Yikes! Big win for the RIAA

[shmokes]

Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Grokster

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/06/grokster_stream.html

[TOK]

By the time they knock these things down, 5 more have popped up to replace it.

The Supreme Court has completely lost my faith with their recent vote on eminent domain.
What that basically means is that you can have your home condemned and turned over for private development. The true repercussions of this haven't been felt yet, but wait until some shore homes get bought out for development of casinos, etc.

This one could be ugly.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

They also ruled that cable companies do not have to open their broadband lines to competitors. So it's like "win-win" for big companies all around.

[markb]

Cigarrettes - legal
Alcohol - legal
Firearms - legal
Writing software that shares 1's & 0's - Illegal

 

[TOK]

Cigarrettes - legal
Alcohol - legal
Firearms - legal
Writing software that shares 1's & 0's - Illegal

 

That's no riddle... Which one isn't the government making extra tax money off of?

[fredster]

Cigarrettes - legal
Alcohol - legal
Firearms - legal
Writing software that shares 1's & 0's - Illegal

 

That's acutally

Cigarettes - Alchol - Firearms - Very good (I have all 3 and like them)

Stealing revenues from the owners of media - Stealing - Very Bad. 

[grueinthebox]

Isn't this the exact same issue that the Supreme Court has ruled the other way on a number of times in the past?  Has anyone heard any justification on why they would keep hearing the same case over and over again, or what basis on which they reversed their previous decisions?  Are we (we being large corporations) just allowed to keep bringing the same case before them over and over again until we get a decision we like now?

[Dartful Dodger]

Are we (we being large corporations) just allowed to keep bringing the same case before them over and over again until we get a decision we like now?

Yes.

We (we being, the small people) don't allow the same laws that have been around for thousands of years to go unchecked.

If you don't like it, move to France.

[fredster]

Are we (we being large corporations) just allowed to keep bringing the same case before them over and over again until we get a decision we like now?

Just like the Big Tobacco companies had the same suit over and over.  Microsoft's suit, etc.

[jbox]

Writing software that shares 1's & 0's - Illegal

We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

Writing software didn't get them nabbed. "Suggesting" people break the law with it did. In other words the local hardware store can sell you an axe, but only so long as the manager doesn't give you tips on which bases and acids work best for each part of the body. 

Forgetting about software, surely this wording has ramifactions for any dealer who sells a product in a legal configuration, but then provides 'kits' or other advice for configuring that device to be used in an illegal manner? Quick examples off the top of my head:
- semi/fully-automatic weapon conversions
- 'tricked' out car conversions
- illegal coloured light kits for cars (it is illegal to have blue/red lights here)
- hydroponics, drug equipment stores
- pyrotechnics hobby shops which provide 'recipies'
- and probably many, many others

I haven't read the whole ruling, but the summary puts a lot of effort into distinguishing how this case is different than the Sony case. Which they sum up as "dodgy things can be sold by reputable people, but not by weasels." 

EDIT: can't spell my own species name (weasal)

[shmokes]

The Supreme Court hears approximately 1% of the cases sent to them every year.  They have near absolute control over how many and which cases they hear per year and that number has been steadily shrinking.  The Rhenquist court hears about 60-90 cases a year.  More than 7000 appeals are made to the court every year.  For 99% of people in the appellate court system the federal circuit courts are the Supreme Court.  You do not have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court (though they have ruled that appealing to the Circuit Courts is a right).

[Thenasty]

actually

Cigarettes - Alchol - Firearms you can't donwload it 

1's and 0's you can 

[CCM]

Cigarrettes - legal
Alcohol - legal
Firearms - legal
Writing software that shares 1's & 0's - Illegal

 

Yea, but stealing Cigarrettes, Alcohol, and Firearms - Illegal...

