The two-edged nature of the DMCA

The two-edged nature of the DMCA

Posted Sep 5, 2002 12:03 UTC (Thu) by tres (guest, #352)
Parent article: The two-edged nature of the DMCA

I disagree with your sentiment that we should help all victims of the DMCA. As you pointed out it is in fact a two edged sword. We should be sharpening the edge that cuts into the supporters of such legislation. Anytime that someone notices a program is in violation of the DMCA and is produced by a mega-corp that supported the DMCA it should be pointed out to the people that can pursue it - or at least their lawyers. Congress doesn't listen to us because we are a small and insignificant bunch of radicals - at least in their opinion. If we can get some mega-corps on the wrong end of this sword then they may actually insist that their 'bought and paid for' legislators do something to fix it. I agree that it is a bad law but while it is slicing into the people and corporations that have the ear of congress I say let it keep cutting. That way it will stay on their minds and they will keep it on the minds of the legislators. And if we are real lucky the mainstream media may actually cover the issue - especially if they could have some problems of their own with it. The DMCA is in the minds of IT professionals the most; some mainstream exposure would help to get normal people involved in the cause. Right now most people not in the IT profession don't even know there is a problem. If in the future the DMCA is revisited then we will have an opportunity to voice our opinions. If this time does arrive then LET US NOT BE SILENT!

The two edged sword concept is why Jack Valenti is against the copyright owner's hacking bill. It says that ANYONE who believes that a site is in possession of copyrighted content can hack the site to disable the sharing of content. That means that Joe Blow can hack the sites of the major studios if he believes that they contain some of his copyrighted works. Why Hillary Rosen hasn't figured this out is beyond me. She probably figures that since her constituants have very deep pockets and are on a first name basis with the Attorney General (and will be with all future Attorney Generals) that they can easily obtain permission to sue someone. In reality she most likely just 'doesn't get it'. Isn't the RIAA site still providing copyrighted content and generally sufferring from the cracking that was reported recently in The Register?

Regards,
Tres

---

(Log in to post comments)