Petition to Repeal the DMCA
petitions.whitehouse.gov
petitions.whitehouse.gov
That still leaves the issue of whether circumvention should be criminal (as opposed to civil) when infringement does occur, and the related question of whether distributing "circumvention tools" should be illegal in itself, but those are things people can reasonably argue about. (I personally think they're both inane, especially given their demonstrable complete lack of effectiveness at their stated purpose.) But I have never heard any legitimate argument whatsoever in favor of prohibiting circumvention when there is no infringement, e.g. to unlock a phone or make fair use of the copyrighted work. So if anyone can supply any reason whatsoever why that should be prohibited then let's hear it, and if not then let's fix it.
On the other hand, the safe harbor provisions under the DMCA just protect you from penalties under the DMCA. I'd vote repeal the whole debacle (granted I haven't read the DMCA in a few years, but I don't recall seeing anything I liked save for the self-limiting provisions of the statute).
Edit: I'm wrong. Was thinking of just Title I. Title II and III are indeed worth saving!
You might want to re-read Sec. 512.
Now that I'm better informed... (thanks!) I change my position to repeal of Title I of the DMCA in its entirety, not the entire DMCA.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-alcohol-sched...
Please note that mine is not a joke, but is designed to be rejected by the administration. The goal is to capture on record why a known dangerous substance is allowed to be sold for recreational consumption.
It's been a hard sell, because people:
- are too lazy to click on a link
- don't care
- love their booze and don't understand my proposal
- don't believe in the petitioning process
Realize that the Supreme Court has interpreted the federal government's constitutional powers much more broadly in the decades since prohibition.
This petition was in direct response to the DEA's recent refusal to remove it from Schedule I status. This keeps it in the same class of drugs as heroin and cocaine.
It was an abject failure.
This is not about "letting people get loaded". That will always happen. This is about taking away what could be considered the primary tool of tyranny by the State. Now the War on Terror is edging it out for first place.
I have not seen a single sane explanation for the US prescription laws. I'm almost certain they're unconstitutional and there is not a provision in the US constitution that makes it possible to pass laws banning the sale, use, or ownership of non-addictive prescription drugs.
Forget alcohol. Why is non-habit-forming blood pressure medication prescription-only? Sure, you can hurt yourself with it if you take it when you're not supposed to and use it when you don't need it.. but how is that the government's concern? Allergy medicine? Diabetes medication? NSAIDs? Pregnancy pills?
e.g., "This is to point out the fallacies and failures of the War on Drugs"
The moment that wording was part of it then Gil Kerlikowske (our "Drug Czar") would be writing the reply and repeating the same old lies about having to do this and that to keep us safe.
It has to have a minimal opportunities for spin.
[0]https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/what-we-have-say-a...
It's a good idea though... you just might have to get the actual Prohibitionists on side.
Regulate for purity, educate for use, and provide medical help for those that need it.
Making drugs illegal doesn't stop people from using them; my brother died of a heroin overdose so this is an issue very close to my heart.
Like patents, it's become a popular punching bag here on HN. Well, I stand loud and proud against "the HN mob" of wanna be's and know it all's. I'm ready to get downvoted to hell on this one, but it's important that someone speaks up. I am pro DMCA! (And patents!)
Generally speaking, DMCA and patents are a pain in the ass for a really young company. Startups want to move fast and break stuff... which is great... except they typically do so at the expense of people who came before you and busted their butt just as hard as you're busting yours. Why should you get to play by a different set of rules then they did? You shouldn't.
When -- if ever -- your startup grows up, DMCA and patents are how you stay in business. It has to be easy and cost-effective to protect your creations, or else the incentive to create is greatly diminished and the ROI for R&D is zero. Intellectual property protection is the keystone of a modern knowledge economy. And if you don't understand why, I'd recommend taking a microeconomics 101 on iTunes U or Youtube. VC, private equity.. hell, even Wall St., wouldn't be in America were it not for our world-class intellectual property laws.
Just because 100,000 people sign a DMCA petition doesn't make it right. 1,000,000 McDonalds hamburgers are sold every day... is that the right thing to eat just because a million people are doing it? My point is: one of the downfalls of voting websites like HN, reddit, or even the whitehouse.gov platform is people who know nothing get their votes counted the same as people who are experts on the subject. Well, I've been litigated for patent infringement, and I work with DMCA at my current company, and I know both issues intimately. DMCA, and patents, work. I know there are other startups out there who depend on DMCA, and if you're one of them, upvote this.
For everyone else, please educate yourself on what exactly DMCA does and the importance of IP laws in the American economy.
