> which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched "torrent daft punk").
Not as difficult as this:
The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client development a criminal offense if the distributed software was used for infringement.
UDP is peer-to-peer technology, in every sense of the term (there's no implementation-level difference between the client and server). Is everyone who produces an implementation of UDP going to be in potential violation of this measure?
Either this thing's being massively exaggerated, the people who wrote the law have absolutely no understanding of communications technology, or (more likely) something in between.
> The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client
> development a criminal offense if the distributed
> software was used for infringement.
So if someone uses Skype voice or chat to coordinate the downloading and/or distribution of copyrighted material, could Skype have been 'used for infringement' (it's already a p2p app)? What about people peering Android and/or iOS devices together and sharing files?
I think other sources will be needed before anyone can pass a good judgment on this news.
Making the thought that leads to something criminal criminal, how does that prove you did do something criminal? or is the thought criminal? Searching for something illegal is criminal? I'm confused by this and I hope more details emerge.
In the DRM case. If by-passing DRM because criminal, well... I'll be in for some long time in jail. Using Linux to watch DVDs. This is by far the best example of victimless crime I know. Who did this cost any money too? Was the hack of subverting my computer illegal? That could lead to some interesting new ways to prosecute a person whenever needed.
As for copying, I don't condone it but whats a legal alternative that offers at least the minimum amount of freedom offered by the pirate option?
iTunes and Amazon MP3 proved that DRM wasn't required for good sales. They truly offer the freedom to use the media as you want. There not a lot of reasons to be pirating music anymore. Movies, that's another story.
This is also why my local ISP claims to have a "Three Strikes" policy regarding infringement complaints. Through scientific experimentation I've discovered they don't enforce this policy. The point of the little performance is to try to avoid having the law interpreted in a court, where evidence trumps accusation.
The idea is that the accusation alone will be a deterrent. It's bad leadership and it's out-side of the letter and spirit of the law.
Either this thing's being massively exaggerated, the people who wrote the law have absolutely no understanding of communications technology, or (more likely) something in between.