[Sephroth57]

yeah but not EVERY song you can download is illegal. granted 99% are but it does have legitimate uses. just because you can use it to "steal" doesnt mean it should be banned. I can use cars to go around running people over, we should ban cars

[markb]

yeah but not EVERY song you can download is illegal. granted 99% are but it does have legitimate uses. just because you can use it to "steal" doesnt mean it should be banned. I can use cars to go around running people over, we should ban cars

Agreed, the only point I tried to make was that the people who wrote the software (unless they were actively promoting it to do so) should not be held accountable for how that software is used as it does have legitimate uses.

[fredster]

They make microphones and taperecorders, that doesn't mean you can use them to record people without telling them.

They make pencils, that doesn't mean you can use them to poke people in the eye.

They make aeresol cans with paint, that doesn't mean you can paint the side of somebody's car or huff the fumes.

They make credit card readers and printers, that doesn't mean you can use it to steal other people's money.

yeah but not EVERY song you can download is illegal. granted 99% are but it does have legitimate uses. just because you can use it to "steal" doesnt mean it should be banned. I can use cars to go around running people over, we should ban cars

This just covers the non-commercial file sharing software. Not the "legit" sites that sell it.  It's the file sharing software.

[shmokes]

Fred, your logic is getting a little muddy here.  Allow me to clear it up for you by adding this to your list:

They make non-commercial file sharing software; that doesn't mean that you can use it to steal other people's IP.


Your analogies are laughable.  If I record you without telling you, I am responsible -- not the makers of the microphone and taperecorders.

If I poke you in the eye with a pencil the state will bring criminal charges against me, not PaperMate.

The same applies to spray paint and credit card machines. 

You seem to be accidentally arguing the same point as everyone else, though you are trying your damnedest to disagree.  You're saying, "Don't go after a company that makes a useful product simply because it can be misued.  Go after the people who are misusing it."  You made the point with recording equipment, pencils, spray paint and CC machines.  The rest of us applying the same concept to filesharing. 

[fredster]

Your analogies are laughable. 

Yeah, whatever Chuckles.

I agree with you on this one though.  This logic crops up all the time.  It gets "muddy". This logic is also used for many cases in the courts and new laws.  IE:
Suing gun manufacturers for making guns that kill people, or bars getting sued for patrons having too much to drink.  To me, it's a matter of personal responsiblity as you point out.

The way I understand this ruling, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the file sharing service can be held responsible if the people using it are found to be transfering copyright material without paying the royalties.  Is that right?

The court believes that these sevices enable the file sharing to exist and they are therefore a party to it.  What else is it good for, when you get down to it.

This differs from ebay being responsible for providing a venue for scamers to take your money with fake auctions.

The rest of us applying the same concept to filesharing.

I say again, what else is that type of service really good for that can't be done with more conventional transfer methods? 

I don't download music, I have dial up and I don't like to spend 5 hours to download screwed up mp3's. 

If I poke you in the eye with a pencil the state will bring criminal charges against me, not PaperMate.

No, no need.  I'd take care of the situation personally using conventional methods of retaliation. 

[shmokes]

Chuckles?  I would lose that if I were you...

Any file that can be burned to a CD can be transferred over peer to peer.  I have personally burned thousands of MP3s to CD (one CD will hold well over 100), both for myself and to give to others.  Should the manufacturers of CD burners be held responsible for enabling this?  I personally download a lot of legal material over peer to peer and bit torrent.  I also download a lot of illegal stuff, but the question, "What else is it good for...?" has an obvious answer.  It's a useful and fast method of transferring files from one place to another and enabling file transfers between two people who probably don't know eachother, but one has a file that the other person needs.  It can transfer ANY type of file.  So answer to the question, "What can it be used for other than transferring illegal files," is obviously transferring legal files.

[fredster]

No, I think "Chuckles" suits you. I like it better than "shmokes" which makes sense only to probably you.

Again, I don't disagree with everything you say. 

Now, how many files that aren't MP3's/and or "legal" have you transferred using this file transfer protocol?

