Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government United States Politics Your Rights Online

10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA Is the Law That "Saved the Web" 205

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the not-perfect-the-understatement-of-the-year dept.
mattOzan writes "On the tenth anniversary of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [PDF], Wired Magazine posits that the DMCA should be praised for catalyzing the interactive '2.0' Web that we enjoy today. While acknowledging the troublesome 'anti-circumvention' provision of the act, they claim that any harm caused by that is far outweighed by the act's "notice-and-takedown" provision and the safe harbor that this provides to intermediary ISPs. Fritz Attaway, policy adviser for the MPAA weighed in saying 'It's not perfect. But it's better than nothing.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA Is the Law That "Saved the Web"

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @01:47AM (#25537783)

    It's true, the notice-and-takedown is a bitch for the user but without the safe harbor that it provides, the service providers would do a lot more validation and the web 2.0 would not be so user oriented.
    Now the DMCA applied to hardware makes me scream so it's not perfect but the safe harbor is one thing that they got right.

    • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @01:52AM (#25537809)

      Now the DMCA applied to hardware makes me scream so it's not perfect but the safe harbor is one thing that they got right.

      It would be righter if there were actual penalties for falsely sending a takedown when you don't have the authority to do so (you don't actually own the copyright to the material).

      • by DrEldarion (114072) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @01:58AM (#25537827)

        There is - perjury. The problem is that nobody pursues it.

        • by DinkyDogg (923424) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:18AM (#25537941)
          Since it's mostly massive corporations issuing the takedown notices against individuals, being able to pursue perjury charges in court is rarely feasible.
          • by fractoid (1076465)
            Pardon my legal ignorance, but isn't perjury a criminal rather than civil offense? Or at the very least, up to the state to prosecute rather than up to the individual?
            • Pardon my legal ignorance, but isn't perjury a criminal rather than civil offense? Or at the very least, up to the state to prosecute rather than up to the individual?

              Yes. And the state can't be arsed to do so.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by FearForWings (1189605)

          Nobody prusues it because congress knew the clause was a joke when they made it a part of the law. I can not find one instance where perjury charges have been brought against false and/or purely malicious DMCA take-down notices. The reason being is that the DCMA being a federal law, your local/state DA doesn't care, and good luck getting the feds to ever go after corporate corruption, unless they aren't paying their taxes.

        • by TrekkieGod (627867) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:41AM (#25538065) Homepage Journal

          There is - perjury. The problem is that nobody pursues it.

          Everyone misunderstands that clause. The penalty is not perjury if you don't own the copyright. The penalty is perjury if you didn't have a "good faith" belief that you own the copyright. So if you send your take-down to something that has a similar name to your movie, you can prove that you had a "good faith" believe that it was your movie, even if it was something else.

          THAT is why nobody pursues it. It's almost impossible to prove that the person did committed perjury. They really need to fix that clause because, as it stands, it's completely toothless.

          • Perjury is for lying. If you had a good faith belief, you didn't lie, and certainly shouldn't be convicted of perjury. Your absurdly low standard would mean anybody could be trapped into perjury conviction.
            • No, it would mean that content creators/owners would have to actually consider whether there's any evidence that their takedown notice is legitimate, and wouldn't be allowed to shotgun out thousands of takedowns at a time.
      • by DinkyDogg (923424) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:16AM (#25537931)
        The DMCA allows anyone to issue a takedown notice of anything, without any proof that it's infringing, and requires the person who uploaded the content (or the accused, in cases of filesharing) to reveal his identity in order to contest the claim. Scientology has used this to censor criticism from those who want to remain anonymous. The RIAA uses it to bully college students who are better off taking the blame for copyright infringement even if they are innocent rather than revealing their identities so they can be sued without a subpoena. ISPs should not be liable for what their customers do with that connection at all. Why is the DMCA, which makes ISP liability contingent on responses such as "terminating repeat offenders" and taking down content without any proof of copyright infringement a good thing?
        • by Atlantis-Rising (857278) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:37AM (#25538047) Homepage

          It is neither desirable nor easily practical to conceal the identity of the accused; in fact, it is desirable and practical for the opposite to happen.

