[free-sklyarov] Re: free-sklyarov digest, Vol 1 #185 - 87 msgs

[Yogi]

It is a good thing that Huaiyu Zhu (I mean no offense if I did not get your
name correct ;-) offered us a summary of the Parloff article.  I followed
the links and found that I couldn't read the it unless I paid.  Ironic?

----- Original Message -----
From: <huaiyu_zhu at yahoo.com>
To: <free-sklyarov at zork.net>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 1:41 AM
Subject: [free-sklyarov] Re: free-sklyarov digest, Vol 1 #185 - 87 msgs


>
> With regard to Roger Parloff's article at www.inside.com:
>
> This article is perhaps the first time the pro-DMCA side presented
> anything credible and honest for their arguments.  So it is also a good
> opportunity to refine our own thoughts and arguemnts.
>
> One thing that will become clear over the long run is that neither side
> will win the argument by making claims on abstract rights.  The truth is
> that there is no feasible technology that can perfectly protect the
> rights of everyone without infringing on the rights of others.
>
> Parloff's point is that by making unprotected copies available, even if
> most of these are for legitimate uses, Sklyarov created an opportunity
> for illegal copying.  And in the digital age it only takes one illegal
> copy to spread to the whole Internet.  And punishing Sklyarov is the
> most effective way to prevent this from happening.
>
> I think this is a valid argument for one angle of the problem.  But
> there are more important counter arguments.
>
> It is true that digital technologies pose new threats to certain rights
> of certain sections of society, while providing new opportunities for
> many people to enjoy their rights in new ways.  Just as any new
> technology has always done.
>
> But DMCA holds the IP rights as absolute right that trumps human rights
> and consumer rights of everybody else with little contrition.
>
> Parloff effectively says that the right of Adobe to protect their profit
> is very important, because it is a very big financial sum (even though
> it is made up of $9 sales), while the right of researchers to free
> speech, the right of consumers for fair use, and the right of disabled
> people for equal access should take second seat, because they don't have
> that much financial stakes.  (He actually made some calculations.)
>
> He essentially says that it is acceptable to punish a tool maker if the
> tool can potentially be used unlawfully and if it would be difficult to
> catch and punish those who actually break the law.  If it takes away the
> personal freedom and the freedom of speech for one individual, so be it,
> as long as this creates a bottleneck for the unlawful activities.
>
> He implies that it might even be reasonable to punish an employee of a
> toolmaker if it is difficult to punish the company. Or just hold him
> hostage until such time that its managers can be caught.
>
> He implies that it is acceptable to hand out *preventive punishments*
> even if no one has ever used the tool for any unlawful uses just yet, as
> long as the possibility for unlawful use exists.
>
> This is very similar to the way some totalitarian regimes justify their
> infringement on human rights:  mistreating dissidents is necessary to
> ensure social stability, which is deemed to have a larger value.
>
> "If an idea is dangerous, punish the messenger before it spreads."
>
> DMCA allows one side of the conflict to infringe on a variety of
> fundamental rights of everybody else, just so as to protect its own
> financial rights from infringements that might not have materialized.
>
> If we hold it to be self-evident that all men are created equal, then
> such biased laws are very wrong.
>
>
> Huaiyu Zhu
>
> [Permision hereby granted for inclusion into any collection of comments
> /counter-comments.  Editorial changes (such as linking to actual
> articles) welcome and appreciated.]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov