[DMCA-Activists] How to make a magic stick? Easy...(two questions for the group(s)

[Anatoly Volynets]

Q. How to make a magic stick?
A. It's really easy, just take a magic log...

Although, for some reasons, I cannot take the question
seriously, there is an answer to share...

As Matthew said below 'Judges in general... are willing to let
anything go as long as it says 'copyright' somewhere on it'. I
believe there is a reason for this attitude and therefore we
must talk about "copyright". I think the only practical way to
get rid of DMCA is to get rid of copyrights, all in all.

As for the US this means to scrutiny the respective clause of
the Constitution and make it clear that no proprietary
('exclusive')  rights on works of art may 'promote the Progress
of Science and useful Arts' ever. And this comes to another
Amendment.

What would this take? Sounds impossible to resolve, but I read
no hope in the response to the initial questions about DMCA
either.

I do not think the problem ends up in a sum of money we can use.
Suppose, some really wealthy men want to bring back slavery in
the US? Something tells me that no money, under no circumstances
would help to accomplish this nowadays.

Or let it be 'stealing'. Can anybody urge that with proper
amount of money it is possible to get enough votes in the
Congress for justification of *any stealing*?

And here we approach our subject. Copyrights, in public view,
are quite naturally forgotten as a tool 'to promote the Progress
of Science and useful Arts', but become a justified tool for
media corporations' income generator. The idea of copyright has
lived under the mask of rewarding creators while in reality
worked in exactly opposite direction, all along, for over 300
years now. This general misjudgment in particular translates
"copying" into "stealing".

So how can we expect judges to perceive copyright related laws
and cases if they imply notion of property stealing? It became a
matter of principle, nothing else. I cannot seize recalling that
case about Girl Scouts, when charges were pressed for singing
around campfire. No normal person, in my view, may just discuss
it as some kind of legal or business matter. And this is exactly
what has happened. This totally insane case had been calmly
going on, discussed, analyzed. Where we are then?.. And what is
so special about DMCA in the light of the "Girl Scout case"?

So the very first question is, what is the right goal to
work for?

Why don't we take Piranesi as an example to follow? He created
some technologically utopian projects, so-called 'paper
architecture'. They were was just beautiful, that's it, but time
had come and Piranesi's projects and design ideas become
implementable. He got followers. This happened long after his
death, but this happened.

So the time for new Amendment will come and somebody must make
it happen.

Anatoly
http://www.total-knowledge.com

On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

>
> On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 09:25 AM, Dr. John Raymond Baker wrote:
>
> > I just have a couple of questions to try to get a consensus of the
> > groups
> > concerning these issues.
> > 1) What do you think the chances of getting the DMCA repealed are,
> > with a
> > time frame of the next two years?
>
> DMCA 512: Zero.
>
> DMCA 1201: Negligible.
>
> (512 is takedown/ISP liability and 1201 is anticircumvention)
>
> There is some (say, 20%) chance the courts will find for Verizon in the
> 512 subpoena case, though.  As much as 5% chance they find the
> expedited subpoena unconstitutional altogether -- since the process
> bypasses the judges entirely, they might be irritated by it.
>
> > 2) What do you think it would take to get the DMCA repealed (i.e. not
> > asking
> > about the mechanism by which Acts are changed in the US, just talking
> > about
> > pressure from public or critical lawsuits, or whatever.)
>
> Large bags of cash donated to public officials, in greater amounts
> than the MPAA and RIAA can manage.  Judges in general like the DMCA and
> are willing to let anything go as long as it says 'copyright' somewhere
> on it.
>