          What do you have against people being able to publicly confront their accusers and be confronted in turn?

          • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @03:15AM (#25538183)

            It is neither desirable nor easily practical to conceal the identity of the accused; in fact, it is desirable and practical for the opposite to happen.

            What do you have against people being able to publicly confront their accusers and be confronted in turn?

            What do you have against anonymous speech?

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Anonymous Coward

              What do you have against anonymous speech?

              Absolutely nothing!

            • by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @03:52AM (#25538315)
              It is absolutely critical, in many cases, to conceal the identity of the accused. Otherwise, political and satirical material, which is some of the most protected speech, may be blocked by fears of discovery for using completely 'Fair Use' quotes or video, and taken down immediately and with little recourse with fraudulent 'DMCA' notices.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              What do you have against anonymous speech?

              The fact that is dissociates action from responsibility, and in this context, allows the speaker to break the law with impunity.

              I don't believe in absolute free speech either — and neither does any contemporary legal system that I know of — but in any case, if something is important enough to broadcast to the world like this, then it is important enough to put your name to.

              • Under your system any and all potential whistleblowers would never come out ever again because of the retribution they would receive as they were no longer being protected against the actions of their superior. Great system, dude.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            What do you have against people being able to publicly confront their accusers and be confronted in turn?

            Not everyone has the courage to stand by what they say. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to say it, and it doesn't mean what they want to say is unimportant. Sure, anonymity brings out the worst of the population, but if we allow it to continue, perhaps we will also see it coax out the best.

            This can also be turned around to say: If something is incorrectly stated, why do you need to confront the person when you can confront the falsehood instead? Isn't it more important to discern what's right

        • Two laws. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by h4rm0ny (722443) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @06:51AM (#25539093) Journal

          Trouble is, the DMCA is two laws rolled into one. On the one hand you have the way hosting sites such as Youtube are not held responsible for copyright violations of user-uploaded content so long as they immediately withdraw material on allegation of infringement. This is what the article is saying is responsible for current sites such as Youtube, MySpace and others. This is a supportable argument (i.e. you may or may not agree with it, but there is certainly a case to be argued). On the other hand, you have the restrictions on circumvention technology. An entirely distinct law that most people here would probably agree is far less supportable from the viewpoint of social good. Yet these two very different things have been rolled into one, probably to increase the chances of getting the latter part passed. This has the effect of making it much harder to evaluate or debate the DMCA law in the USA.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by theaveng (1243528)

          From the article: "President Clinton signed into law exactly a decade ago Tuesday."

          Well good job Bill! (cheers). By the way, you're the same joker who signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed a portion of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (forbidding banks from speculating in stock markets), and thereby caused the current housing mess & rampant bank failures of 2007-8 and approximately 1.5 trillion in taxpayer bailouts to the rich fat cats on Wall Street (corporate welfare).

          Nice job there

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            The deregulation started in the 1970's. Learn your history. He only continued doing what everyone else was. Besides, Bill couldn't have vetoed that bill since it was passed as a veto-proof majority.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by electrictroy (912290)

              If the 1999 act had not repealed the provision about banks speculating in stocks, the banks that collapsed this past year would still be standing, because they would have been almost-completely unaffected by the stock market fall.

              >>>Bill couldn't have vetoed that bill since it was passed as a veto-proof majority.

              That's not how it works.

              - the Congress passes a bill
              - the president vetoes it
              - the Congress has a SECOND 66.7% vote to pass the bill. In the interim some members particularly Democrats, in

          • Yeah! Down with George W. Bush and his drakonian administration!! I'm sick and tired of this good-for-nothing, warmongering, anti-human-rights preside... Oh. Bill Clinton? Yeah, I sure miss the 90's.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Thuktun (221615)

            From the article: "President Clinton signed into law exactly a decade ago Tuesday."

            Well good job Bill! (cheers). By the way, you're the same joker who signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, [...]

