Thought for the day, Digital Copyright Act.

[thingy]

I have not researched this at all, so please point out any obvious flaws. My only knowledge on the subject is from the mass media, reading up news about it being introduced and utilised. I am talking here about the copyright act, which allows copyright holders to do activities that would be otherwise illegal.

This came about through the American music and movie industries abusing their co-operative monopolistic powers, money and influence so they had a way to screw the public more than they have been for the last 10+ years. So why has this new act only been abused by them so far? Why haven't any virus writers, spammers, and hackers abused it yet?

The friendgreet worm didn't break any laws. It simply encouraged people to click onto a link which took them to a website, and downloaded the program. It had its own terms of service / end user license agreement which clearly pointed out what it did, if people clicked on "yes" without reading it, it installed itself and emailed itself out to others on their contact list. Because of the TOS/EULA, there were no laws being broken by it.

My thought this day, is what is stopping someone from doing something similar, but in the TOS/EULA also state a copyright on the code or what the program does in a way that, say, if they don't uninstall it within an hour it violates the TOS/EULA? Would that not give them free reign to hack into these peoples computers and "search for their program"?

What protection in this act is there against these companies accessing other information on someone's computer too. Say the RIAA hacked into my computer and started searching my drives. If I had renamed a copyright document to have a .mp3 extension and they grabbed it to analise, could I then hack into their computer system legally? It's open to a world of abuse.

Thoughts? Corrections on my assumptions here? Abuse?

[SmaSheD_CoW]

Originally posted by thingy
What protection in this act is there against these companies accessing other information on someone's computer too. Say the RIAA hacked into my computer and started searching my drives. If I had renamed a copyright document to have a .mp3 extension and they grabbed it to analise, could I then hack into their computer system legally? It's open to a world of abuse.

Thoughts? Corrections on my assumptions here? Abuse? [/B]

Like you, I haven't gone through and read the act fully yet, I just know what I've heard/read around the place. I think your assumption about being able to legitimately hack each other is wrong. From what I've read, the RIAA (or any copyright holder) has NOT been given the right to hack people's computers to see what's on them.

They DO have the right to use programs like Kazaa and use various methods to find out who has been downloading/sharing their copyrighted material. For example, one of the techniques they revealed a day or two ago was to examine the hashing of mp3 files they'd downloaded to reveal who had been sharing it. (I'm probably wrong on the technical details here - didn't bother reading the article fully). My understanding is that they basically have a right to use various methods to see who's violating their copyright, but that right doesn't extend to hacking into other people's computers.

If they want to find out what's on somebody's computer, they have to take them to court and file a subpoena to have the contents of the computer examined.

[Maestro]

Originally posted by thingy
My thought this day, is what is stopping someone from doing something similar, but in the TOS/EULA also state a copyright on the code or what the program does in a way that, say, if they don't uninstall it within an hour it violates the TOS/EULA? Would that not give them free reign to hack into these peoples computers and "search for their program"?My initial reaction is that the terms of the contract (TOS/EULA) are unlikely to be enforceable (or, technically, will become "voidable" by virtue of a Court's equitable jurisdiction) if they are set up for the sole purpose of making an otherwise illegal action legal.

Originally posted by SmaSheD_CoW
I haven't gone through and read the act fully yetNo shit. :p
The latest consolidated copy is 478 pages long (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/244/pdf/Copyright68.pdf), and the amendments since consolidation add another page at least. Unless you're a Copyright lawyer, it's far too long to read all the way through - the ending is predictable and the characters drab and boring.

Having read the relevant parts, though, you're right about it not allowing them to hack other people's computers. The only remedies that the Copyright Act appears to confer is to different types of court action.

If, in Australian law, there is a right for non-Government to gain access to other people's computers without their permission, firstly, I'd be very surprised, and secondly, it would probably be in the Privacy Act, which I am definitely NOT about to look through. :p