The DMCA is unconstitutional.
By
Ryan Grove
on February 16, 2007
Technically, the DMCA has been ruled constitutional by a federal court. However, I personally believe that ruling was in error.
Agreed
52
3
94.5% 5.5%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
Similar claims
- 46-2 In the United States, you have the right to refuse to allow a police officer to enter your home if the officer has neither a warrant nor a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed inside.
- 27-1 Even if a speech act can be interpreted as promoting illegal activity, it should still be protected under the US Constitution.
- 38-0 The following is a series of hexadecimal numbers: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
- 31-7 The State Secrets privilege is unconstitutional.
- 30-0 The DMCA should be repealed by Congress or rejected by the SCOTUS.
Discussion (8)
Without a specific violation, I don't currently see that this is true.
D'A
Do some research. It'll be good for you.
Specifically, it restricts the freedom of speech by prohibiting distribution of "circumvention measures". The trouble is that the nature of software makes it difficult to pinpoint the difference between a speech act and a machine.
[who used to disagree:]
That's a pretty good argument, though I'll admit I really haven't thought about the DMCA (or the SSCA) in five years or so.[1]
I suppose that it boils down to whether circumvention measures should be protected speech, and how making this argument jibes with the entire idea of copyright. This should have been an extremely easy case to make, considering the obvious academic applications.[2]
Given my personal proclivities and the obviously self-destructive implications of that clause, I'll change my vote now.
D'A
[1]: NB that I've always considered the DMCA a bad law passed by hopelessly ignorant congresscritters. It's the specific charge of unconstitutionality that I wanted more support for.
[2]: My personal view is that restricting discussion of anything faces a pretty tough constitutionality challenge. But I'm trying to think of this in terms of the legal arguments one might put forward.
Hmm. I totally forgot about this claim. I should have justified the claim myself instead of flippantly telling D'Archangel to do his own research. Sorry about that, D'A. Thanks for taking up the slack, Rorek.
The whole thing is the distributers going into convulsions because media distribution is becoming effortless and their entire business model is based on it. The artists and their agents make most of their money doing other stuff.
Is my posting this link to watch 300 (the movie which isn't on DVD yet) a federal crime?
http://www.tv-links.co.uk/show.do/4/4404
It is now! David Watson, you are hereby notified that you're to report to Guantanamo Bay on 31 March 2008 at 4pm. Do NOT be late!
My vote is not where my heart is; it is a mere technicality.