            Don't forget the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act, both subsequently struck down as abridging First Amendment rights.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act [wikipedia.org]
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act [wikipedia.org]

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Mr. Beatdown (1221940)
            You are crazy if you think Glass-Steagall's repeal caused the financial meltdown. I challenge you to name just one bank that failed because an otherwise sound deposit and lending structure was undercut by anything other than the housing meltdown ruining their otherwise sound lending structure.

            The truth is that the meltdown in credit was caused by the meltdown in housing; taking banks and the counter-parties in credit default swaps down further than the market expected they could reasonably go. This c
      • by aussie_a (778472)

        It would be righter if ISPs would honor rebuttal DMCA notices and put the content back up, as the DMCA requires.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tubal-Cain (1289912)
      If there was no DMCA, we wouldn't need the safe harbor.
  • -1, Troll (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:00AM (#25537833)

    This article is complete and utter bullshit.

    How about we celebrate rape and murder too, while we're at it? After all, if it weren't for rape and murder, we wouldn't be living in this violence-free Utopia.

  • I also credit my wife for her strict "anti-pr0n act". Being forced to keep such activities underground has allowed me a much more extensive viewing regimen.

    On a more serious note, this analogous to the Boll Weevil Monument [wikipedia.org]. The Boll Weevil taught farmers about crop rotation, among other useful lessons.

    Would someone mind doing a car analogy?
    • by Black Sabbath (118110) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:11AM (#25537907) Homepage

      How a 'bout a whac-a-mole(TM) analogy?

      As a result of whacking the mole on the head with a mallet when it tries to pop up out of four of the five holes, the DMCA is responsible for the mole's successful appearance out of the last hole.

    • by jamesh (87723)

      Would someone mind doing a car analogy?

      I can do a car analogy analogy...

      It's like a car analogy. Even a good one is still bad and serves to confuse the issue more than it does enlighten people. And then you have everyone picking on your car analogy because they don't actually understand what an analogy is... "But a car has wheels! I don't understand."

      Have you ever noticed that after you have used the word 'analogy' more than a few times you start to wonder if you spelled it right? And wonder if it's even a

  • by Tubal-Cain (1289912) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:02AM (#25537841) Journal
    Assisting web 2.0 is almost as heinous of a crime as assisting the MAFIAA.
  • Would that be the very safe harbor they are trying to remove in the new copyright law that's pending?
  • any harm caused ... is far outweighed by the act's "notice-and-takedown" provision and the safe harbor that this provides to intermediary ISPs

    Revenue:

    Comcast [thestreet.com]
    AT&T [pcworld.com]
    Verizon [pcworld.com]

    These billion-dollar companies are charging us exorbitant rates for service and still don't have enough balls to stand up to the other bullies on the block (ex. MPAA & RIAA)?

  • DMCA saved me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BountyX (1227176) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:04AM (#25537857)
    Being a Tor server operator, I get a couple copyright infringment letters and take down notices here and there...I just reference DMCA and they go away. Seems to work well.
  • by DesScorp (410532) <DesScorpNO@SPAMGmail.com> on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:05AM (#25537869) Homepage Journal

    It's kind of like praising No Child Left Behind. Something like it was necessary, but did we have to have the result?

    In an economy where knowledge, software, and creative work is paid for, you do have to have some legal protection for those works. Despite what some may wish, this isn't a Brave GNU World where everything is free as in give it all away. People want paychecks.

    That said, what we desperately need is a system that both protects the copyright of these works, and allows common sense fair use for the end customer. We don't have that with a Wild West kind of no-copyright system, and we don't have that with the DMCA.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by timmarhy (659436)
      your confused, GPL doesn't mean it has to be free. i can sell my work under the GPL and not provide public access to it at all, i just have to give the source to people who buy it off me that's all. remeber it's distribution that triggers the requirement for providing the source, nothing else.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by apathy maybe (922212)

        And they are then free to resell, or even to give away your work. All that hard work and the bastards are just giving it away for free!

