[free-sklyarov] Libertarian anti-DMCA is fantasy

[Declan McCullagh]

Finkelstein apparently wants to argue at length about libertarianism,
hypothetical votes, and and mythical senators in his endearingly nutty
way. I do not, and I'll let him have the last word. Good day.

-Declan


On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 03:44:51AM -0400, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 01:30:24AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > This could become an all-encompassing discussion that has little to
> > do with the purpose of this list. But Finkelstein makes some
> > allegations that are simply weird if not incomprehensible, and so
> > I'll try to correct them and simultaneously bring it back to Dmitry.
> 
> 	Too bad you couldn't be troubled to quote them, so I have
> no idea what you mean. Not a promising start. Anyway ...
> 
> > 1. Libertarian and conservative groups (not the same) are
> > newly-influential because of a new guy in the White House. Many think
> > tank types have gone to work for the Bush administration. There is a
> > close relationship, particularly with conservatives.
> 
> 	None of this mattered to the passage of the DMCA in the first place.
> As you have complained, the DMCA was bipartisan. Despite what you may
> believe (see below), the DMCA was not a liberal/Democratic cause. So
> whatever the influence of think-tanks, even if Libertarians and
> conservatives had lesser influence, it seems to have mattered not
> at all. Zero. I've argued that the imperatives of campaign funding
> likely would have placed any Libertarian Senators in that 99-0 group too.
> This argument undercuts the irritating recruiting for the Libertarian Party.
> 
> 	Now, I'm sure you will do a fine job of reaching out to those
> libertarian think-tanks. However, given the genesis of this thread
> in the promotion of the Libertarian Party, I think you have little
> basis to complain about "nutty propagandistic statements" which are
> "simply weird if not incomprehensible" (e.g. conjecturing the behavior
> of fantasy Senators based on "interviews" with some party officials).
> 
> 	A serious issue you raise though, is if think-tanks of any
> political group have *any* chance of persuading Congress to amend the
> DMCA. I suspect the problem is that you are analyzing this in terms of
> ideology, and I am thinking about it mostly in terms of money and
> perhaps how to counter that huge war-chest on the other side.
> Arguments about "Why The DMCA Is Bad" are not exactly rare (even from
> conservatives). I believe it is a serious analysis error to put too
> much faith in a supposed killer philosophical argument. It makes for
> good column-filler and editorializing, but is severely limited in
> effectiveness (of course, after it fails, it can then be recycled all
> over again in that same column-filler and editorializing, as to how the
> world is going to hell in handbasket because the killer philosophical
> argument didn't work).
> 
> 	If your argument is that activists need to have as wide as
> umbrella as possible, there's pros and cons. I don't think this
> list is the right place to discuss that.
> 
> 	By the way Declan, in terms of politics and coalition building,
> there is a certain irony regarding the impetus of my developing
> the aphorism "The DMCA Is Libertarianism In Action". It was pushed
> by your out-and-out trolling the dvd-discuss list a few weeks back
> regarding how the DMCA was the "inevitable result of the last 100 years"
> where "This is what liberals wanted, and this is the inevitable consequence."
> Perhaps you could set a better example for me?
> 
> -- 
> Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  sethf at sethf.com  http://sethf.com
> http://www10.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov