Debunking (some) DMCA Myths

An anonymous reader writes "C|Net's News.com is running an article under their Perspectives section about some of the myth and hype surrounding the DMCA. The author talks about how the EFF is exaggerating the danger from the DMCA. The author mentions that although "the DMCA is both an egregious law and a brazen power grab by Hollywood, the music industry and software companies", groups like the EFF are not much better, engaging in "fear-mongering" and scare tactics to increase opposition."

Comments

Re:really?

[gosand]

Dmitry was involved with a for-sale product that defeated e-book copyright restrictions, which clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the DMCA.

But what was he arrested for? He wasn't selling his product, he was giving a talk about his product. A product that was not illegal where he lives.

Some people jsut don't get the real issue

[JamesSharman]

"The risk that a researcher could go to jail for giving a speech at an academic conference is essentially zero,"

Was I the only person who stoped reading soon after this sentance. This Orin S. Kerr should have a solid sit down chat with Dimitry.

The bulk of this texts argument seems to be based on what has and has not worked in a court when defended but they fail to see this is only part of the point. We all know the mojority of small companies and individuals simply can't defend themselves in court so the DMCA threats are enough.

The DMCA gives the big boys a new threat to use. A friend of mine was recently held up at gunpoint in the store where he works, he explained to me that he was 99% sure the gun was a replica and yet he didn't laugh the guy off, any ideas why?

Sometimes a threat is all you need

Re:Lawrence Lessig

[kawika]

Yes, maybe 10 years from now we'll all look back on this and laugh at how Valenti thought he had us on the rocks. But until the DMCA has been struck down it acts as a great big wet blanket to free speech and fair use. I wish we could just get a test case into court and get this over with, but Valenti et al would prefer to use threats since the court case may not go their way.

In the article, Kerr is quoted as saying "If the public believes that the DMCA is stopping Professor Felten and other researchers from conducting legitimate research, then that is a major victory for opponents of the law." Well, the public believes that because it is true. Felten wanted to present a paper and was told by his employer not to do it. No matter what that article says about lawsuits being unlikely to succeed, the mere threat of a DMCA lawsuit seems to be enough when you're dealing with deep pockets.

Re:You Are The Kind of Mark the EFF Likes

[SirSlud]

I have just one question. A mark is the victom of a con - exactly what does the EFF have to gain from conning the easily scared? And what do companies have to gain from the chilling effect, whether or not it is actually occurring?

I'll never understand why people dont consider whats at stake when people deceive others; quite often you'll find the most sincere and real message comes from the dude who has little to gain from yelling 'Fire!' You can find more insidious fear mongering than EFF's call-to-arms in any ad in Business 2.0 or Wired article .. the fact that somebody seeks to profit from it, as opposed to furthur a belief or ideology they hold makes the behaviour N times less acceptable to me.

Honestly, when did people start becoming more tolerant of deception and FUD, so long as it was for the Good Nature of profiteering? Doesn't that seem a little backwards, or am I just confusing this issue with the time honoured tradition of masses stroking the egos of the already powerful?

my letter to the author

[gol64738]

let me give you a quick example:
let's say i live in Australia amd purchase $5000 worth of DVD's there. then, i move to california. normally, because of the regional encryption nature of DVD's, all of my DVD's would now be completely useless. now, let's say i'm smart and decide to break the encryption method of DVD's so that i could watch my own, purchased DVD's. under the DMCA, that would be illegal. so my rights to fair use are in the toilet. get the picture now? if we don't make a stand today, these laws will clamp down even tighter in the future, probably throwing our fair right use completely and utterly out the window.

i bet back in the mid 1700's, you were the guy saying, 'hey everyone, english tea is really, really good. let's not rock the boat. is it really so bad paying them unrepresented taxes? c'mon everyone, the english really are nice people afterall...'

by the way, i followed the felton case very carefully examining every detail. your rendition of the justice departments' views are warped and untrue. shame on you.

yes, yes let Allan Adler badmouth the EFF all day long. but, if what he says is true, than one might ask what the EFF's motive is to do such a thing.

look, the bottom line is that money is driving this whole thing. money is enough to take away our consitutional rights little by little. if we don't put a stop to this in the beginning, then we will all me telling our grandsons how much freedom we had in the 'golden days'.