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.
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.
Cato is very important. He attacks when you least expect it, to keep your defences sharp. Unfortunately he usually winds up being beaten into submission.
In related news, the CEO of Disney started channeling Peter Sellers earlier today, and was heard to say "Cato! You imbecile! Not now!" and "Cato... Cato... Where are you my little yellow friend?"
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 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.
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.