July 27th, 2010 | Author: J.W. Watts
Good afternoon cubicle monkeys…
As I’m sure most of you are aware, the whole of the internet is a-buzz with the news of the recent additions/changes to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act handed down by the U.S. Copyright Office. For a majority of people out there, namely the average consumers, this news is little to get excited about. However, for the rest of us this is a LANDMARK decision which is why it’s spreading like wildfire across the digital plains.
Most of the news outlets are focusing on just one of the changes added to the DMCA, which is the one that states cellular/smart phones can be legally “jailbroken” in order to run unapproved software or applications. This is just the very tip of the iceberg in the changes that were implemented and to be perfectly honest I think they are focusing on it just to rub Steve Jobs and Apples’ noses in it. Of course the Apple PR machine has already spoken out against the changes stating they will “smite thine warranty if thou dost jailbreak thine iPhone” as decreed by the almighty Jobs.
Let’s take a look at each of the changes. (Linked to CrunchGear.com for credit.)
Ok, so #1 up there is going to have the MPAA quaking in their boots. I for one see a whole slew of “movie review” sites popping up with file sharers and rippers at the helms justifying their actions as providing or obtaining copyrighted works for the purposes of “criticism” or “educational” use. That being said, the current lawsuit against uploaders/downloaders for The Hurt Locker should take an interesting turn.
#2 and #3 are both of the obvious variety, and I’m willing to bet they are really chapping Apple and AT&T’s asses right about now. Now you can legally jailbreak and unlock your iPhone and take it to whatever carrier that can support it’s connectivity protocols. Welcome aboard the consumer train Apple and AT&T, check your TOS and exclusivity agreements at the door. Obviously being an iPhone owner, this is a big one for me.
#4 dives into somewhat of a gray area. Most of the games out there that pose any sort of security risk are games that have been pirated and cracked. Back doors, trojans, keystroke loggers, malware, you name it. However I can see the growing need for testing of games in these areas as gaming becomes more and more popular across all platforms. Online gaming networks such as Steam, Xbox Live, and many others are continuing to build up a hefty amount of user data on both sides of the privacy fence. Personally I look to online gaming communities to be the next big target for online scammers, phishers, and ID thieves.
#5 is more or less going to be looked at as something that’s been done for years by the IT/IS crowds but never had a legal ground to stand on. The practice is passe as in most cases if the dongles become obsolete, chances are the hardware and software running them is as well and all are summarily dismissed after their tour of duty. However there are those cases in which a virus or a hardware failure has occurred and critical data is at stake, at which point the only way to get to the data is by circumventing the securities that were put in place to protect it. Don’t confuse “hacking” with “forensics”.
#6 came as little shock. Technology is here to help us in our daily lives, all of us. Those with disabilities should be the first to benefit from new technologies IMHO. What was a shock was that eBooks were actually distributed with this option locked out by default leaving the sight impaired unable to access the eBooks they had purchased on their eReaders/computers. And yes, you can thank the RIAA for that one as well. This one sparked a huge amount of outrage when Amazon eBooks were found to have the option locked out which was actually put in place by the RIAA with the authors consent, Amazon took flack for allowing them to be sold that way.
So all in all, there are going to be a lot of changes coming down the pike, and I would imagine a few lawsuits revisited as well. As with any change of this type there will be challengers on both sides and going forward the courts will further define the terms of the changes. For now at least, we can count these changes as a win for consumers and consumer rights.
Posted in News - General