[free-sklyarov] Why the DMCA is a bad law

[Mickey McGown]

Here's how I explained it on the ADBE chat base where the point had been made
that, "Digital content is more vulnerable!":

>   "Unfortunately though, the statement of "stealing access to something that is already
>   mine should not be seen as bad" is true but a bit misleading."
>
>   Misleading? Only to the extent of, if you will, "Digital content is much more
>   vulnerable!"
>
>   Digital content is no more or less "vulnerable" than analog content. None. We will be
>   scanning and printing blue jeans in only a couple of years, in spite of the jeans being
>   released in analog.
>
>   Sklyarov is in jail because it is now a crime to know how to do low-level computer
>   functions. People that understand the physical layer of electronics are being asked to
>   join in a kind secrecy vow with the authors of copyrighted works, now backed by
>   force of law.
>
>   Here's how it happened, IMHO:
>
>   First, whatever is meant by "vulnerable" gets twisted to mean "future harm" which is
>   then shortened to just plain "harm" and then gets used as a basis for a lawsuit.
>
>   Then, "content" gets promptly turned into "copyrighted work" but then makes the
>   artistic leap into "intellectual property" which is then, of course, just shortened into
>   "property."
>
>   After that, it is easy to see how the "property" can be "stolen." But what happens next
>   is scary:
>
>   Words, spoken and written (formerly known as speech), are now easily regulated by
>   calling them "functional." Functional things are called "devices", btw. When there is a
>   functional aspect to what you say, it is more akin to "conduct" which is , of course,
>   something that you can be sued over.
>
>   The subtle difference between a "verb" and an "action" is then airbrushed over,
>   "speaking" is then called "distribution", which means "trafficking". If the speaker
>   knows the subject material well, then why not call that "intent", that's easier.
>
>   So, Sklyarov, with "intent", did "traffick" in a "device" that causes "harm" because it
>   makes someone's "property" to become "vulnerable."
>
>   What's so misleading?
>

mickeym


Andrew Lawrence wrote:

> The following is an excerpt from a rather long letter I am composing to my
> Member of Parliment concerning a planned revision to the Canadian Copyright
> Act.  While there is a distinctly Canadian flavour in wording, the arguement
> is I believe valid and can be applied to copyright laws anywhere, especially
> the DMCA.
>
> <quote>
> First, I believe it is important to state the purpose of the copyright.
> Quoting from "A Guide to Copyrights" (January 200), published by the Canadian
> Intellectual Property Office, "Its purpose, like that of other pieces of
> intellectual property legislation, is to protect owners while promoting
> creativity and the orderly exchange of ideas."  This I believe is a noble
> goal.  Writers, musicians, scientists, et al, should be rewarded and
> encouraged to create so that our society can enjoy and benefit from their
> works as much as possible. Unfortuately, I find that in Canada today
> copyright has been transformed into "intellectual property" and then, in the
> words of the motion picture and music publishers, into "our property".
> Copyright is no longer a creative incentive to our society, but a means of
> acquiring wealth for a few large, mostly foreign, corporations that now
> control the publication and distribution of "intellectual property" worldwide.
>
> This is a trend that I believe any revision to the Copyright Act should be
> tailored to reverse.
> </quote>
>
> For Americans, change the quote to the appropriate article of the US
> Constitution, I'm too lazy to look it up, change Copyright Act to DMCA and
> Canada to US and remove "mostly foreign" from the last sentence.
>
> Other Nationalities are on their own...
>
> PS:
>
> Copyright 2001 Andrew Lawrence.  Permission to copy, change, adopt, reject
> and claim as your own is granted to anyone and everyone.
>
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov