I admit that I don't like DMCA; I think it's the wrong law for a good idea.

We have already seen some rather *cough* creative arguments made in various cases that invoke different elements of DMCA.

I'll let you choose for yourself. Here are a few links:

• Reasonably balanced against
• against, no so well argued, but interesting
• "Wired" article--read in light of the previous
• Research Materials
• Some thoughts by someone many of us respect
• What web-masters/hosters need to think about

Personally, I am all for artists, writers, actors, and all content creators getting fair pay for their work. (D'uh: I'm an actor and a published writer; I understand the concepts of residuals and royalties.) However, I do not believe that this is terribly different than the Universal Studios vs Sony time-shifting case. Artists should benefit from commercial proceeds, but (I believe) there is more money to be made by allowing consumer-driven word of mouth access while protecting commercial redistribution. I am not saying, "Copy the Perl CD to the 'Net and then walk away."

I am saying that it is in the Studios' best interest to back off and allow a little leeway for "fandom" and grass roots efforts. After all, look at the success of the "Blair Witch Project," success that would not have happened if not for the word of mouth campaign.

In this case, however, I suspect that the reason no one is going to get sued under the DMCA is pretty simple: who can afford the lawyers? Is it strictly illegal? I suppose that depends on what country, state, and region you're in. In the meantime, I'm going to continue to argue for "fair pay for fair play." I should be able to show you things outlining why I like a certain work, I should not be able to give you a wholesale copy for free.

Pretty simple, in my book...of course, I'm an actor playing a programmer by day. What do I know?

--f