So answer to the question, "What can it be used for other than transferring illegal files," is obviously transferring legal files.

Very good paraphrasing.  Nice short answer. I like how you twist things out to look simplistic when they aren't.  You should get into something like politics.

But is it actually being used to transfer say excel files or word docs or pdf files? I dunno if Kazzaa would make much traffic doing that. 

Lets try another analogy.  I am the government. You have a boat. (and you are like say, Gilligan) and you transfer people back and forth from Mexico.  Legal transfers / tourists.  Should I hold you responsible if you transfer five illegal aliens (5) with one Legal resident (1) ; or the boat ; or both?

I think would would happen there is both. I would take the boat and put you in jail and deport the illegals.

While the software itself is innocuous, the actual use is supporting illegal activity, and the site that sets it up is responsible.

[shmokes]

Jesus....taking the boat WOULD be holding me responsible.  I am the owner of the boat.  The manufacturer doesn't give a crap if you take my boat.  That analogy is the same as all your others (read: awful). 

And yes.....a lot of MS Word and Excel files get transferred through P2P.  So do a lot of legal MP3s and AVIs.

[Sephroth57]

first off, fred you just hosed yourself there that analogy was totally wrong =P


second, lots of legal mp3s and other files, pictures, etc. circulate on there too. look at www.purevolume.com   a lot of bands put up 2-3 songs off their cd you can fully listen to off the site AND download mp3s of them right there. so those couple songs per band, are now legal. the whole arguement is stupid, its worse than the "make guns illegal and people will stop dieing" thing

[Patent Doc]

Let's not over analyze things here.  Jbox is right.  Basically the whole case turns on the fact that Grokster told people to use there software to infringe IP.  IMHO it is clear that had this not occurred, Grokster would have been fine b/c of the legitimate uses.  The more relevant question for this board is whether a truly legitimate use (in the eyes of the courts) of MAME exists.  IF so, are the numerous notices against illegal roms enough to protect mame? Or is this a case of being wilfully ignorant and therefore liable?  Incidently, this case does present an interesting turn of legal focus from the individual swapping files (RIAA) to the company enabling the infringement...mamedev team beware.

[jbox]

Let's not over analyze things here.

Shhh, I've just finished making my popcorn. 

the company enabling the infringement

And again, this isn't about *enabling* the infringement, it is about *encouraging* it. The boat manufactor becomes liable the moment they start selling boats with secret compartments specifically designed to thwart detection. Look, if the P2P song stealers all went home then Grokster would have gone bankrupt. If all the warez fanboys went home, the MAME devs would probably find the silence very weird at first, probably lose a couple of coders, and then simply continue what they were doing any way. Their action to not allow the most recent games is a good example of the specific behaviour the court was interested in. 

And, because we're already cutting up the rabbits pretty thinly: an "illegal file" would be a file which is illegal to create (eg. an unsanctioned derivative work). An "illegally obtained file" is one which is legal to create, but it is not legal for you to possess it (eg. stealing the deed to my house).

[fredster]

Ok, granted, not a good analogy. How about this one:  You have a bar.  That's legal.  In this bar you serve alcohol to people of legal age. Again, Legit.  Now, you also allow people to smoke crack, and you let people underage in to drink.

Now is that a better analogy?  The bar would be closed and the owners held responsible.  However, not every doper and underage drinker would have been caught.

Better?

[shmokes]

Well...not much better.  It's still the bar owners who are breaking the law who are being punished, not to mention that anybody in possession of crack or paraphernalia (sp?) will be punished as well.  I don't know why this is so difficult.  If Grokster was taking actions that had no purpose other than to promote the download of illegal files specifically that's one thing.  But simply enabling people to break the law is not a crime.  There are perfectly good analogies all over the place.  Car manufacturers build cars that can drive over the speed limit.  CD burners allow you to duplicate copyrighted media.  VCR's and DVD Recorders allow you to copy movies you rent from the video store.  McDonalds creates food that makes you fat. 

