New media laws could mean jail for ordinary users

Jacob Aron, technology reporter
16:30 3 June 2011

Regulating the internet is no easy task, as a recent string of technology-related bills proposed by US legislators shows. Poor wording and a lack of understanding of the underlying technology could put ordinary internet users at risk of breaking the law - even though supporters of the new bills say they wouldn't be targeted.

One bill, put forward by Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons, aims to make it a crime to stream copyrighted material, but as Techdirt points out, the wording of the bill as it currently stands could make simply embedding a YouTube video an illegal act.

The bill is intended to target streaming websites that provide entire movies for free, but uses the phrase "public performance by electronic means" without clearly defining it. Is embedding a video a performance? It's an important question, because the bill also imposes a jail term of up to five years for ten such "performances".

Another bill, recently signed into law by the governor of Tennessee, makes it illegal to share your password for media streaming services such as Netflix or Hulu. Anyone who allows friends or families to use their login details to access these services could potentially face a one-year jail sentence and a $2500 fine for stealing media worth $500 or less.

The new law updates existing legislation that makes it illegal to use services such as cable television or restaurants without paying, updating the wording to include "entertainment subscription services", but it seems Netflix doesn't see the need for such an update. The compoany told MediaBeat:

Netflix applauds any efforts to stave off video piracy... However, Netflix already has provisions in its Terms of Use that restrict passwords to the member's household.

These flawed bills come shortly after the proposal of the controversial Protect IP Act, which would give the US Department of Justice the power to block non-US websites hosting copyright-infringing material. The Act would also require search engines to remove links to such sites.

Google's chaiman, Eric Schmidt, has spoken out against the bill, saying it "sets a very bad precedent".

Copyright bill could digitally lock us all

By Rory McGreal, Calgary Herald June 13, 2010

Do you see what I see in the new copyright Bill C-32? Amid all the noise about new rights for users, upon closer scrutiny, this bill, rather than granting new rights, can effectively block users from making use of any and all of their rights, even existing ones. It is true that this bill now recognizes rights that we all thought we already had, like viewing our legally purchased Irish video in Canada, or playing our Leonard Cohen song on our CD and copying it to our iPod, or watching Desperate Housewives on Monday instead of Sunday evening. But even the new rights granted to teachers to use excerpts from Catcher in the Rye or clips from the Anne of Green Gables television show are meaningless if vendors choose to use a digital lock.

For parents who would wish to cut exorbitantly aggressive, anti-religious or sexual content from a video, this option is now closed because of digital locks. Systems operators who suspect inappropriate use of the system such as viewing child pornography will not be allowed to break any locks that the pornographer applies to his content. Nor would the systems supervisor have the right to own the software that would break the lock.

Does anyone doubt that vendors will apply the digital locks or TPMs (Technological Protection Measures)? If they do, the tourist who legally bought a Boondock Saints DVD abroad will no longer be able to play it when he returns home. You can forget about playing your CD music on your MP3 player. And you will be able to only dream of the days when you could time-shift your television shows.

Well, at least we should still be able to back up our work for protection, right? Sorry, this will not be possible if the vendor decides to add a digital lock. If you think you can freely read classical books and view the old movies that are in the public domain, think again. Vendors can lock them up and render them accessible only to paying customers. What if you want to play a DVD on your machine, but don't use MS Windows? Too bad if the vendor decides to limit your use to Windows because using decryption software to play your legal copy on your computer will be illegal.

If you are a student, teacher or school principal, it is even worse. You must destroy what you paid for within 30 days of the final exam, even if it is a Biology I module that just might be useful when you are studying or teaching Biology II. If you are a researcher, you must make paper copies of all your documents and destroy the digital copies within five days. Libraries too will be severely restricted in their abilities to archive valuable historical documents that are locked. Our cultural heritage will be at risk.

These situations are really possible. If digital lock supporters feel they are unlikely, that's the point. The bill is omnibus and universal, prohibiting all manner of reasonable activities whether they are likely or far-fetched. So, what would be a balanced and reasonable solution? Certainly creators and publishers have every right to protect their "intellectual property" using locks. On the other hand, the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled heavily in favour of the rights of users to make fair use of the copies that they pay for. So, with digital locks come digital responsibilities. Vendors cannot be allowed to protect their rights by taking away users' rights.

There must be a way of ensuring that locks can be bypassed for any legal purposes in a timely manner. The bill needs to be fixed to allow these uses, otherwise it is not worth the paper or digital media that it is printed or programmed on.