Rampant piracy is costing the software, movie and music industries (and thus the U.S. economy) billions of dollars, yet many "technologists" miss or dismiss this big picture, focusing instead on minor inconveniences that result from copyright protection and heaping scorn and venom on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
In recent papers critical of the DMCA, both the Cato Institute and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) claim to describe all the problems caused by the DMCA. But the Cato Institute and EFF papers are not particularly constructive additions to the discussions on the DMCA, because they focus on minor issues while ignoring its massive usefulness in dealing with digital piracy.
Ironically, the real effect of these papers is to demonstrate how little real harm the DMCA has caused compared to its benefits.
Predictions have bemoaned the curtailment of privacy, anonymity, free speech, or fair use, with little or no explanation that these are just shorthand terms for complex concepts fleshed out in hundreds of court decisions, rather than absolutes that must never be touched. The buzzword du jour is "innovation," which will be "chilled" by just about anything done to rein in the current widespread copyright infringement. But not all "innovation" is good – while spam, viruses and worms, phishing, are innovative, they are certainly things we would be happier without, and further, little harm has ever been demonstrated.
So, what can technologists do so that they can effectively influence future legislation?
First, acknowledge the existing problems and condemn them in the strongest possible language and through actions.
Second, understand the specific context of the law (not just the language of the law),.
Third, state the real concerns. Policy-makers are trying to achieve a reasonable balance between benefits and potential problems. They give a high weight to things that can be clearly demonstrated, such as massive infringement, and little weight to things that seem highly improbable.
Finally, propose solutions to concerns in light of problems.
By concentrating on rare hypothetical problems, rather than solutions or pressing ones, technologists will be ineffective during the formulation of policies that directly affect technology, the very time when their expertise would be valuable.