property is a legitimate goal for Congress ‹ after
all, the Constitution called on Congress to give authors and inventors
exclusive rights "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." The
task has grown more urgent with the emergence of an Internet-fueled global
information economy. But what the entertainment industry is seeking in this
year's proposals isn't merely protection from piracy; it's after increased
leverage to protect its business models.

That's why lawmakers must bear in mind the balance needed between copyright
holders' interests and the public's, something Congress has not done well
lately. In 1998, it gave copyright holders broad power to block legitimate
uses of works, even those in the public domain, through the use of
electronic locks that impede copying of digital products. And that same
year, it prolonged the public domain's starvation diet by extending
copyrights an additional 20 years, to 70 years beyond the death of the
creator.

The movie and music industries have similar interests, but their agendas
this year are distinct. The major studios want to alter digital TV
receivers, recorders and home networks to stop shows from being
redistributed indiscriminately online ‹ a proposal that has won grudging
support from some consumer-electronics and high-tech firms. They also want
to redesign computers, set-top boxes and other products to ensure that the
limits placed on digital videos are not removed when the data are converted
from digital to analog. This approach could deter people from making a
permanent copy of a pay-per-view movie, but it also could make it hard for
digital movie buyers to create backup copies or transfer videos to portable
players.

The music industry, meanwhile, is focusing its fire on satellite and digital
radio services that make it easy for listeners to record and save individual
songs. Those recorders don't fuel piracy, given that federal law already
requires them to include a form of anti-piracy technology. Instead, a more
immediate effect of the industry-backed proposals would be to give labels
and music publishers more control over listeners' ability to record
broadcasts, while helping them collect more money from XM, Sirius and other
digital music businesses.

Clearly, the industry-backed proposals would do more than just defend
copyrighted works from pirates. They also would impinge on devices that have
legitimate uses and steer the development of technology, cutting off some
innovation. As they weigh the entertainment industry's pleas, lawmakers
shouldn't assume all consumers are bootleggers and every digital device is a
hand grenade aimed at Hollywood.