CATO Institute Releases Paper Criticizing DMCA 418
flanksteak writes "The CATO institute has published a paper criticizing the DMCA entitled 'The Perverse Consequences of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.' From the article: 'The DMCA is anti-competitive. It gives copyright holders--and the technology companies that distribute their content--the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Worst of all, DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective; they inconvenience legitimate users but do little to stop pirates.'" A report worth taking a look at that puts into words what most of us know already.
Re:hehe (Score:5, Informative)
CATO conservative? Right-wing? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:All aboard. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:CATO? (Score:5, Informative)
"Left versus right." (Score:5, Informative)
Re:hehe (Score:5, Informative)
Or better put, it's completely tangential to both. Left (Liberal) vs. right (Conservative) isn't useful, much less accurate, when talking about the border case Libertarian & Statist philosophies. More appropriate is a 4-point diamond with Libertarian & Statist opposite of each other and perpendicular to Liberal & Conservative; with Centrists in the middle.
Take the World's Smallest Political Quiz [theadvocates.org].
Quiz & explanation [theadvocates.org] (PDF file)
It's not CATO... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:In the end, it won't make much difference (Score:4, Informative)
"Whether we protect intellectual property as an inalienable right or as a privilege vouchsafed by the sovereign, such protection inevitably entails making some choices that have crucial implications for the balance we strike between the interests of those who innovate and those who would benefit from innovation." A balance between the benefit of society and the benefit of the inventor? I can live with that. I have no problem with giving someone enough time to make good on their idea before all the me-toos jump on the bandwagon. Where that balance lies is the crucial thing, though.
"Of particular current relevance to our economy overall is the application of property right protection to information technology. A noticeable component of the surge in the trend growth of the economy in recent years arguably reflects the synergy of laser and fiber optic technologies in the 1960s and 1970s." Uh oh, he's talking about IP in the IT world, almost sounds scary. But his next statement is about hardware, and highly technical hardware no less. This is the closest he gets to talking about software patents. I'd love to hear him address that issue specifically, but so far, I can't disagree. IT has often piggy-backed on the IP of other areas, most notably because it's usually implemented as an abstract (virtual, if you prefer) version of a physical object. Other times it's because of the improvements of physical items that has increased the capacity of equipment used in the IT world.
"The dramatic gains in information technology have markedly improved the ability of businesses to identify and address incipient economic imbalances before they inflict significant damage. These gains reflect new advances in both the physical and the conceptual realms. It is imperative to find the appropriate intellectual property regime for each." That sounds suspiciously like "IP needs different protections for physical inventions versus conceptual inventions, and different rules may apply" to me. Again, an astute observation, and more obvious from an economic standpoint than most others. The IT world behaves differently than much of the physical world - why would we expect treating them the same to work without problems?
That's just a few of the things he has to say. I strongly recommend anyone who is concerned about IP, especially the economic impact of IP, read that speech. He's pointing the way to both criteria to test if IP law is effective, and means to formulate a solution to any problems found in IP law. If you can't get rid of IP law altogether (and I'm not sure I want to), at least arguments like his could guide us towards a more rational implementation. And all in an economic fashion, which matters far more to government than opinions, feelings, or ideals these days.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
CATO is a MAJOR Washington DC think tank (Score:3, Informative)
They are THE libertarian think tank and one of the top think tanks in the nation. (Some other top think tanks are Hoover Institution, Heritage, AEI, and Brookings)
People on the more libertarian side of the Republican party will take it seriously. Personally, I love CATO, but many people will dismiss anything CATO does out of hand because they are libertarian. They are for legalization of drugs, private accounts for Social Security, Health Savings Accounts, school vouchers, repeal of Health Information Privacy Act, etc...
As I said, they are read and respected, but libertarians and people sympathetic to more libertarian ideas are (unfortunately IMHO) a small percentage of congress and the population.
Re:Pirates (Score:4, Informative)
People don't call people who share software "pirates". Nobody accuses RMS or Linus Torvalds of piracy. The people we call pirates are the people who make unlicensed copies of other people's software, which is not exactly "sharing" in the neighbourly sense.
As for calling people who make unlicensed copies of other people's work "pirates", well, according to the SOED in front of me, people have been using the noun "pirate" to mean "someone who infringes on the copyright of another" since 1701, and the verb "pirate" to mean "to appropriate or reproduce the work or invention of another without authority" since at least 1706. So, no - given that we've been using the word that way for at least 300 years, I rather doubt we're going to stop now.
Re:All aboard. (Score:2, Informative)
And this man [house.gov] is guiltly of malfeasance. Between 1997 and 1998 he accepted over $50,000 [opensecrets.org] from the entertainment industry in exchange for indroducing the DMCA to Congress. It's what Ralf Nader calls legalized bribery. You give us money, we'll support your bill. Oh the madness of it!
Re:CATO conservative? Right-wing? (Score:1, Informative)
On the topic of DRM circumvention (Score:3, Informative)
Thinking that was a pretty crappy way to operate something that should be as easy to add music to as copying files though My Computer to the iPod removable drive, I did a google search that would be illegal in the United States of America.
I came up with this:
software that operates the Shuffle without running iTunes [agoraphobeus.free.fr] *
which allows me to copy music to my iPod and generate a playlist without iTunes messing up my life.
*Offer void in the United States of America. Turnabout from the infamous [at least in the Rest of the World] "Offer void outside of the USA" is pretty sweet I do say so myself.
Re:Pirates (Score:3, Informative)
So - repeat after me. Copyright infringement is not piracy. Copyright infringement is not piracy. Copyright infringement is not piracy. Now, go forth and spread the word. Maybe one day we'll be able to shift this debate back to where it belongs - into the realm of copyright law.
Re:All aboard. (Score:5, Informative)
Anti-government, pro-consensual society.
As economists, they dislike the root causes for inflation, and the fact that the fed has one private bank print all our money.
Conservatives tend to love it when the government controls things like money and marriage and drugs.