In essence what the bill means is that it would be illegal to fake a DRM watermark and distributing the product, e.g. a song, with the fake watermark. Now why would anyone want to fake a watermark? There are several projects around, such as Microsoft's Palladium that will, eventually, embed operating systems, computers, and all sorts of gadgets with DRM modules -- whether you like it or not. Now if you have a perfectly legitimate MP3 of your own making, you wouldn't be able to listen to it with these devices, or operating systems, equipped with a DRM scheme of some sort. If there's a software available that would allow you to create a valid, but fake watermark for the song, it would be illegal to use it. The bill would make this type of action a federal felony, and you could end up in prison for the next five years after first scooping up up to $25,000 in civil penalties per offence.
Sounds like a reasonable law now doesn't it? Might sound like a big joke now, but it might be the cruel reality sooner than we realize. We should be lucky if we're able to listen to our CDs in a couple of years without having to purchase a Discman equipped with a "Designed for Microsoft Palladium" sticker on it. I think there might be call for a Digital Right to Copy Act soon...
Source:
ZDNet News