Attached Link: http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/021003/1642000664_1.html

Nice to see that not every US politician is in the pocket of the RIAA.

Besser ist das. ;)

It's a good thing to hear for college students like me, I can barely afford all this ridiculously priced software.

It's about time. Those RIAA mobsters need to be brought down a notch or two. I've been dwelling a lot on the way corporate greed has blazed through the digital world -- even here in the 3D community. I'm not liking the trends I'm seeing with DAZ and CL. Overblown protection schemes, buggy software and websites, Uber Hype -- sound familiar?

Sounds very vague to me. This sounds like its opening the door for software pirates and limiting the rights for intellectual property holders including graphic artists. What happened to the days when a copyright meant something? I'm a college student (40+ years old) too, but we can get 3D Studio Max (full version) for $475 as opposed to $4,000. Not that I have the money either, but bootleg software just isn't my thing. Legitimate users pay in the end like we're all doing with Poser 5 and the protection scheme. We have the Warez "elite" and college hackers to thank for that!

Yeah, but... The Cracked version of Poser is already available. So all this registration pain actually protected Poser for around 336 hours. From here on out the copy protection is just a torture scheme for the legit customers. The wAREZ kIDZ don't need to bother with registration or activation. They just run the crack. The better road to piracy protection it so provide value added services to your legit customers that is not available to ripped off serial numbers. This will motivate people to get the real version. That is the way I choose to protect my products.
Just My $.02

I agree with Doc. Of course, I almost ALWAYS agree with him...hehe. As to the artists here...I'll play teh devil's advocate a bit. Not the greatest analogy but a possible one. Let's suppose I create a personal website. Let's suppose I gather a bunch of pics from the galleries and post them on my website. My personal site. A site that has plenty of other stuff that MAKES it a personal site. Then let's suppose I post a Pay-Pal thingy or link up with Amazon for easy pay. And then post a message saying, "If you enjoyed my website, please help keep it up with a donation." Would someone be able to sue me for "theft"?

Chuck, [Note to lurkers: this IS a hypothetical case] If you took one of my images and posted it without my permission, you are damned right, it would be theft. Since I've been selling my images professionally since 1969, and supporting myself solely from my art since '87 or so, you would probably be causing economic damage, to the point where calling in my lawyer would be worthwhile. Whether you make any money is totally irrelevant. Intent is relevant, and by deliberately taking that which is not yours and installing it in your gallery, you have demonstrated bad intent. Under Civil Law, it would probably be "conversion": taking that which doesn't belong to you and selling it as though it is yours. (It has been 25 years since I've been in law school, and the brain is rusty.) If Copyright Law is weakened and bled to death, there are various actions under the umbrella of torts so that a damaged plaintiff can find some way to recover her losses. The preferred court would be under Copyright Law. It has specific rules and specific remedies. A further note... before you or anybody else thinks to steal images in such a fashion. Often we do art for companies and sign over all rights to them, reserving the right to exhibit portfolio copies. For example, I can show the work I created for Electronic Arts, including the cancelled projects (I've got signed letters), as long as each piece has (c)EA on it. Suppose I have some nice character sketches up on my site and you swipe them. You wouldn't be dealing with my lawyer. You'd be dealing with... you guessed it... their lawyer. Maybe it's because I'm a developer and most of my friends are developers, but there is just too much hard work and long hours in these projects. I've burned out twice now from working around the clock (but no more). Software development is labor intensive. I respect that. It is worth paying for a legal copy to ensure that development continues. Carolly

hauksdottir, I agree with you, but it's good to see that a democrat and a republican can agree on something even if I disagree with them about what they're agreeing on. - TJ (bikermouse)

And, as long as this IS a theorhetical case (meaning, I would NEVER do anything like that) to discuss the proposed law change, would I (or anyone who did something like that) be vulnerable to a court? Without knowing the specifics of what is being proposed, it's kind of scary.

It must be stated, as this point seems to have been missed, that this is restoring rights back to the conusmers that the DCMA had previously taken away; by using vague and ambiguous language.

It is not giving consumers any more rights than they had previously with other copyright protected materials.