Slashdot Mirror
CATO Institute Releases Paper Criticizing DMCA
flanksteak writes "The CATO institute has published a paper criticizing the DMCA entitled 'The Perverse Consequences of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.' From the article: 'The DMCA is anti-competitive. It gives copyright holders--and the technology companies that distribute their content--the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Worst of all, DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective; they inconvenience legitimate users but do little to stop pirates.'" A report worth taking a look at that puts into words what most of us know already.
Exactlty how important is CATO in the scheme of things. Will this report reach the ears of politicians / mass media, or will it go largely unnoticed except by slashdot? I don't think we are going to see the DMCA revoked unless the public cares enough to put pressure on their representatives, and honestly the public isn't informed enough to care. So will this report help mobize people or are they just preaching to the choir?
Philosophy.
The CATO institute is a libertarian think tank. Libertarianism falls into the left wing of the traditional classification of politial thought in some ways and right wing in others.
In the end, this won't make a bit of difference in the U.S. until it costs corporations money.
2 003/20030404/default.htm/ greenspan-33.html
Look at patents. People knowledgable about patents and software have almost universally criticized software & business method patents, but the only reason congress and the patent office is starting to look at it is because its costing big corporations money.
You see, the trouble is, when you have people like Alan Greespan saying more copyrights and patents are vital to the U.S.'s economic growth, when congress perceives the entertainment industry as being the growth engine for the U.S. economy, then its tough for congress to vote against these kinds of laws.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/Speeches/
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/march3
Until these same companies feel a pinch from the DMCA, it doesn't matter what the real impact of the law is, it's the message that's carried by the press, by the fed chairman, by the heads of industry such as Bill Gates that will determine the fate of the DMCA.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I wish people would stop calling people who share software, pirates.
I agree. In fact, while we're busy insisting that words can't take on new meaning or have multiple meanings, I wish they'd stop referring to "executing" software unless they were killing it, or "running" it unless the softwere grew legs and ran away.
Its http://www.cato.org/about/about.html actually more of a libertarian group. And libertarians favor less goverment control (more so than republicans.)
Cato is to the right. Cato promotes free market (i.e., classical) liberalism. Main stream conservatism, otherwise known as neoconservatism, is a mish-mash of collectivism with some vague lip-service to (classical) liberalism thrown in. Have a look at some of the writings by F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, et al. These are your right-wingers. Compare these writings to the writings of Irving Kristol, who started the neoconservative movement. They are ideologically incompatible.
The libertarians, on balance, have far more in common with the Republican part of the mid 1990's than any other major American political idealogy. The only major thinks they have in common with Democrats is they oppose having our military involved overseas and are generally pro-choice. And frankly the Democrats are only anti-Iraq because they're the opposition party and the opposition party traditionally opposes the leadership party's foreign policy. Foreign policies are almost necessarily interventionalist, even the most hands-off of foreign policies must sometimes be interventionalist (e.g., President Clinton), and such manuevers are easy targets for the opposition party. So you can take that one away and you're basically left with the pro-choice issue. Libertarians are also more likely to support gay marriage, but neither party wants to go anywhere near that one, uncharacteristically deferring it to state courts.
If you do a run-down on the issues you get a group of people who are intensely dedicated to private property and individual freedom issues, and other than gay marriage and abortion, Republicans overwhelming want the government out of people's lives and everyday decision making as much as possible. Well, in theory anyway. In practice they spend just as much money on pointless and worthless government programs that don't solve anything.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Or better put, it's completely tangential to both. Left (Liberal) vs. right (Conservative) isn't useful, much less accurate, when talking about the border case Libertarian & Statist philosophies. More appropriate is a 4-point diamond with Libertarian & Statist opposite of each other and perpendicular to Liberal & Conservative; with Centrists in the middle.
Take the World's Smallest Political Quiz.
Quiz & explanation (PDF file)
First off, I am a huge fan of Cato, and I subscribe to several of its publications.
But, the blurb is misleading. The DMCA isn't DRM technology it's simply regulation.
