Come on, you didn't know what was in the bill but were against it because someone on the internet said "it's bad"?
Seriously, 5 minutes on wikipedia is all it takes.
He didn't say he didn't know what was in the bill, just that he needed a lawyer's advice on the bill's interpretation. That's what lawyers are for. Wikipedia does not provide legal advice.
There's plenty bad with the DMCA and how companies use and abuse it to be against it, but it can also be used for good.
>There's plenty bad with the DMCA and how companies use and abuse it to be against it, but it can also be used for good.
yeah, we protested back in the day because the DMCA made it illegal to decrypt DVD's with DeCSS, which, to this day, is why you cannot watch DVD's legally in Linux without paying someone. For our protest, we actually printed out the code to DeCSS and handed it out to people saying "This piece of paper is illegal, you cannot read this piece of paper." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS
The DMCA did a lot of stuff like this. It essentially laid the groundwork for future Internet and IP laws. It was the first law to address the content of the Internet, so it was a bit of a landmark.
The clause that's in there that ended up protecting me was where the DMCA states that service providers cannot be held accountable for the things their users say. Huge, awesome bit, that. Definitely a serious 20/20 hindsight thing. I can play DVD's on my Linux machine now, too... Though not legally, really.
