Quote:
Originally posted by Tobiasly
The bill you're referring to, if I'm not mistaken, was defeated. It would have required any device capable of playing digital audio to have anti-piracy hardware. There was a big deal made over how it was way too broad, covering everything from MP3 players to computers to those flapping, singing fish.
|
Ah. That's a relief, but there's no reason they can't try again with a slightly different approach.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tobiasly
Hatch is asking about whether it's feasible to write software that would somehow remotely destroy a computer.
|
Well, if the word "destroy" is used broadly enough to include destoying software and the OS, then this is extremely feasible. If it refers to hardware, then naturally it's impossible without the cooperation of hardware manufacturers, which won't happen witout legislation.
It's just discouraging to think that people with such moronic ideas are the ones who are making laws which can so dramatically affect our lives. I mean, a company having no liability for destroying a user's computer because that company
suspected that the user was swapping illegal music files? Automatic presumption of guilt?
Maybe next the MPAA will want to be free from liabilty if they set someone's house on fire when that person is suspected of letting friends come over and watch the MPAA's intellectual property, when those friends haven't explicitly purchased the right to see it.
It's bad enough that it's 2003 and we don't have flying cars yet, now this. What a shit sandwich.