[6stringmerc]

In a previous discussion, I was informed of a mistaken assumption of mine: There was a case where Section 1201 was ruled as more applicable than Fair Use. It's my belief - and apparently questionable in reality - that Fair Use that passes the four-factor test should absolutely be exempt from DMCA restrictions. If the EFF case can somehow convince the court that the chilling effect is real, I will be thoroughly impressed. What I mean by this is I think competent defense will point out that the Internet is awash in DMCA violating individuals engaged in Fair Use activities (commentary, parody, etc) and the merit of the DMCA is to curtail incentive to engage in infringement on an industrial scale.

[abritinthebay]

> the merit of the DMCA is to curtail incentive to engage in infringement on an industrial scale.

But that is not what the law says. It is written in much more broad, general, terms. If they get them to say that in court then it would be a huge step forward.

[6stringmerc]

I'm all for it! I want the law clarified, not completely tossed out. The expression "throwing the baby out with the bath water" is what I somewhat believe to be at play here.

[nathanlied]

I agree fully. We need a big, BIG revamp of copyright laws, but that's "The War", this is -a- battle in that war, and in order not to fully alienate the 'other side', we must be aware that large-scale commercial copyright infringement, with our current system, is really, really bad.

Getting the courts/legislators to make the anti-circumvention clause only apply to commercial efforts, instead of absolutely anyone and anything (including researchers, oftentimes), would be a great victory.

[Sleaker]

DRM doesn't solve copyright circumvention at all. Accessibility to content is what does that.

[abritinthebay]

> I want the law clarified, not completely tossed out

I'm honestly fine with either, but yes, either way it's a win.

[6stringmerc]

I look at 1201 and 512 as intertwined. Either both exist and balance each other out, but taking away one or the other seems genuinely unfair to me.

My perspectives tick off both camps, Content & Tech, because I see both of them using the same dirty playbooks and hiding their motives behind talk of "artists" or "customers" or whatnot.