10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA Is the Law That "Saved the Web" 205
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.'"
Safe Harbor made innovation work (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Safe Harbor made innovation work (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Safe Harbor made innovation work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Safe Harbor made innovation work (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Safe Harbor made innovation work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Safe Harbor made innovation work (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Safe Harbor made innovation work (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
What do you have against anonymous speech?
Absolutely nothing!
Re:Safe Harbor made innovation work (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re:Safe Harbor made innovation work (Score:4, Insightful)
If there was no DMCA, we wouldn't need the safe harbor.
Except for that pesky Copyright Act of 1976.
Re:Safe Harbor made innovation work (Score:5, Insightful)
Well the alternative before the DMCA safe harbour is that sites like Youtube would be held accountable for every single copyright violation on them. Think about that for a moment before you go calling someone a moron. The DMCA is far from perfect but, as was previously stated, is better then nothing for certain cases.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
it's a terrible shitty law so please s
Re: (Score:2)
And it was nowhere near as big or popular as now, and there was absolutely nothing like Youtube around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In many of those countries there have been serious issues with this. Various (e.g. German) Wikipedias have to be much more careful than the English edition since their contributors are mostly in their home countries. Look at the cases in Europe against Google's image cache and news headlines systems. I think these problems would have been much worse if there wasn't clear competition from the US which makes it clear to judges that if they make a stupid judgement, services will simply move offshore to comp
-1, Troll (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Yes! It saved the web! (Score:2)
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?
Re:Yes! It saved the web! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
DMCA caused web 2.0? (Score:4, Funny)
Safe Herbor? (Score:2)
Because our ISPs totally need the protection (Score:2, Informative)
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)?
Re:Because our ISPs totally need the protection (Score:4, Insightful)
They have no financial incentive to defend you, and all past activities suggest they'd kick you to the curb and say "Use someone else for your ISP" regardless of whether or not that's possible.
I mean, do you really want Comcast fighting for your rights?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, do you really want Comcast fighting for your rights?
Better than fighting against them.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understood it. If the choice for Comcast is to fight a costly legal battle every time they get a copyright cease and desist, or simply obey it and throw you under a bus, which do you think is more likely?
DMCA saved me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Praising the DMCA is going a bit far (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
You fail the quiz (Score:2)
Maybe the header in that section, "Conveying Non-Source Forms"? If he has given the source code, he is not bound by article 6.b)
Re: (Score:2)
Like the old adage: "You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Praising the DMCA is going a bit far (Score:5, Interesting)
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 ?
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)
To be fair (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Created in 1997, a year before the DMCA.
Draconian Media Copyright Act (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Bovine Fecal Matter (Score:5, Funny)
"Better than nothing"? (Score:5, Insightful)
A completely different DMCA could have worked, too (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Impossible to gauge? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean elfwood? Ughhhh....
Responsible for Web 2.0? (Score:4, Insightful)
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!)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
I don't know about you... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
It's not perfect. But it's better than nothing? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Where Was the Democratic Process (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Web 2 is thriving even without the DMCA (Score:2)
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.....
Electronic Frontier Foundation (Score:3, Informative)
No, it's not... (Score:2)
Better than nothing. It was poorly thought through and should be repealed.
Wow, Wired. (Score:2)
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
...DMCS Is the Law that "Saved the Web" (Score:2)
Speaking only for myself, possibly more than a few will agree with me, but "Horse Shit!"
Thank you, drive through....
Two points (Score:2)
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.
"Journalism" Wired Style (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA is a total fallacy, there is not even a weak attempt at justifying the conclusion
that the DMCA has had any sort of beneficial effects on technology, much less
"catalyzing the interactive '2.0' web".
There is as much of a cause/effect relationship between the two as
there is between the DMCA being enacted and my balls growing gray hairs the same year.
Here's a link to the definition of Non sequitur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) [wikipedia.org]
Just your typical lame eyeball whoring by Wired, nothing to see move along.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't talking about interactive technology, they are talking about sites where users interact with each other by uploading content. If a site was on the hook for infringing material uploaded by their users then no site would be able to publish something without first vetting it. A site like YouTube couldn't exist, there is no possible way to clear hundreds of thousands of videos uploaded daily by people all over the world. All you would have are sites that publish exclusively from "content partners
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not perfect, but not all bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Without the explicit "fair use" bits, the Web wouldn't look like it does today.
Fair Use existed as US common law over a hundred years ago.
