Clear up the vagueness now
The New York Times reports: Robotic Dogs and Singing Fish in Cross Hairs. A Princeton professor thinks that the definition of a "digital media device" in the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act is too vague.
Edward Felton, an associate professor of computer science at Princeton suggests that the current language would require device makers to build DRM technology into the simplest products, like that awful singing bass.
The definition of a "digital media device" in Mr. Hollings's Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act is so vague, Mr. Felten said, that the legislation would require manufacturers to build copy-protection systems into products that pose very little threat to the entertainment industry.
Rather than wait to litigate what needs to be protected later, the strategy here is to demand far more precision in what the Hollings bill will require to be protected by some form of DRM. Anyone who works with any form of media will need to be concerned about this and a flood of letters from worried business people could have a huge impact on the final definition of what must be protected.Posted by Mitch Ratcliffe at October 20, 2002 06:08 PM | TrackBack