Doug K

NY

NY

Angus

As I am sure you know there are many definitions of hacking and hacking does not purely apply to digital media. Hacking, under many definitions, is totally legal. But that is another argument.

In the case of digital media I have 'purchased' it. I use software or hardware to access it. The problem here is that I am being forced to use the media creators, or their representatives, software/hardware to access the media that I have already been authorized (another point, prove to me that you are authorized to access your CD. Where is your legal and binding contract?) and become a criminal if I wish to use my own. I am not saying that I should be allowed to copy media that someone else has purchased, that is stealing. I am saying that I should have a right, which I had until DMCA came out, to make backup copies of media that I own and play/access it with the hardware and/or software of my choice. The RIAA says that I am hacking if I make a backup copy of my CD. I say I am exercising my fair use rights. The article title takes the RIAA's view completely. If it was taking mine it would have said,"US considers returning 'Fair use rights' to consumers." I would have probably been unhappy with this also. Again, my argument that it is not objective. How about "US considers 'fair use' vs 'hacking' rights." This is a much better title, is objective in that it is not actively promoting one view and is still controversial enough to get readers to read it.