Without the DMCA, those (media) companies would have had to file lawsuits that would have quickly and explicitly carved out the limits of fair use, which would be good for us and not for them.
The DMCA did not give us, the end users, any benefit that I can see.
Even if you want to argue benefits, I don't think it will take much to show the negatives have far outweighed any positives.
One good bit wrapped in something awful... (Score:2)
Right you are. The only part about fair use in the DMCA is that it (allegedly) doesn't change it any.
Thought it does leave abuse-prone Notice & Takedown problems. Granted, the Safe Harbor in the law _is_ a huge help and I wouldn't want to give that up. But that doesn't mean that the Takedown procedures shouldn't be reformed (or removed).
So there's really only one good part of it: the Safe Harbor. If you ditched the rest of the bill tomorrow, I doubt anyone but the MAFIAA would miss it.
Which must be
Re: (Score:2)
Without the DMCA, there wouldn't be any photo or video sharing sites, for instance. Every time one of their users lost one of those lawsuits the site would be on the hook for secondary infringement. Nobody would take that kind of risk. Sites would only publish stuff from "content partners" they could trust or maybe
Re:Not perfect, but not all bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
>Without the DMCA, those (media) companies would have had to file lawsuits that would have quickly and explicitly carved out the limits of fair use, which would be good for us and not for them.
I'm not sure I would trust the courts to make the right decisions about fair use when it comes to the Internet.
From the bits and pieces of US court rulings I've heard since the Internet gained popularity (~1993 to present), I've noticed a trend: When US courts are faced with cases involving technology they don't understand the details of, they sometimes ignore the existing well-established law that anyone familiar with the technology could see was obviously relevant and instead toss a coin and follow one party or another's 'creative' (i.e. off-the-wall) theories without anyone providing substantial arguments in support of any of the theories.
I can't remember every unquestioningly-accepted theory that has led me to this conclusion, but off the top of my head, the highlights are:
- Treating domain names as property
- Applying trademark restrictions to queries (e.g. DNS lookups and web searches)
- Deeming linking to a document to be the same as copying or distributing it
- More generally, assigning responsibility for actions automatically carried out by a computer to [any of: the computer's owner, operator, designer, manufacturer, programmer] without suggesting negligence or giving any other reason for this at all
In any case, all of this means that I'm a little uncertain where (or in what ballpark) a US court would put the boundaries for fair use on the Internet. =)
I'm not saying that the DMCA is the answer (it's about 180 degrees from it), but I think another law clarifying things for the courts was (and still is?) what is needed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Er... I meant to say that another law clarifying things for the courts is needed _in_the_US_. If you happen to live in a country where courts seem to be able to understand the details of new technology and figure out how existing law applies to it (*cough* http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/27/2134214 [slashdot.org] *cough*) then no special laws plz.
Re: (Score:2)
He said "fair use" but he very obviously meant the Safe Harbor provision.
So you've never used YouTube, Flikr, etc.? Because they would all be shut down (ala. Napster) for contributory copyright infringement as soon as the first copyrighted and non-fair use material was uploaded to the respective sites.
Napster wasn't the only example, just the most well known and recognizable. Innu
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose this entire thread could be killed by an analogy to World War Two and Hitler.
If it wore not for Hitler we would have no nuclear energy or computers today because those where products of that war. Does this give WWII or the Nazis a Good Light? I hope not.
These things would have come about on their own. As would the concept of Safe Harber, if Fair Use was proven insufficient. But there is more damage from DMCA that remains. The concept of Fair Use, which was quite suitable for centuries has bee
Re: (Score:2)
Without the DMCA, those (media) companies would have had to file lawsuits against the (new) web 2.0 companies, which would have quickly bankrupted new companies that had yet to establish a solid business plan. It would not have carved out what fair use was, because the companies would not have fought it at all.
I can't tell which way was better. Also, hindsight is 20-20... I don't think anyone 10 years ago would have been able to predict torrents, the availability of bandwidth coupled with the availability o
Re:Not perfect, but not all bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Headline: 10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA Is the Law That "Saved the Web"
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices of anti-copyright extremists suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember Wired coming out and me and a friend of mine were all gunned up for it. We thought it was going to be like a Blacklisted 411 or 2600 but geared toward the mainstream of technology. Instead when we got to the newsstand on that fateful day we found lame wanna-be tech that even Omni wouldn't cover wrapped up in a cheap Spin Magazine template.
Very disappointing.