If a person who delivers a product with useful,  legitimate uses, it probably does more harm than good to hold that person responsible when other people use it irresponsibly.  I don't believe this across the board.  If Grokster was actually encouraging its customers to use its product illegally than it probably should be held responsible, just like a doctor should be held responsible if he is prescribing drugs to someone to feed a habit or to sell on the street.  Even if Grokster WAS encouraging this and does deserve to be held liable, the ruling still makes me very sad because it sets a new precedent in the war on P2P (RIAA) and is going to open the floodgates for lawsuits against other services.  These lawsuits are often nothing more than a tactic to put people out of business who can't afford to defend themselves against behemoths like the RIAA.   They cannot continue to bring lawsuit after lawsuit when they keep losing or the courts they will be countersued for bringing frivolous lawsuits for just that purpose.  But now, they will sue everyone all over again claiming that all of their cases resemble the Grokster case.

[Dartful Dodger]

If a person who delivers a product with useful,

[shmokes]

Nice try gun boy.

[Patent Doc]

And again, this isn't about *enabling* the infringement, it is about *encouraging* it.

Damn, knew I should've reviewed what I typed.  You got me...totally didn't mean "enable" (patent world creeps in again).  Oh well, I got the beer...pass the popcorn. 

[elvis]

That's acutally

Cigarettes - Alchol - Firearms - Very good (I have all 3 and like them)

Stealing revenues from the owners of media - Stealing - Very Bad. 

"Stealing" requires removing an object from someone's possession.  Copying files creates another instance of data, and is not stealing.

Secondly, this "poor starving artists" crap is old.  The media is filled with rich bratty pop idols wasting their money on booze and drugs thanks to their overnight stardom.  While they're busy snorting yet another line of coke up their noses, 60% of this planet doesn't have enough money to feed themselves the bare minimum to stay alive.

Flaunting rampant gluttony and decadence while half the world starves is a crime.  Making a digital copy of a file that you'd not pay for otherwise (therefor not removing money from said creator's pockets, as some would claim) is not.

Copyright was invented by Americans to convince inventors to SHARE their ideas with others and continue the PROGRESS of the nation.  Today, it is abused by the rich and powerful to punish the poor for not giving their hard earned dollars to the rich, and stifle any and all fair progress and competition.

The world needs to step up and take a good look at itself.  We live in a time of excess and waste, yet more people "have not" than "have".  This planet is a joke, and the people living on it are happy to turn a blind eye to their neighbour and concentrate only on what makes them rich for one generation, rather than happy for the eternity of man.

Call me a stinking hippy if you like, but it makes me physically ill to know there are children in this world who are born into such abject and choiceless poverty, and have no power to even feed themselves and their families, let alone make the effort to turn their countries around and build a stronger nation.  Too many people take for granted that they where lucky enough to be born into a wealthy nation that hand-fed them opportunities from birth.

The RIAA and MPAA are bad to the core.  They steal more money from artists than any piracy ring could even dream of, and hide behind the legal "rights" of publishers to do as they please with peoples lives, wealth and contracts.  The whole thing is a farce, and it blows me away how few people can even begin to comprehend the complete BS that goes on in their own back yard.

</rant>

[jbox]

"Stealing" requires removing an object from someone's possession.

While I agree to the strict semantics, it's difficult to have a serious discussion with people over espionage. For some reason they always seem to suddenly start to Tango.

Copyright was invented by Americans

The RIAA and MPAA are bad to the core.

One very simple question for you: if this whole system is so evil, why would you want to participate in it in *any* way what-so-ever? Surely forming a parasitical relationship with a corrupt entity is not as productive as working towards a better alternative? 

[elvis]

One very simple question for you: if this whole system is so evil, why would you want to participate in it in *any* way what-so-ever? Surely forming a parasitical relationship with a corrupt entity is not as productive as working towards a better alternative? 

