As reported by the EFF:, libertarian interest group The Cato Institute has come out against the DMCA, a testament to the intstitute's thoroughness in a commitment to a libertarian conception of justice. It's just that idea of justice that finds many (especially me) butting heads with the libertarians on a range of issues and being in bed with them on others, but it's good to see another positive outcome of their slavish devotion to "hands-offness."

Libertarianism is a philosophy where you'll find an interesting mix of people with an interesting mix of interests - a philosophical orthodoxy who firmly believes in the free-functioning of a system (i.e., redistribution of wealth in the form of taxation as well as government intervention in daily life are the only things that constitute "injustice," as they limit the ability for individuals to ascend through the system based on merit,) and more cynically - a combination of super rich folks who like to have a philosophical stake in being on the winning end of an economic meritocracy (which, because of various social conditions, doesn't exist,) gun toting wackos who gaze up at the night sky and wait for the black helicopters, and late high school/college students who become enamored with the Libertarians because of their strong stance agaisnt the insane war on drugs, before realizing that it is more than just the party of massive bong rips (more than just a political party that can really party.)

The stance on the DMCA, as espoused by writer Timothy Lee in Circumventing Competition: The Perverse Consequences of the Millenium Copyright Act: is as follows:

"The DMCA is anti-competitive. It gives copyright holders—and the technology companies that distribute their content—the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Worst of all, DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective; they inconvenience legitimate users but do little to stop pirates."

I guess you see here just how libertarian I get, because my concerns overlap with the Cato Institute - the DMCA is unnecessarily regulatory and serves the specific interests of copyright holders that may or may not have anything to do with the artistic works that are created. It hinders the progress of technology through making it illegal to reverse engineer or explore the code of copyright protection software, and of course there's the fact that DMCA approved copy protection prevents consumers from effectively using and enjoying what they purchase.

Lee continues:

That body of law protected competition, consumer choice, and the important principle of fair use without sacrificing the rights of copyright holders. And because it focused on the actions of people rather than on the design of technologies, it gave the courts the flexibility they needed to adapt to rapid technological change.

And this really makes me wonder, as a libertarian, where Lee and the Cato Institute stand on other digitally germane issues, for instance, the growing hegemony of Clear Channel and other media empires due to deregulation. In the radio market, Clear Channel's high school jock bully mentality and desire to own everything on the entire planet has certainly not lead to more competition, quite the opposite - Though I'd have to look over the laws to which Lee refers to get a feel for how much they actually allowed for competition - meaning for me how much they allowed/would allow digital artists, programmers, etc to work and distribute their work unmolested by legal intervention - but he seems to be accepting on some level the idea that regulation can, in some cases, increase competition and stifle corporate hegemony.