There's a fascinating exhange of views going on between Ernest Miller, Ed Felten, and Frank Field on the subject of DRM, the broadcast flag and the copyfight in general.

Ernest believes bright people pushing for drm and other expansions of intellectual property rights have got a hidden agenda because they basically can't be stupid enough to really believe drm is going to prevent copyright infringement. So they must have a hidden agenda.

Ed says the some of folk pushing this agenda that he has discussed the issues with are passionate about what they are doing, really do believe it will work and needs to work in order to balance all the interests involved.

Frank partly supports Ed in suggesting we should never underestimate the power of ideology.

"The fact that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" derives from the fact that, in order to function in an increasingly complex world, everyone is forced to construct simplifying models of the way that the world works. When these models (a)
work and (b) are buttressed with rationalizing arguments, we get something more potent - an ideology.

The problem with ideologies is that, even though they work, they rely upon simplifications that will not obtain over time. These simplifications will eventually be the downfall of the ideology, but sometimes it takes a very long time before the failure of the ideology is recognized, meaning that a lot of bad (and potentially quite destructive) decisions get made in the interim...

Ernest is right; our opponents are not (all) stupid people. But they don't have nefarious ends. Rather, they're acting within the confines of the ideologies that they believe explain the way the world works. They aren't evil or stupid; they're just confused and frustrated. The old methods aren't working, even though they *know* their methods are "right." In fact, they're in exactly the same boat that we are. And we know we aren't evil.

Ideologies are hard to defeat, because they're invisible to those who hold them. To us, it's an ideology; to them, it's "the way the world works." Beating it will take time, being honest about what is happening and working really hard to devise a new way of looking at the world that we can collectively agree upon.

We can't afford to write them off as "evil." That's seductive, but dangerous because it simply isn't true. They're just doing what they think is right. We have to respect that as we work to show them that they're mistaken. "

Siva Vaidhyanathan makes some related commentsat the Lessig blog in telling the story of meeting someone who takes the view of "the other side". Some who thought Larry Lessig was "a kook". Siva now reckons elements on the two sides are beginning to understand each other because those pusshing for expanded protection of intellectual property rights are resorting to ad hominem attacks. Adn they are doing this because the Lessig's of the world are winning the argument. Interesting theory but as Seth Finkelstein says in commenting on Siva's post,

"Unfortunately, yes, I think you hang around too many people who actually read the books they criticize. You're a professor. Academics are *supposed* to be polite. Not that they always are. But there is a strong cultural belief there, as evident in what you?re writing, that ad-hominem arguments are "wrong". Again, it may be honored more in the breech than in the observance, it may be an ideal not always practiced, but it's part of the formal codes of conduct.

Hang out with lawyers and lobbyists and politicians more. To them, lying and smearing and ad-hominem attacks are *tactics*, debate *options*. Whether they use those approaches depends entirely on whether they think they can get away with it, that it'll work with the audience. It's a pure strategic calculation. They may decide they'll look bad if they lie. They may decide it's worth it. Situations vary. But the truth or intellectual strength of the argument bears a very tenuous relationship to the approaches employed.

I certainly don't see any change at all, in terms of Jack "Boston Strangler" Valenti style rhetoric.

And remember, a mosquito is slammed hard, but that doesn't mean it's powerful and influential.

So you can't derive "panic" from any of it. It may be that you just happened to run into a few people who think meanness is the way to go.

If the courts had been rebuffing the copyright extensions and the DMCA, then there might be panic. Otherwise, it's simply tactics."