I do not participate in anything to do with the RIAA.  I don't purchase music, nor pirate it.  I'm happy to live an existence free from crappy pop culture and premanufactured shite music.  And even if I did enjoy it, I'd be content not wasting my hard earned dollars giving money to decadent drug-abusing rock and pop stars.  There are far better things (and needier people) to give my money to in this world.

I do not pirate music, nor movies.  While I don't consider the digital distribution of entertainment media *illegal* per se (certainly not compared to some of the blatant crime that occurs every day in business), I certainly do not participate in such a thing.  You've made yourself one almighty conclusive leap there, my friend.

And for the record, I'm an Australian.  I live in a country that up until recently has been relatively free of draconian US-style "kick down your door with gun in hand" copyright enforcement.  But sadly, our government here has taken a turn for the worse, and begun free trade negotiations with the US.  Something that will cripple our pharmecutical and software industries (plus many, many others) if it goes ahead (which it looks like it inevitably will, much to the disgust of the majority of Australians).  To date our leaders have been intelligent enough to avoid the DMCA like the plague, but I fear in a rampant desire to kiss Bush's arse, that might not last either.

Again, copyright was brought about in an attempt to help inventors be more confortable with bringing their ideas out in public.  It was a way of preventing others stealing the ideas and profiting from it before the original and legal inventor had a chance to put a particular thing into production.

Fast forward a few hundred years, and we are in an era where all the ideas are owned by the people with the biggest bank balance.  And with great wealth comes great corruption.  60% of all music piracy in the United States today is done by organised crime.  Not the knee-cap whacking crimelords of yesteryear, but the intelligent and organised bootlegging communities who keep tidy profits from their efforts.  Yet the RIAA and MPAA are much happier to put the heat on students and grandmas then they are puttig their efforts towards legitimate means of tackling real media-based crime head on.

Beyond that, the world is screaming for legal digital distribution.  As of a few weeks back, Apple announced that there are now more people downloading and paying for music via iTunes than there are people pirating the same songs.  If it's easier to pay than steal, people will pay.  That was Steve Jobs' motto from the beginning, and he's stuck with it.

Meanwhile, the RIAA have sat on their fat arses for half a generation, and ignored the digital world.  Instead of innovating and moving forward like everyone else, they've sat back and sued everyone who decides that copying a CD is easier than buying one.  They well and truly missed the digital-music boat, and instead of admitting to their mistakes, they intend to make life painful for anyone who wants to move forwards.

Beyond that, the world is facing even greater issues with copyright.  The EU is *STILL* considering software patents despite the ECONOMIC MAJORITY opposing them.  And imposed (not elected) office being bribed by the wealthy few is trying to further impose laws that will harm the many.  If software patents go ahead, gadget creators like Apple and their iPod will most likely face the reality of paying huge sums of money to existing patent holders for the technologies embedded in their devices.  This in turn means higher prices for production, which translates to money out of the consumer's pockets.  People like the RIAA who run around buying patent rights get nice and fat, while the people doing all the hard work and INVENTING the technologies get a kick in the bum.  Between you and I, it's a total reversal of what copyright was intended to do.

I say again: theft means removing something physically from someone's possession.  Theft of something as intangible as an *idea* is a terribly difficult thing to prove.  Communication is the essence of humanity.  No other creature on earth has the power we do to accurately communicate such advanced and abstract concepts to another of it's kind.  Culminations of ideas are what has brought the human race to where it is today.  Yet the laws that originally intended to protect this process are now being abused to halt this progress so that no-one can AFFORD to become greater than the current corporate leaders such as the RIAA, MPAA, and publishers who are all quite frankly leeches and money shufflers for the real hard workers, who end up with a meanial percentage instead of their fair share.

