Opening up the old copyright debate again: my further digging rounded up a story on some new US anti-pirating laws whose scope should finally suck the life out of the few remaining freedoms that are held by we pitiful citizens of Earth. And here is my dilemma: how do you justify the restructuring of copyright? How do you stand up and ask why it is okay for companies to hack our computers? How do you question who should be protected and who should be punished?

the powers that be are working hard right now to limit the following things:

a faking a digital watermark and distributing it will soon be illegal: this means if I was to record a completely original piece of audio and distribute it with coding to play on — say — Windows XP, I will be breaking the law. In order for it to be legal I would need to be a major record label to distribute any of my own recordings. It’s too bad most of the major record labels are putting out the shittiest music.

b recording shows, movies, or anything from television — even though, yes, I do pay $25 a month for cable — will probably become illegal in the near future, as will taping songs off the radio: what’s next? Will I have to pay royalties if I sing in the shower?

c if I share files that are suspected of being copyrighted, my computer can legally be hacked and damaged to remove those files — but I can file a complaint if I’m innocent: how fast do you think that tape turns red? On the other hand if someone is sending threatening emails from a Hotmail account to someone in my office, Microsoft can’t be bothered to find the account and shut it down. A real family-type company: use our software, but don’t ask us for anything in return.

d companies like microsoft can sell us software that only runs when “authenicated” or thru PCs with special microchips that relay private information about the user: you want the latest, then show us your stuff baby. How much would you bet that Billy Gates doesn’t have one of these chips in his machine?