[A2k] As a moderator,

[Paul Lehto]

Jamie, and all,

I previously gave you the benefit of the doubt and was privately
corrected in my assumption that you are a lawyer.  But given that
fact, the conclusion that DMCA law is "legal as far as [you] can tell"
does not carry much weight. I previously mentioned at least four
avenues of challenge to laws in this class, and none were rebutted.
Law books are littered with unconstitutional laws and laws in conflict
with basic rights.  They tend to stay there because of the cost of
litigation and the fact that not every case will make it to a higher
court and result in a published opinion on the question of legality or
constitutionality.

As a former lawyer for a dozen years, and therefore a professional
advocate, I can never once remember myself or any other advocate
characterize our own position as weak.  That's the job of the other
side.  This is rare in politics as well, which is another form of
advocacy.  Thus, in addition to questioning your legal opinion on
DMCA's constitutionality, I also question your political
characterization of our side as "weak", because even if it were true
(I don't hear much support from real people for DMCA, as opposed to
corporate non-voter's support) an advocate/supporter of DMCA repeal or
illegality would typically not characterize on a worldwide listserv
one's own position as "weak."

As far as suggesting that my own "disability" is "the same as" the
blind's, I said no such thing.  For the second time in one day on this
list, someone is forced to point to a gross mischaracterization of
position.  To say that someone or some class of persons is "disabled"
does not imply any comparison with the blind.  Thus, this false
statement that I "suggested" such a comparison seems unnecessarily
inflammatory.  The same goes for your statement that anyone, perhaps
me, on this list is "Blaming our woes on people who can't see."

Finally, you suggest I find a more appropriate target for 'my
frustration.'  What "frustration" is this?  The only thing I wrote was
to point out that when one seeks new rights, one goes for legislation
or treaties, but when one seeks to vindicate existing rights, then one
litigates in courts or pressures the law enforcers to enforce the law,
properly interpreted.

The above is a fundamental fact in any system of laws based on
separation of powers.  The fact that the Blind Union is seeking new
rights instead of seeking to vindicate existing ones presupposes the
legitimacy of the DRM regime and laws such as the DMCA in the first
place.

The only frustration I have, Jamie, is not with the Blind Union or
with the blind, but with trying to communicate a basic legal point to
you about the difference between courts and legislative approaches.

As Frederico said quite clearly earlier today, those not in lockstep
with the Blind Union's approach have that position because they see
"other approaches" as more principled and/or more likely to be
successful.

The Blind Union approach's chance of "success," even if the treaty is
affirmed in all countries around the world, approaches zero.  This is
true because the goal by which we measure this success is freedom for
ALL, not just freedom for the blind, disabled and perhaps a couple
other constituencies.

Paul

On 5/5/09, James Love <james.love@keionline.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 11:57 -0700, Paul Lehto wrote:
>> on one's knees, as it were.  It disables us all for many reasons, not
>> the least of which is the implication that remaining DRM regimes are
>> legal and legitimate.
>
>     The US DMCA law is "legal" as far as I can tell.  And its political
> legitimacy is partly due to the weak political opposition in the US,
> which is something to think about.
>
>    As disabled as you may be by this, I don't think it suits anyone to
> suggest your situation is the same as someone who is blind or has
> another serious reading disability.
>
>    Members of Congress should be rightly criticized for passing an act
> that is so flawed.  We should also criticize ourselves for not having a
> better strategy to deal with this.  Blaming our woes on people who can't
> see is an unattractive response to failings that are closer to home.
>
>     Maybe you can find a more appropriate target for your frustration
> than people seeking to overcome legal barriers on the right to share
> accessible copies of works across borders.  I don't know how you came to
> blame them for anything.
>
>  Jamie
>
>
> --
> James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
> http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
> Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile
> +41.76.413.6584
>
>


--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-2333