        Wait, maybe the GPL is about being free. (Free speech, and free beer. CentOS is the perfect example of the GPL in action. Even if RedHat already give away the source to everyone.)

      • by Rogerborg (306625)

        i just have to give the source to people who buy it off me that's all

        Slashdot needs to oblige posters to pass a quiz every time they type "GPL".

        What part of anyone who possesses the object code [gnu.org] is confusing you?

    • Critiquing something includes acknowledging its merits where they exist. You have to give credit where credit is due. It all plays back into making a "better" DMCA for the future.

      Like the old adage: "You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
    • In an economy where knowledge, software, and creative work is paid for, you do have to have some legal protection for those works.

      What you need is a way to incite people to add something valuable to the public domain.

      Some create for their own benefit and share for the betterment of all. Some create and set free to drive up demand for a product or service they offer. But often (not always!) someone needs to pay the creator.

      Say, for the sake of argument, that we all get taxed some more, and the Science and Useful Arts Council hands out contracts (i.e. money) to worthy applicants to produce a work. Upon completion, the work enters the

    • by ultranova (717540) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @04:59AM (#25538583)

      In an economy where knowledge, software, and creative work is paid for, you do have to have some legal protection for those works. Despite what some may wish, this isn't a Brave GNU World where everything is free as in give it all away.

      The question is: if such protections didn't exist, and every piece of "intellectual property" would thus be created either because someone wanted to or someone wanted it to exist enough to pay someone else to make it, would the world be better or worse off ?

      People want paychecks.

      At this point, I wonder if we'd be better off by repealing the copyright laws and simply paying the MAFIAA an annual "protection" cost equal to its current profits. The MAFIAA would get its paycheck, we'd end up paying less money overall due to less waste, and get rid of the perverting effects the copyright cartels have on our society and technology (such as DRM). It would be a net win for everyone.

      That, or we could simply point out that people wanting to be paid doesn't mean that they should be. Unless, of course, I'm entitled to be paid every time someone views this comment.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by NormalVisual (565491)
        I personally think we'd be best off just going back to the original terms that we had back in 1790. It provides copyright protection for a full third of an average artist's life, for crying out loud, and I believe it was a fair balance keeping 100% in spirit of what the Copyright Clause was trying to achieve. Why is it not enough to exclusively profit from a work for that long, and why is the artist's individual right to profit for the rest of his fricking life considered more beneficial than the right of
  • To be fair (Score:5, Informative)

    by CSMatt (1175471) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:13AM (#25537917)

    The DMCA is an umbrella act of at least five different acts (well, four and a few miscellaneous stuff). The article's praise is for the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, whereas most of the criticism over the past decade is actually aimed at the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act.

    • by Yvanhoe (564877)
      Could I have one, only one, example of "2.0 website" that could not have existed without the DMCA ? Because I have a bunch of examples of websites that could not exist because of it.
      • Could I have one, only one, example of "2.0 website" that could not have existed without the DMCA ? Because I have a bunch of examples of websites that could not exist because of it.

        Slashdot.org?

        They have removed Scientology-related comments under the DMCA safe harbor provisions, and that's an organization famous for suing people into the ground.

  • by SickFreak (578067) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:25AM (#25537981)

    I've always felt like the DMCA is like an authority figure that tries to sound lenient by saying, "You know, we could have made it a lot worse..." or "Aren't you thankful you can still have your toys/music?"

    Not one user ever says, Gee, I wish that today I could do *less* with my music today than I could yesterday.

    The DMCA is a corporation-driven, draconian rule that is abused on both sides, by the enforcers and the afflicted. Increased government regulation is rarely the answer to any of our societal/economic ills, much less so in the case of digital media.

