[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Pro DMCA Argument Information ?

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 04:07:01PM -0500, Dean Sanchez wrote:
> ...In order to better develop a clear and
> concise refutation of the DMCA and the reasons for its existence, I
> was looking for information on the reasons proponents of the DMCA
> state it is necessary.  However, a Google search returns an enormous
> number of hits with most either being an explanation of the Act or
> opposition to it.  Aside from a generic "We need it to stop piracy", I
> have been unable to find even a single site, journal or magazine
> article enumerating the reasons it is necessary when one considers the
> fact that we already have laws regarding copyright.

I think you're going to come up empty.  I did the same kind of search,
and other than the simplistic explanations you've already seen, there
doesn't seem to be a hell of a lot out there.

The only explanation I can come up with is, unfortunately, that the
Congresspeople were willing to accept a bill that screws the public
domain on behalf of the "content" industry, as long as there's
explanations that will hold up to fifteen minutes of examination.  They
probably suspected that deeper examination would expose flaws, so they
allowed themselves to be persuaded by the simple explanations.

I bet congresspeople can be pretty confident that there won't be a
significant number of voters that object to this action.  Balance that
against gaining the favor of some serious moneyed interests...

If you go and read the congressional record (and I can dig out all the
relevant passages if anyone wants) with a skeptical eye, it really looks
as though the Washington lawmakers seem too-easily convinced that:
* section 1201 strikes a "fair balance"
* section 1201 will have no adverse effect on legitimate science or
* section 1201 doesn't overthrow long-running copyright doctrine

I think everyone here would agree that it's not too hard to spot these
problems.  So why was there so little serious argument?

I would bet that many congresspeople saw the power grab in progress, but
figured they'd go along because there's just not much of an upside to
fighting the good fight in this case.  So they allowed themselves to be
easily reassured that they were doing the right thing here, but more
going through the motions than actualy performing due diligence.