And beyond all of that, ignoring the semantics and political BS, I can't for the life of me figure out why people want to waste so much time on that crap when, as I mentioned before, we are talking about people who own MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS of dollars and we're crying that THEY are losing money?  It takes US$16 to clothe and educate an African child for an entire year.  Sixteen who dollars for an entire year.  That's less than 5 cents a day.  Now there's something worthy of media attention, and not some pop idol's latest drug habit or boob job.  And there's something worth the money, not some overpriced CD.  And those are some real financial figures, not the rubbish "losses" claimed by the RIAA due to piracy every year, despite always making more profits than the year previous.

The world has gone mad with greed and gluttony.  It disgusts me.

[jbox]

copyright was brought about in an attempt to help inventors be more confortable with bringing their ideas out in public

Actually, no it wasn't. This notion of the starving artist/inventor being our great^n grandparents foremost concern is a modern romantacism of history, since sedition and money have/are by far the dominating aspects of 'copyright' style legislation throughout history.    You should be careful not to confuse copyright, patent and trademark laws. While they are often collectively called "intellectual property", they are very different both in the nature in which they operate and the issues they may or may not have been designed to address. Not only that, but this case has absolutely nothing to do with an artist involved in legal action against a publisher. It has to do with a company that does not produce any new media attempting to make money off of 'hooking' you up with a guy who knows a guy who can get you some free stuff.

To save time let me point out I'm not arguing with any of the following points:
(a) the RIAA/MPAA makes a stack of cash
(b) their business plan probably has nothing to do with "ethical"
(c) 1st world citizens should be grateful for the right/chance to whinge
(d) the world can be disgusting
(e) riches tend to be dehumanizing
(f) keeping all the drugs for themselves is not very cool
(g) successful businesses tend to think of other business models as a threat
(h) digital media will *eventually* (say 50-100yrs) replace all tactile media
(i) richer countries have a duty-of-care to assist in the development of the diversification and industrialisation of currently destitute countries

What I don't agree with:
(i) people shouldn't be ashamed of wanting entertainment, so long as it is fully consensual and between legally independent entities
(ii) money is not the root of all evil, but a cliche in the hand is worth two on the wing
(iii) the purpose of theft is usually laziness, so while not semantically perfect the notion that unauthorized copying is related to theft is not always counter-productive
(iv) why re-invent the wheel?
(v) I have the right not to share my product, provided you have the right to not help me build it (ie. university = GPL, V.C. = whatever)
(vi) blame the half of australia that voted coalition for being stupid, not the coalition for trying to represent those voters by doing what it thinks is right
(vii) there is no point (vii)
(viii) all charity is not necessarily good charity
(ix) this is rapidly going OT from a discussion about whether it should be legal for someone to *encourage* illegal activity, even if you believe that 100 years from now that activity will no longer be illegal. Your right to disagree with me does not extend to you giving icecream to the neighbourhood kids in return for spray painting my fence, even though you know 100 years from now I wont be living there.

[hanelyp]

If grokster has directly encouraged piracy, it should under law be slapped down.  What I wonder is:
How well have allegations of inducement have been established?
Has the lower court given hearing to those allegations, and were they even brought up before appeals?

[elvis]

(vi) blame the half of australia that voted coalition for being stupid, not the coalition for trying to represent those voters by doing what it thinks is right

Yes, I'll blame the population who were romanced into thinking that this government would grossly reduce interest rates, and didn't have a bloody clue about anything else other than a blatant false advertising campaign.  Sadly, the Free Trade Agreement wasn't even a blip on the radar for the average Australian.  And Mr Howard is far more interested in gaining brownie points with the US than he is with looking after the long-term future of his own people.  Spineless, gutless, and completely void of ANY forward thinking.  But who am I kidding?  He's a politician, and therefor all of the above by definition.

But in any event, fault doesn't lie entirely on the shoulders of the Australian people.  Part of the fault lies with the party who spread the blatant mistruths about their intentions in the first place.  Sure, one could argue all politicians lie, but that makes democracy nothing more than a lottery if it's really the case.