  • by DustoneGT (969310) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:28AM (#25538011)
    What's next, praise for the security provided by the PATRIOT Act? This wired article wreaks of bovine excrement.
  • by fan of lem (1092395) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:29AM (#25538013) Journal
    Nothing is better.
  • by Skapare (16644) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:35AM (#25538033) Homepage

    A variant of the DMCA that merely granted ISPs the safe-harbor in exchange for identifying who placed the content online, and required a court order from a federal judge for a takedown, would have worked just as well in terms of enabling content hosting providers like YouTube. The RIAA and MPAA would certainly have not liked it. So while the safe-harbor aspect of the DMCA certainly had its benefits, other aspects of the DMCA clearly do not.

    It's time to make some revisions on the DMCA, such shortening the takedown period, and requiring a federal judge's temporary restraining order to extend it. There should also be a minimum base damage liability for a false or fraudulent takedown (I propose $250 per day). Thus, even for individuals not making any money from content, there is something to recover from all those embarrassing days their content was gone. There should also be $25 processing fee paid to the ISPs per takedown. No more freebies.

    I'm sure a lot of people reading this would argue that it should just go away. Well, that is very unlikely to happen.

    • by gnud (934243)
      If there should be a processing fee, then that fee should be paid by the accused if the content is found to be infringing.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:43AM (#25538069)

    Despite the problems and abuses, it's impossible to gauge what the internet landscape would look like today had it not been for the DMCA

    Er, you could look at the Internet landscape found in other countries that didn't have a DMCA-style law in 1998.

  • by syousef (465911) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:46AM (#25538079) Journal

    So if not for a draconian law that takes away fair use rights and introduces excessive and harsh penalties for minor infringements, we wouldn't have a buzzword laden technique for dynamically changing the content on a web page withuot a full refresh.

    I don't think I've heard anything this absurd, even on slashdot, in quite some time.

    (And yes I know I've over-simplified, but come on people!)

    • we wouldn't have a buzzword laden technique for dynamically changing the content on a web page withuot a full refresh.

      The two-point-oh-ness is in the back-button-breaking communication with the server without doing a refresh. We've had javascript that could muck around with the page for some time now.

      -- Jonas K

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Btarlinian (922732)
      User-generated content would not have had a place to flourish if it were not for the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. You'd have a hard time arguing with that. Any person who is not a member of of the **AA agrees that many of the copyright infringement rules included in it are crap. But it is certainly plausible to argue that benefit of user-generated content outweighed the impacts of draconian rules on DeCSS, etc.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by syousef (465911)

        User-generated content would not have had a place to flourish if it were not for the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.

        Funny, I remember plenty of content before the DMCA came into force.

        There, that wasn't hard to argue at all now was it?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Btarlinian (922732)

          Really, so YouTube wouldn't have been sued into oblivion without the DMCA safe harbor? Without the DMCA, any website that could have possibly allowed for copyright infringement would never have existed in the United States. Slashdot comments that were copies of the article would likely have resulted in Slashdot being sued by the original content producer. Now at worst, they can get a takedown notice.

          I will admit that it is rather ironic that the DMCA allows companies to be unwittingly used as copyright infr

    • Imagine a world without the DMCA, where videos mocking the business school graduates and advertising people who came up with 'Web 2.0' could have discredited it and left it dead on the vine. Imagine all the dancing bears, freed from their pointless jobs of serving Web 2.0 applications for no other reason than to make the demo look interesting. Imagine a world where IP lawyers have to actually win their case to get paid, instead of being 'big stick' used by people to harass those who cannot afford to have su
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      You never had fair use rights in the US. You only ever had an affirmative defence. The distinction is rather significant in cases like this.

      Not that I agree with the anti-circumvention principle, but if you're going to make an argument about the legal situation, I suggest that it will normally be more credible if you start from where we are and not where you'd like us to be.

  • Excuse me... (Score:2, Interesting)

    Web 2.0 flourished DESPITE the chokehold the greedy fat cats of imaginary property hold on our culture.
  • by apodyopsis (1048476) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:58AM (#25538123)

    I don't know about you, but for me it says a lot that the mere fact that any law is being backed by a MPAA policy advisor makes me distrust it more.
  • illogical. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wickerprints (1094741) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @03:31AM (#25538235)

    The article contains a serious flaw in logic. Given the legal environment of the DMCA, if the internet we have now is a Good Thing, then how does that imply that the DMCA is the cause, without considering how much potentially better things could have been instead?