I do not like the DMCA, but I do like legitimate DRM technology. If someone engineers a product to make it difficult to copy, that is their business. If you copy it and violate copyright, that's their business, but we don't need an intermediate law saying it's illegal to even attempt to crack the DRM scheme.
In other words, the technology should stand on its own.
Amazing magic tricks
The basic principal libertarians tend to apply when it comes to people hurting each other is "my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins". Essentially, the assumption is that an ideal government would still have law and order (based on protection people's rights), but would be expected not to interfere in people's live beyond that.
Now, if you meant that a libertarian government wouldn't be able to control things like corporate misbehavior, or that small, low-tax government wouldn't be able to provide policing as well as it can now, then perhaps you're right. But if you seriously thing that mist libertarians want zero government at all, then you need to check your facts. Like the other posters said libertarian =! anarchist.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Actually, Libertarians are less trusting of people than others, but in ways you may be unaccustomed to.
For example, we assume people are no more trustworthy because they've been elected or appointed to a government position. So having government officials overseeing some area to guard against crooked companies is not seen as a solution, since the officials are just as likely to be crooked - and if they are they can cause a lot more damage.
This perspective of deep distrust and cynicism is confusing to many, and can lead to the misunderstanding of the parent article, but once you get used to it, it can be quite productive and enlightening.
You missed the point of the original poster. Too bad. Otherwise you'd understand that insisting on calling copyright infringement "copyright infringement" and not "piracy" is so that the RIAA/MPAA can't create the emotional response of "hang 'em high!" when they ask what should be done with P2P downloaders.
This is not some academic exercise in language purity. This is a fight to keep the debate about copyright infringement right where it belongs - in the realm of copyright law, not violent takeover of personal property.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
That is the problem with modern politics. The poltical parties have blurred the lines between what a conservative and liberal is, requiring them to align with a political party. When in fact, the politcal parties fluctuate so much, move left and right, that depending on where your politcal ideology actually lies, you might be more in line with the democrats on presidental term and the republicans the next. With each election the politcal parties attempt to capture the magical middle of the political spectrum, while at the same time pushing forward their left or right wing agendas. However, since it is all politics, the pure ideology of being a conservative or a liberal is usually lost. In the case of the current administration, Pres. Bush has pushed the country more towards the right, while pursuing a course that a lot of conservatives disagree with (for example, conservatitves are for less government, less regulation, and less government in their lives). Pres. Bush has done more to put the government in people's lifes than what a true conservative would have done. So when all is said and done, a politiian may claim to be a conservative to capture that voting base, but then abuse them and actually pursue a course that runs counter that ideology. The same holds true for a liberals and the democrats. And what we think of being oxymoronic, you can actually be a conservative democrat. The conservative and liberal are all just titles of the ideology. While the political parties are the method and the means to implementing that ideology. American politics are somewhat of an enigma in the world. With a two party system, somehow we loose the fact that the vast majority of Americans do not fit neatly in two parties. However, since third parties have proven to be ineffective and are ignored by the two other parties, then most American's simply say Democrat, Republican or Independant.
My personal feeling is that the politcal landscaping is going to start changing soon so that the Democrats and Republicans are going to have to acknowledge the independants. They are going to have to change their platform to be flexiable. The difference between a Republican and Democrat is so minimial that the rest of the world largely laughs at America. In other countries you have poltical parties that run from Communist to straight out facsist. But in the US you have two groups that are so close to the middle that they actually fight over capturing the middle ground.
Another interesting thing is that many self-labeled conservates and liberals may not actually be such. For example a conservative may actually be an economic or neoliberal and be a social conservative. Or libertarians for the most part are economic and social liberals. Or what many democratic politicans tend to be, which is economic conservatives and social liberals. The problem with the parties is that they mix and blur what the issues really are and they don't have clear policy statements about their parties positions.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
The Cato people really are bonafide libertarians actually.
Anti-government, pro-consensual society.
As economists, they dislike the root causes for inflation, and the fact that the fed has one private bank print all our money.
Conservatives tend to love it when the government controls things like money and marriage and drugs.