(N.B. Yes I am lumping DMCA and patents together a lot here, because the complaints behind both of them stem from a lot of the same entitlement mindset that startups are somehow entitled to implement technologies or host data that is not theirs.)
Can't the same be said of elective democracy?
Hmm. Then explain to me why the GPL and other free and open source software licenses have been booming and Creative Commons has been getting tons of attention, because I just can't seem to connect the dots.
In most cases, they only affect people trying to play by the rules; outside of a few specialized niches, almost all software and content ends up cracked and on The Pirate Bay no matter what. On the other hand, my right to back up content I legitimately purchased or use such content on a device that hasn't been authorized by some third party is restricted. Phone unlocking and jailbreaking are affected even though they're mostly about interoperability, not copying content.
The petition isn't entirely anti-DMCA and neither are many people on HN. The DMCA offers a safe harbor for websites that host user submitted content and it gives a mechanism for truly infringing content to be taken down. There are alternative approaches that some might like better but they are unlikely to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, these two aspects are both good for businesses and I doubt that they're as controversial here as you state they are. There are, however, serious issues with the DMCA. One of these is that there's little to no recourse when the DMCA is abused by a company to take down materials that they don't own the copyright to (this happens frequently). Another issue is that circumventing DRM is illegal even if no copyright infringement is taking place (this is the actual point of the petition). It's not impossible to support the positive aspects of the DMCA while simultaneously recognizing that it is far from perfect and in need of reform.
PS - I downvoted you. It had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I agree with you. You're baiting for upvotes/downvotes with statements like "I'm ready to get downvoted to hell on this one" and "I know there are other startups out there who depend on DMCA, and if you're one of them, upvote this." You're also being unnecessarily insulting and condescending when saying *"I stand loud and proud against 'the HN mob' of wanna be's and know it all's," when this adds nothing to your argument. This behavior is clearly against the Hacker News Guidelines (http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and more importantly it's both rude and nonconstructive.
As for stating the truth -- how I don't care if people downvote my opinion, observing how HN is filled with a majority of wanna be's and know it all's and very few do'ers, or encouraging startups with similar views to support my comment -- it isn't necessarily "baiting" for votes. That's colorful language meant to incite dissent, and for that I applaud your salesmanship; but, I actually find your PS to be a bit sanctimonious and churlish. But -- we all have a choice to up/down vote based on content or presentation of someone's comment. I guess I just care more about the content.
And for that, I give you an upvote.
Because 1)the rules are arbitrary, and 2) the same argument was made by the first guy to get locked out of commercializing his own invention because someone else patented it first. The "because: the status quo" argument is isn't very compelling.
"It has to be easy and cost-effective to protect your creations, or else the incentive to create is greatly diminished and the ROI for R&D is zero."
The incentive might shift, but certainly not disappear. The focus would be on tangible and less speculative areas (food, shelter, basic tech; all positive in a recession), but I wouldn't expect to suffer. Fear of eliminating patents and copyright is a boogyman. (Edit: To elaborate: you don't "protect" ideas, and winning by holding people back is misanthropic.)
"VC, private equity.. hell, even Wall St., wouldn't be in America were it not for our world-class intellectual property laws."
Correlation is not causation. I would say "in spite of". The US (and NA) markets are different, and arguably less competitive, than even 50 years ago. (Edit: The current economic downturn coincides with ramping up on copyright and imaginary property law, among other things.)
"the complaints behind both of them stem from a lot of the same entitlement mindset that startups are somehow entitled to implement technologies or host data that is not theirs."
That entitlement is the sentiment that used to be associated with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," IMHO. Hardly something to dismiss or resent.
I had a very high traffic blog article copied about a half dozen times with domain names purchased JUST to post the article and replace all the Amazon affiliate tags and advertisements with their own.
Had it not been for the DMCA, I'm not sure what I could have done. But for exactly $0 and 5 minutes of my time, I was able to email their host and the content was taken down in less than a few hours.
Why should I not be able to hack my OWN tablet? Why can't I unlock my OWN phone? Why is it that the government exercises near-dictatorial control over digital rights? Sure, it does help with copyright issues, but there's a ton of things in there that have nothing to do with copyright, like the law against jailbreaking tablets.
The point is, the DMCA exists for a good reason, but it was written by people who know nothing about how digital media works while they were in bed with the RIAA and MPAA. It can be revised to eliminate the freedom-limiting aspects while still preserving the good portions of the law.
I'm sure there are politicians who don't know how to check their own e-mail, but who have strong opinions on DMCA-esque legislation because they think piracy === theft and overbearing laws like the DMCA are the only way to prevent theft 2.0.
You have to be immersed in technology to understand the nuanced implications of technology law, and most of our representatives have not spent their lives immersed in technology like most of us have.