Would Kerry Whack the DCMA as President?

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/Would+President+Kerry+defang+the+DMCA%3F/2010-1028_3-5423275.html?part=rss&tag=5423275&subj=news.1028.20' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/Would+President+Kerry+defang+the+DMCA%3F/2010-1028_3-5423275.html?part=rss&tag=5423275&subj=news.1028.20</a><br /><br /></div><i>"John Kerry finally has hinted at a position that would mark one of the first real differences from his Republican rival. In a barely noticed remark on Thursday, the Democratic senator said he might support defanging the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)--the unpopular law that has prompted take-to-the-street protests from the geek community. If Kerry is serious, that would be a remarkable metamorphosis on a law that the Senate approved without one dissenting vote. It would also be remarkable because, contrary to what Kerry and President Bush tell you, few differences exist between the two White House hopefuls on nearly any topic imaginable."</i><br /><br />We tend to avoid topics like this here at Digital Media Thoughts, because this is a site about technology not politics, but the DCMA has a huge impact on digital media in the USA so this is quite relevant to many of our readers. Any predictions on what will happen to the DCMA depending on who wins next week?

[sundown]

Yeah right, I doubt it would ever happen. Kerry gets a VERY strong nod from actors and musicians who tend to lean democrat anyway, right? With friends like that, why do something to tick them off?

[Gary Sheynkman]

Yeah right, I doubt it would ever happen. Kerry gets a VERY strong nod from actors and musicians who tend to lean democrat anyway, right? With friends like that, why do something to tick them off?


ah yes....just another example of Kerry sucking up to me :lol:

As much as I am a hypocrite concerning this law, I think it is a good thing that legislature is there to protect the content creators. When that legislature steps over the line though, it becomes a problem

[Felix Torres]

Don't count on it; that's just voter sucking-up for the Silicon Valley crowd.
He'll flop faster than you can say "Trial Lawyers".

On tuesday he made noises about how he was going to cut back the NASA manned spaceflight budget to increase its unmanned space probe and aeronautics budgets, probably figuring that manned flights are managed out of Texas (republican country) and unmanned probes are run out of California (a blue state).
Wedneday, somebody pointed out his plan meant layoffs at Kennedy Spaceport, which lies in Florida, a big battleground state, so he quickly recanted.

Of course, considering the 25% downsizing of NASA in the Clinton years, and the politically-inspired substitution of the older, tried-and-true, foam for the "environmentally-friendly" foam that killed Columbia, a Kerry killing of manned spaceflight is highly likely; he just doesn't want to discuss it while he still needs Florida votes.

As for the DMCA, do consider that it is Congress, not the prez, that drafts laws and Congress isn't up for grabs; the US isn't a parliamentary country, like Canada or Europe, where the executive comes in with a built-in legislative majority committed to voting as instructed. Here we have separation of powers (on paper, anyway), so Kerry can "hint" all he wants; Congress will vote as they will, not as he would like.

And, of course, that assumes he actually wins sometime between tuesday and January third...
:roll:

[ctmagnus]

Hmmm... New national holiday: Whacking Day.

(only it'll be whacking DMCA board members instead of snakes ;) )

[Jorgen]

Haven't you noticed that Kerry says whatever his current audience want to hear - hence the many flip-flops. It is anyway not in the power of the President to stop the DCMA and even if it was, Kerry would not go against his Hollywood friends.

Jorgen

[Tim Williamson]

Wow, I'm surprised at the common sense I'm hearing from you guys. I'm guessing Kerry is just sucking up, how would he dismantle this law without the approval of the Senate when it was a unanimous desicion to pass it in the first place?

[Suhit Gupta]

Wow, I'm surprised at the common sense I'm hearing from you guys. I'm guessing Kerry is just sucking up, how would he dismantle this law without the approval of the Senate when it was a unanimous desicion to pass it in the first place?
Very good point. Still, it is nice to see that unlike some candidates, he at least know of the law and is sort of telling us what his intentions are regarding it.