(viii) all charity is not necessarily good charity

Amen to that.  There are evil people everywhere.  Always be weary of who you give your dollars to, wether they fly the flag of the corporates *OR* the charities, it makes no difference.  Research first, then spend.

(ix) this is rapidly going OT from a discussion about whether it should be legal for someone to *encourage* illegal activity, even if you believe that 100 years from now that activity will no longer be illegal. Your right to disagree with me does not extend to you giving icecream to the neighbourhood kids in return for spray painting my fence, even though you know 100 years from now I wont be living there.

Once more, *I* am not participating in any of the above.  While I don't particularly agre with the methods of the RIAA and their "gun-in-hand" enforcement of copyright issues against students and grandmas, I certainly don't participate in any of the above out of principle.

And furthermore, me "spraypainting your fence" is still a modification of a physical entity.  An MP3 on someone's hard disk is not a physical thing.  It is very virtual, and very intangible.  People seem unable to grasp the difference, which is why all of our modern copyright laws are failing so miserably.

On topic: Should someone ENCOURAGE file copying?  No.  But does NOT DISCOURAGING it mean the same thing?  Certainly not.  There are so many shades of grey in this world.  Don't consider someone like myself saying "copying software should not be illegal" to mean "go out and steal it all, my pretties".

The far left exist only to draw the far right closer to the middle.  People like me (and Grokster) would not be saying what we say if the Draconian minority did not rule the relatively friendly majority.  Copyright law, patent law, and IP law is old and broken and needs to be changed.  Unfortunately for us, while our technological industries double every 18 months, our legal industries like to hold on to 200 year old laws, and incorrectly try to stick them to new ideas and technology.  Some call it "legacy", some call it "tradition".  I prefer to call it "lawyers running scared because they might actually have to do some work to earn a dollar, therefor frightening off ANYONE who dares affect the status quo".  But I'm cynical like that.

Square peg in a round hole.  Stop trying to change the hole, and lets get us some better-fitting pegs.

[elvis]

And on an related note to the topic:

This victory gives the RIAA fodder to push for anything that they deem as 'creating software or devices capable of copyright infringment illegal'.

"Hooray for kicking the evil pirates in the bum!" the world says.

Oh wait, where have all the CD and DVD burners gone?  Oh... they are capable of copyright infringment, and therefor being stripped from retailer's shelves.  But I was only making home movies of the kids?  Too bad... you *MIGHT* have used it to pirate a movie or music album.

Why can't I buy an iPod any more?  See above.

Why can't I copy *PRIVATE* files from my hard disk at work to my hard disk at home without signing an EULA from some third-party legal group?  Oh, that might mean I was really pirating, and not doing legitimate work.  But it really was work related?  Too bad... it *MIGHT* have been used to copy copyright material.

Why is it that I can't load an operating system on my hard disk without connecting to the internet every week to prove I own software I legitmately bought, or that free software no longer works on modern hardware despite being open-source and binary distributable by it's own license?  Oh, laws have been passed that assume everyone is a criminal first, and an honest citizen second.  But the software is mine!  I have a receipt, a serial number, and activation key.  And some of it is freely and legally downloadable from the internet under free-software licenses?  Too bad... 5% of the world pirates our stuff, so the other 95% need to abide by these laws too.

http://www.againsttcpa.com/

This is the direction our world is heading.  Again, I don't condone piracy, but there are methods that we can use to reduce it without enforcing laws on the entire world that assume every person is a potential criminal, and needs to be monitored electronically 24/7.

I see US journalists and political and technology leaders constantly criticise the Chinese government for their "big brother" approach to dealing with their own internet-using citizens.  It's a shame the American people can't see their own corporates trying to impose exactly the same style of laws on them.

Forward thinking, kids.

[EDIT]

MadPenguin article on the issue, and its implications, aswell as interview with the EFF Exec Director:

http://www.madpenguin.org/cms/html/62/4619.html