Slashdot Mirror
EFF Reviews 5 Years Under The DMCA
briaydemir writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has a new report, Unintended Consequences:
Five Years under the DMCA, detailing how the DMCA has stiffled competition, innovation, scientific research, and fair use. The original news release is here, and the report is also available as a PDF. Check it out if you want a good summary of all the DMCA cases over the past five years."
You only have to look at the name to see what a stupid piece of legislation it is:
Digital - Now whats the point of calling it digital? its just a bandwagon jumping buzzword, well back in the late 90's it was all the rage digital this digital that always with the digital it just means fucking numbers! so by calling it digital they've restricted it to only digital systems. Macrovision on VHS is not digital, therefore it doesn't count, whoops. Now as much as i like that little mistake it doesn't mean its not stupid.
Millennium - WHY!??!?! WHY!??! WTF! WHY!? it wasn't even the millennium when the law was passed! What does it mean? What possible relevance does the millennium of 2000 have to do with copy-right law and circumnavigation of digital devices? Is it just another bandwagon buzzword?? At least digital was slightly relevant!
Copy-right Act - This isn't a copy-right act, its an anti-reverse engineering act, its an anti-industrial espionage act, its an anti-freedom-of-speech-if-it-might-hurt-a-company act. A copy-right act would use the phrase "You may not copy copy-righted work that you dont own" the only thing this says your not allowed to copy is circumnavigation software from other people.
This is the sort of naming i would expect by marketing people. Marketing people have no place in politics and legislation.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Before this discussion turns into the typical "I hate the US" and "I hate Bush" ignorant ranting, let me remind you "free speech as long as it doesn't offend" liberals that it was your boy, Clinton, who had the ultimate push in this.
Are you suggesting that the American congress might have done something rash? Something wrong?
Do you understand the implications of that allegation? Have you any idea how many lives are ended or ruined every year, due to decisions made in the US congress?
Please moderate yourself. If the US congress were prone to "error", thousands, or hundred of thousands of people have died in wain.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Can I send a note to websites where I have accounts about unauthorized copying of my personal information to third parties?
Can I use it against adware companies that take data from my computer without my permission?
Can I use it against Microsoft when their software allows a virus to copy the contents of my address book around the internet?
I think that the ship has sailed, as it were, with regards to piracy being used to describe unauthorized copying and distribution.
The first recorded use of the word 'pirate' in regards to people who made copies of books without permission dates back to 1668. When there were the other kind of pirates as well. And decades before copyright laws came into being. Take a look in your convenient pocket-sized unabridged OED.
It _is_ a propaganda term -- if someone were trying to achieve the same effect today, they'd call infringers 'terrorists.' But it's such an ancient one that I don't think that there's much point in bitching about it now.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Get real. Congress doesn't care about their constituants. All they care about is lining their own pockets! This is proven time after time after time. Congress hasn't cared about the people for decades! Why should we be surprised about the DMCA? Congress and big business saw digital as a way to TAKE BACK right that the people just assumed they were unalienable.
The irony is that all it would take is a couple of these clowns to be thrown out on their ever-widening asses because they put out a: "for sale" sign and the rest wuld be so scared shit about the gravy train pulling into the station they'd likely capitulate. But we know that just isn't going to happen. People have become so apathetic that they don't even bother to vote. Even Arnold who would be governor of CA doesn't!
I guess we do get the government we deserve though. Do nothing, and get nothing in return.
You don't know what you're talking about.
The fetuses that die have some horrifying birth defects and have no viable life support systems of their own. Once out of the womb they will not live, no matter what. Even when born "naturally."
However, this is where the problem comes in. Read on.
The reason they have to suck the brains out is because the fetus's head has swollen to such an extent that it can be as large as 50cm across.
By outlawing "partial birth abortion" you are sentencing women to torture and possible death. The only safe way to extract the non-viable fetus has been taken away. Now the mother has no choice but to push an object roughly twenty inches wide through her vagina. If the mother lives through that, she can look forward to her baby dieing in about two days from the birth defects, birth defects that were only detected late in pregnancy, too late for a normal abortion.
This has nothing to do with the "abortion industry" protecting their profits. I do feel that the medical cartel in the USA is run by greedy rapacious money launderers, but that's a different argument. In this case, doctors have found a safe, if horrific, way to remove a non-viable fetus with a specific type of birth defect from the mother. You should be happy that the vessel, uh, I mean woman, won't endure such injury that she'll never be able to bring forth life from a man's seed again.
I encourage you to learn the facts before you open your anonymous mouth again.