Suhit

[Crocuta]

As for the DMCA, do consider that it is Congress, not the prez, that drafts laws and Congress isn't up for grabs; the US isn't a parliamentary country, like Canada or Europe, where the executive comes in with a built-in legislative majority committed to voting as instructed. Here we have separation of powers (on paper, anyway), so Kerry can "hint" all he wants; Congress will vote as they will, not as he would like.

You're missing the lesson that Bush has taught us so well in the fast four years. The legislative branch passes the laws, but the executive branch administers them. Bush has shown with a whole raft of environmental laws that ambivalent administration of an Act is nearly as good as repealing it altogether.

He doesn't have to repeal the Clean Air Act; all he has to do is lower the standards that have to be met under the Act. He doesn't have to repeal the Endangered Species Act; he simply has to remove endangered species from endangered status under the Act and fail to defend lawsuits against the government arising from the Act. He doesn't have to repeal the federal law that prohibits aerial hunting of wolves to allow that practice to resume in Alaska; he only has to see that the government never gets around to prosecuting Alaska's governor.

With Bush, the list goes on and on, but the real point is this... if the President (whoever he is) disagrees with the DCMA, all he has to do is to divert funding away from its enforcement and send the message to the Justice Department that he doesn't want these cases pursued any more. So, yes, it does matter very much whether a presidential candidate supports an existing law or not. He exerts tremendous influence both politically and administratively.

Now as to whether Congress is "up for grabs"... that might be debatable. :lol:

[Felix Torres]

if the President (whoever he is) disagrees with the DCMA, all he has to do is to divert funding away from its enforcement and send the message to the Justice Department that he doesn't want these cases pursued any more. So, yes, it does matter very much whether a presidential candidate supports an existing law or not. He exerts tremendous influence both politically and administratively.


Query: how many DMCA lawsuits has John Ashcroft filed?
How many have been filed by IP holders?
Say, oh, I dunno; RIAA? :twisted:

You don't seem to undestand that DMCA requires absolutely no government enforcement or administration; that it is an enabling measure for IP owners to defend against violators so, *as long as the law is on the books*, the trial lawyers will happily take anybody to court suspected of violating IP, regardless of which jerk occupies the White House.

So, unless you think Kerry can tell judges how to rule and that he can get lawyers to stop filing suits (ha!) you are dreaming of pregnant birds if you think President Kerry could do *anything* to stop lawsuits under a law that is still on the books.

It ain't gonna happen; Congress created the DMCA dragon, and only congress can stop it.
*If* they ever feel like it.

Judging by the tone of proposed anti-p-to-p measures being drafted, congress doesn't feel opposed to DMCA at all, though; if anything they seem to feel it hasn't gone far enough! :roll:

As for congress being up for grabs, uh, you *do* know that sitting congressmen, of any party, have a better than 99% chance of re-election, right?

[Crocuta]

Query: how many DMCA lawsuits has John Ashcroft filed?
How many have been filed by IP holders?
Say, oh, I dunno; RIAA? :twisted:

You don't seem to undestand that DMCA requires absolutely no government enforcement or administration; that it is an enabling measure for IP owners to defend against violators so, *as long as the law is on the books*, the trial lawyers will happily take anybody to court suspected of violating IP, regardless of which jerk occupies the White House.


It doesn't have to be just about filing the lawsuits. The Justice Department has been critical in investigating the cases that the RIAA brings. Without the JD support, the RIAA would have to violate electronic privacy laws in order to gather the proof they need to support their suits. It's a very bad law, in concept, morality and execution, but that's not really the point. My point was just that I believe you understate the importance of presidential support of existing legislation, but it's certainly not a point that deserves protracted debate. If you disagree, I can live with that.

As for congress being up for grabs, uh, you *do* know that sitting congressmen, of any party, have a better than 99% chance of re-election, right?

It was supposed to be a joke. I put 'up for grabs' in quotes because I was making a play on the particular expression you used. What I meant was not that their seats were in danger, but that some would argue that they themselves were 'up for grabs' to the highest bidder.