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."
This article really shows why it is time for the DMCA to go. Anyone who happens to create any sort of device that someone figures out a way to use it to circumvent anything can be sued under the DMCA. (See also the Sklyarov incident.) Remember when someone discovered that you could use a Sharpie to circumvent the copy protection on a CD? Manufacturers/programmers/whatever should never be responsible for what anyone does outside the intended uses.
Another problem is that Congress makes some of these laws so vague as to leave too much interpretation up to the judges who try cases under these laws. Unfortunately, organizations such as the EFF don't have the clout or the resources that the corps do.
I have to stop now before I go on a rant ;-)
There is no spoon or sig.
What I'd really like to know is just how "unintended" some of these consequences were... *shrug*
One of the things that bothers me most about laws like the DMCA and the NET (no electronic theft) act is the excessive punishments they put in place for various violations.
For example, the DMCA makes it a felony to circumvent a copy protection device. And, similarly, the NET act makes it a felony to share copyrighted materials via a service like Kazaa with a possible 5 year prison term.
Regardless of whether the things out lawed by legislation like this really should be out lawed or not, the punishments really need to be adjusted to fit the crime. Neither getting your dvd player to play dvd's from europe, nor sharing the latest Eminem song should even carry the possiblity of landing you several months little less several years in the slammer. Okay, the Eminem case is iffy, but otherwise...
For those of you who seem to recall a very similar story but can't quite pin it down: your not crazy. The EFF revises their opinion on the DMCA every year, under the title "Unintended Consequences: X Years under the DMCA." I traced it back at least to 2 years ago, and there may have been articles previous.
They do make several good points, and I would go into more specifics but I really don't have time to read the new version (I read the older editions a year ago when I was investigating impacts of the DMCA for a research paper). An actual evaluation of the entire DMCA document is difficult especially due to the nature of Copyright law, Fair Use, et al, but the EFF does a good job, albeit a mildly biased one.
On a related note for those of you that have 30 seconds: support the EFF's newest petition -> "Take a Stand Against the Madness; Stop the RIAA!" Its a useful free alternative to being even more useful and donating to the cause.
**AA: a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes
. . . because they were in a dispute with the painter's guild. Steinway painted their pianos. The painter's guild claimed this as a violation of their guild rights.
Steinway said, "Fuck this shit" (Well, the German equivilent actually), and came to America. In the process making America the center of a cultural technology that had previously been a European monopoly.
America is making such inovative freedom illegal. It will reap the consecquences, just as did Europe.
The DMCA was written entirely to protect existing vested interests. When you do so you automatically restrict (even if that wasn't your intent) development of other interests that spur economic growth.
The end result is stagnation with all power and wealth gradually making its way into a few hands.
Welcome to the economic algae pond, Brother.
KFG
The DMCA has nothing to do with maritime law. It was not enacted to protect cargo ships or the spanish armarda. "Pirate" is a propaganda term used by copyright owners to imply that unauthorized copying is the equivilent of murder and theft on the high seas. The message is clear: only a vicious enemy of the people would do unauthorized copying. To a lesser degree the term "protection" is also a propaganda term to describe what copyright owners do in restricting our freedom. These terms are an important weapon of people who support the DMCA and other stifling laws as they encourage informers to rat people out to the non-official police forces the copyright owners fund.
All in all, you'd think the EFF would be too smart to play their game.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
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.