Fw: [wwwac] DMCA (fwd)

[Jim Choate]

---------- Forwarded message ----------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Sims" <jellicle at inch.com>
To: <wwwac at lists.wwwac.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 10:55 PM
Subject: [wwwac] DMCA


> On Wednesday 26 December 2001 06:00 pm, David Fenton wrote:
>
> > THIS IS A LIE.
>
> David, you're wrong.  In the U.S. legal system, laws passed supercede
> earlier laws that conflict.  If a law is passed, "it is legal to strangle
> ducks", then it is.  If a new law is passed, "it is illegal to strangle
> ducks", then it is not.  If still another law is passed, "it is legal to
> strangle ducks", then it is once again.  There's no need to explicitly
> delete earlier conflicting laws - although this is sometimes done for the
> sake of tidiness - the later date wins, regardless.
>
> So you're wrong there.  But you're mainly wrong because you don't
> understand the DMCA.  You don't understand how it works, you were fooled
> by the subterfuge involved, which, I might add, was explicitly designed to
> fool, so you can hardly be blamed.
>
> Let's see if an analogy helps.
>
> There is a patch of grass.  It is community grass.  It is green and
> luscious.  Everyone likes to walk on it.  If Congress banned walking on
> it, everyone would be upset.  But certain companies don't want people to
> walk on it.  They get a law passed.  It says: "It is illegal to climb over
> or break down any fence over one foot high, even to get to a patch of
> grass.  It is also illegal to tell anyone else how to climb over or break
> down such a fence."
>
> Today the companies are building fences around almost every patch of grass
> on the planet.  You can still walk on the grass, to be sure - that hasn't
> been outlawed.  You just can't cross a fence to walk on the grass.  And
> most of the grass is surrounded, all the way around, by fences.  Cross a
> fence and you've broken a law.  The law barely even mentions grass,
> doesn't seem to be - on the face of it - much concerned with grass, only
> fences, and yet it nevertheless has kept essentially everyone from walking
> on the grass.
>
> Which is what the companies wanted in the first place.
>
> If you don't understand this analogy, you don't understand the DMCA.  It
> is an extraordinarily powerful and far-reaching law.  If I were to
> continue the analogy, I should go on to describe the possibility of
> putting gates in the fences, and charging admission to pass through the
> gates - walking on the grass is free you see, but passing through the
> fence to get to the grass is not.  Not only is there a turnstile, there's
> also a bouncer at the gates, and if he doesn't like the look of you, you
> can't pass.  Anyone can walk on the grass, but only the people the bouncer
> likes can pass through the gates.  And it's illegal for *anyone* to climb
> the fences, even if they have no other way to walk on the grass.  Think
> about that for a while, and you might see where Ruben and Jay are coming
> from.
>
> Or maybe not.  The DMCA is a nice piece of subterfuge, don't be ashamed if
> you don't understand how it works.  Jay and Ruben are saying "The DMCA
> keeps you from walking on the grass" and you are saying "The DMCA doesn't
> _outlaw_ walking on the grass", which is true, in a very limited sense of
> "true", but basically misleading.  The DMCA is an anti-grass-walking law
> which does not outlaw walking on the grass.
>
>
> --
> Michael Sims
>
>
> ##  "Moving Forward..." Panel now playing: http://www.siliconalley.net/
##
> ##  The World Wide Web Artists' Consortium   ---   http://www.wwwac.org/
##
> ##  To Unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: wwwac-unsubscribe at lists.wwwac.org
##
>