3 ms·

This is the kind of work I like to see EFF do. In particular it states that the legislation is bad, but accepts that it exists. Identifies a small part that can

This is the kind of work I like to see EFF do. In particular it states that the legislation is bad, but accepts that it exists. Identifies a small part that can be changed. Campaigns to change just that small part. Rinse and repeat enough times that the legislation eventually collapses due to the number of holes in it. It's an approach taking in account the realpolitik, and its an approach that other FOSS groups could learn a lot from as the attempt to make change happen.

schoen 12y ago
Thanks! One difficulty with the "collapses due to the number of holes in it" theory in the context of the DMCA triennial exemption process is that the exemptions expire automatically after three years and have to be re-applied for. "the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period" (17 USC §1201(a)(1)(D)) (The Copyright Office has also taken the view that the decision to grant an exemption is not directly precedential in the way that a court decision would be -- that there isn't a presumption that it should be renewed, that you can't just say "I propose to renew exemption #2 from 2012 because the Librarian of Congress found it was appropriate then and the same reasons still apply, thanks!" and get a renewal on that basis. So it's quite different from impact litigation that way.) So, for example there's nobody currently directly benefitting from some of the legal work our lawyers did in, say, the 2003 or 2009 exemption processes. Our relationship to the exemption process is complicated. In addition to participating in it every triennial cycle but one, we have also strongly criticized it. Here's an example from 2005 (with the super-retro green and blue logo): https://www.eff.org/document/dmca-triennial-rulemaking-failing-digital-consumer https://www.eff.org/document/dmca-triennial-rulemaking-faili...

schoen 12y ago

Thanks! One difficulty with the "collapses due to the number of holes in it" theory in the context of the DMCA triennial exemption process is that the exemptions expire automatically after three years and have to be re-applied for. "the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period" (17 USC §1201(a)(1)(D)) (The Copyright Office has also taken the view that the decision to grant an exemption is not directly precedential in the way that a court decision would be -- that there isn't a presumption that it should be renewed, that you can't just say "I propose to renew exemption #2 from 2012 because the Librarian of Congress found it was appropriate then and the same reasons still apply, thanks!" and get a renewal on that basis. So it's quite different from impact litigation that way.) So, for example there's nobody currently directly benefitting from some of the legal work our lawyers did in, say, the 2003 or 2009 exemption processes. Our relationship to the exemption process is complicated. In addition to participating in it every triennial cycle but one, we have also strongly criticized it. Here's an example from 2005 (with the super-retro green and blue logo): https://www.eff.org/document/dmca-triennial-rulemaking-failing-digital-consumer https://www.eff.org/document/dmca-triennial-rulemaking-faili...