Been rumored for some time, but there is more evidence that the House version of the long period of intellectual property rights protected include provisions to attack cyberlockers. For some reason, the MPAA (in particular) has had an obsession cyberlockers as the next big "evil", so it's no surprise. Of course, there is a big problem here: cyberlockers are just online storage and have many legitimate uses. It is difficult to see how the law can be designed that will have unintended consequences and liabilities of all types of online storage providers perfectly legitimate. How to distinguish things like Dropbox and Box.net cyberlockers one of the MPAA loves to hate, like Rapidshare? As cloud storage continues to grow, the problem worse. What about S3 provides Amazon.com 's? In a way that is a CyberLock well. The fact is that the MPAA is a stupid game and no sense of Whac-A-Mole. All these efforts will still have to do is piss people. Not drive to buy more, but it is clear that the MPAA has no problem trampling innovation when you can not find a way to use it properly. Cyberlockers have perfectly legitimate reasons - like they did before them ... MPAA VCRs but he tried to kill, and is now trying to do the same for many other services just because the MPAA can not understand how they are useful.



Permalink | Comments | Email this article