    This kind of false rationalization is neither legitimate news reporting, nor is it respectful of those who have fought against the abuses of a poorly conceived and implemented law.

    After all, it's a bit like saying that because my car got towed yesterday, I wasn't able to get into a car accident. That I had no car to wreck does not mean I am better off for having it towed--in fact, it is very probable the time and money I spent to retrieve it could have gone to something much more rewarding and useful.

  • Sweet Irony (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CuteSteveJobs (1343851) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @03:37AM (#25538263)

    Sounds like the typical "I've done nothing wrong" diatribe of a man who refuses to admit a mistake despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=bogus+dmca [google.com.au]

    I'm not impressed, and since I'm outside of the US, I've a good mind to make a bogus DMCA complaint to Wired's Teleco and get the apologist's blog taken down.

  • by zakezuke (229119) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @04:28AM (#25538475)

    I have to really wonder about this. The DMCA only applies within US borders. Piracy is alive and well. There is thepirate bay, somewhat lame video sites tudou.com and youku.com, and I can still find a ton of infringing material on Youtube. I can't for example upload a 20 second clip that Sony owns an interest in without it getting pulled based on keywords. I've had to deal with offline storage sites that to be fair take a takedown notice as license to terminate an account period without resolve.

    Without the DMCA I have to wonder if the web would still be the wild wild west of 2000, and if so would it actually be better. Piracy is pretty damn good advertising.

  • by florescent_beige (608235) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @06:40AM (#25539047) Journal

    The MPAA's Attaway, who calls himself the lobbying group's "old man" for his 33 years of service, recalls that the DMCA was a compromise from the start. "The ISPs wanted safe harbor provisions in return for their support for the anti-circumvention provisions, which was one of the major and most important compromises in this legislation," he says. "It's not perfect. But it's better than nothing."

    This MPAA lawyer speaks of a compromise between themselves and ISPs. As if they are the only parties involved.

    What about the 300 million actual human bodies that the politicians are supposed to represent? Attaway knows what the MPAA and the ISPs wanted. Does he have a clue what the actual human beings wanted? Did congress?

    Evidently the MPAA has successfully convinced Washington that those humans should be considered as "customers" and not "voters".

    • by mbone (558574)

      At the time the DMCA was passed, this was all very arcane stuff with no real consumer interest, which is how we got the bad law we got.

      That's the way the system works - for the public to be considered part of the process, the public has to get interested, and 10 years ago there just wasn't much.

  • my interactive web 2.0 was catalysed in time. i just dont know what i would do if the DMCA hadn't made the web safe for scientology.
  • There is a whole world out there and to assume that the DMCA which hardly applies to anyone outside the US is just fooling yourselves.....

  • by ProzacPatient (915544) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @07:20AM (#25539237)
    I think people would be much more interested in the EFF's viewpoint [eff.org] on the whole DMCA anniversary.
  • Better than nothing. It was poorly thought through and should be repealed.

  • You're right, the DMCA ain't perfect.

    And it's not just the anti-circumvention clause. It's also the lack of any real penalties for sending bad-faith takedown notices, the requirement that takedowns must be assumed valid until proven invalid (and content must be taken down immediately upon receiving), and the lack of reliable protection for fair-use.

    In fact, the entire law is a crapshoot. Safe harbor is the only thing they got right, and even then, you can't say that this "saved the Web" and brought about

  • Speaking only for myself, possibly more than a few will agree with me, but "Horse Shit!"

    Thank you, drive through....

  • 1) Bullshit.
    2) So what? "Web 2.0" is nothing but a CPU-intensive marketing scam.
    3) ("No, wait--THREE! Three points!") The DMCA is NOT better than nothing, it's actually worse than nothing.

    I'm disappointed. Wired is usually better than this.

"But this one goes to eleven." -- Nigel Tufnel

Working...