Slashdot Mirror
10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA Is the Law That "Saved the Web"
mattOzan writes "On the tenth anniversary of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [PDF], Wired Magazine posits that the DMCA should be praised for catalyzing the interactive '2.0' Web that we enjoy today. While acknowledging the troublesome 'anti-circumvention' provision of the act, they claim that any harm caused by that is far outweighed by the act's "notice-and-takedown" provision and the safe harbor that this provides to intermediary ISPs. Fritz Attaway, policy adviser for the MPAA weighed in saying 'It's not perfect. But it's better than nothing.'"
Now the DMCA applied to hardware makes me scream so it's not perfect but the safe harbor is one thing that they got right.
It would be righter if there were actual penalties for falsely sending a takedown when you don't have the authority to do so (you don't actually own the copyright to the material).
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
TFA is a total fallacy, there is not even a weak attempt at justifying the conclusion
that the DMCA has had any sort of beneficial effects on technology, much less
"catalyzing the interactive '2.0' web".
There is as much of a cause/effect relationship between the two as
there is between the DMCA being enacted and my balls growing gray hairs the same year.
Here's a link to the definition of Non sequitur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
Just your typical lame eyeball whoring by Wired, nothing to see move along.
The DMCA is an umbrella act of at least five different acts (well, four and a few miscellaneous stuff). The article's praise is for the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, whereas most of the criticism over the past decade is actually aimed at the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act.
The DMCA allows anyone to issue a takedown notice of anything, without any proof that it's infringing, and requires the person who uploaded the content (or the accused, in cases of filesharing) to reveal his identity in order to contest the claim. Scientology has used this to censor criticism from those who want to remain anonymous. The RIAA uses it to bully college students who are better off taking the blame for copyright infringement even if they are innocent rather than revealing their identities so they can be sued without a subpoena. ISPs should not be liable for what their customers do with that connection at all. Why is the DMCA, which makes ISP liability contingent on responses such as "terminating repeat offenders" and taking down content without any proof of copyright infringement a good thing?
Since it's mostly massive corporations issuing the takedown notices against individuals, being able to pursue perjury charges in court is rarely feasible.
I've always felt like the DMCA is like an authority figure that tries to sound lenient by saying, "You know, we could have made it a lot worse..." or "Aren't you thankful you can still have your toys/music?"
Not one user ever says, Gee, I wish that today I could do *less* with my music today than I could yesterday.
The DMCA is a corporation-driven, draconian rule that is abused on both sides, by the enforcers and the afflicted. Increased government regulation is rarely the answer to any of our societal/economic ills, much less so in the case of digital media.
What's next, praise for the security provided by the PATRIOT Act? This wired article wreaks of bovine excrement.
Nothing is better.
There is - perjury. The problem is that nobody pursues it.
Everyone misunderstands that clause. The penalty is not perjury if you don't own the copyright. The penalty is perjury if you didn't have a "good faith" belief that you own the copyright. So if you send your take-down to something that has a similar name to your movie, you can prove that you had a "good faith" believe that it was your movie, even if it was something else.
THAT is why nobody pursues it. It's almost impossible to prove that the person did committed perjury. They really need to fix that clause because, as it stands, it's completely toothless.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Despite the problems and abuses, it's impossible to gauge what the internet landscape would look like today had it not been for the DMCA
Er, you could look at the Internet landscape found in other countries that didn't have a DMCA-style law in 1998.
The article contains a serious flaw in logic. Given the legal environment of the DMCA, if the internet we have now is a Good Thing, then how does that imply that the DMCA is the cause, without considering how much potentially better things could have been instead?
This kind of false rationalization is neither legitimate news reporting, nor is it respectful of those who have fought against the abuses of a poorly conceived and implemented law.
After all, it's a bit like saying that because my car got towed yesterday, I wasn't able to get into a car accident. That I had no car to wreck does not mean I am better off for having it towed--in fact, it is very probable the time and money I spent to retrieve it could have gone to something much more rewarding and useful.