 |
|
Every so often, it's worth the time to read a rant on why many find the DMCA so evil. The laws of unintended consequences, referred to often in the H'wood/SV debate, are well summarized here. I wonder what would have happened to our culture if, back in the early days of the printing press (or the early days of the Internet for that matter), text content were as "protected" as video and audio is now.
Posted by John Battelle at November 19, 2002 08:43 AMIn addition, the DMCA may lead artists straight into obscurity rather than that magic kingdom of fame and fortune.
Dan Bricklin explains in "Copy Protection Robs the Future": "Works that are copy protected are less likely to survive into the future. The formal and informal world of archivists and preservers will be unable to do their job of moving what they keep from one media to another newer one, nor will they be able to ensure survival and appreciation through wide dissemination, even when it is legal to do so. If you are an artist or author who cares more than about the near-term value of your work, you should be worried and be careful about releasing your work only in copy protected form. Like the days when "art" was only accessible to the rich, two classes will probably develop: Copy protected and not copy protected, the 'high art' and 'folk art' of tomorrow."