Take a look at Jane Ginsburg, Copyright and Control over New Technologies of Dissemination, 101 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 1613 (2001). It explains how the DMCA is inline with historical amendments to copyright law by Congress.

Take a look at Jane Ginsburg, Copyright and Control over New Technologies of Dissemination, 101 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 1613 (2001). It explains how the DMCA is inline with historical amendments to copyright law by Congress.

Patrick writes: “we are in fact purchasing a set of rights to that content”.(emphasis added) With real estate, when you buy a house you do have a set of real rights in what you can do with that piece of property. You can remodel the house, you can sell it, and you can, if you lived long enough, own it forever. Music in MP3 format can be transferred to a variety of devices and can be held forever. The consumer is able to manage a set of rights. However, Patrick’s digital “set of rights” is a null set, it is the vendor who is totally defining how the consumer can use that content. Since the consumer lacks any discretionary authority to manage content in Patrick’s digital age, the consumer literally has no rights. Furthermore, the content vendor is aggrandizing his/her property rights by limiting the ability of the consumer to implement normal usage rights such as time shift, multiple play, and device independence. The logic of how deprivation constitutes freedom is strait out of Orwell’s universe.

Patrick writes: “we are in fact purchasing a set of rights to that content”.(emphasis added) With real estate, when you buy a house you do have a set of real rights in what you can do with that piece of property. You can remodel the house, you can sell it, and you can, if you lived long enough, own it forever. Music in MP3 format can be transferred to a variety of devices and can be held forever. The consumer is able to manage a set of rights. However, Patrick’s digital “set of rights” is a null set, it is the vendor who is totally defining how the consumer can use that content. Since the consumer lacks any discretionary authority to manage content in Patrick’s digital age, the consumer literally has no rights. Furthermore, the content vendor is aggrandizing his/her property rights by limiting the ability of the consumer to implement normal usage rights such as time shift, multiple play, and device independence. The logic of how deprivation constitutes freedom is strait out of Orwell’s universe.

Enigma: Like you I am opposed to the DMCA; however, I have one syntactic quibble. You wrote: “The whole DMCA itself is one giant governmental market intervention.” While the DMCA was clearly approved by the government, the government was simply acting as a lackey to corporate special interests. We have a government of, by, and for the corporations. If the government would develop a backbone and serve the public interest we wouldn’t have absurd laws, such as the DMCA

Enigma: Like you I am opposed to the DMCA; however, I have one syntactic quibble. You wrote: “The whole DMCA itself is one giant governmental market intervention.” While the DMCA was clearly approved by the government, the government was simply acting as a lackey to corporate special interests. We have a government of, by, and for the corporations. If the government would develop a backbone and serve the public interest we wouldn’t have absurd laws, such as the DMCA

1-The market was not “broken” in 1997.
2-We have today a digital content landscape.

I disagree with parts of what you say:

1-I don’t think the market needed section 1201(f) in order to form. It would have formed anyway.
2-I wouldn’t describe today’s digital content landscape as vibrant. It exists and expands, but I think this digital content landscape would be much more vibrant without the anti-circumvention clause.

Of course, this is mostly beliefs, as what you just wrote is.

regards,
Charles

1-The market was not “broken” in 1997.
2-We have today a digital content landscape.

I disagree with parts of what you say:

1-I don’t think the market needed section 1201(f) in order to form. It would have formed anyway.
2-I wouldn’t describe today’s digital content landscape as vibrant. It exists and expands, but I think this digital content landscape would be much more vibrant without the anti-circumvention clause.

Of course, this is mostly beliefs, as what you just wrote is.

regards,
Charles

The whole DMCA itself is one giant governmental market intervention. Anyone who argues in favor of DMCA is against market forces. It really is that simple.

The whole DMCA itself is one giant governmental market intervention. Anyone who argues in favor of DMCA is against market forces. It really is that simple.

I also don’t believe that Patrick Ross’ interpretation of the copyright of digital content is correct. “It’s easy to forget that when we purchase digital content, we are in fact purchasing a set of rights to that content, rights shaped by current technologies, as well as the expectations of both creators and consumers.” This just seems wrong. Rights of the creators and the consumers are set by congress through the copyright law, the goal of which is to promote … You see where I’m going. I take it this is what Britto was explaining.

The final argument by Ross that congress shouldn’t change the DMCA because the market seems to work fine could just as well be turned on its head. Why did the DMCA get enacted anyway? 9 years ago was 1997. What sort of indication did congress had that the market was “broken” in 1997 that prompted the DMCA? It seems to me it was mostly lobbying by the large content companies. As far as I know, it’s not like 50% of them filed for bankruptcy. Yes, they would have had to change the way they distribute their content (the same way it’s happening now). Who said that once you started making money with something it had to stay profitable for all of eternity? Markets are dynamic and technology changes. You have to adapt.

I also don’t believe that Patrick Ross’ interpretation of the copyright of digital content is correct. “It’s easy to forget that when we purchase digital content, we are in fact purchasing a set of rights to that content, rights shaped by current technologies, as well as the expectations of both creators and consumers.” This just seems wrong. Rights of the creators and the consumers are set by congress through the copyright law, the goal of which is to promote … You see where I’m going. I take it this is what Britto was explaining.

The final argument by Ross that congress shouldn’t change the DMCA because the market seems to work fine could just as well be turned on its head. Why did the DMCA get enacted anyway? 9 years ago was 1997. What sort of indication did congress had that the market was “broken” in 1997 that prompted the DMCA? It seems to me it was mostly lobbying by the large content companies. As far as I know, it’s not like 50% of them filed for bankruptcy. Yes, they would have had to change the way they distribute their content (the same way it’s happening now). Who said that once you started making money with something it had to stay profitable for all of eternity? Markets are dynamic and technology changes. You have to adapt.