You have probably heard of fuss over "section 92a", a proposed amendment
to copyright law that would allow for your internet connection to be cut
when someone says you are using it piratically. It got passed as law,
put on hold, thrown out, and is now perhaps fighting its way back.
Throughout all of this ADA has had no position. It seems to me that we
share considerable membership (that's you list subscribers) with the
Creative Freedom Foundation who led the battle against section 92 -- but
we probably also share members with APRA and SPADA who supported the
proposal. So if we do take a position, it is not immediately clear what
it should be.
The CFF and its opponents are being terribly pragmatic and tactical in
what they call for. They are fighting over what the actual law will look
like, letter by letter. Personally I'm in favour of a far more anarchic
situation than anything the CFF dares advocate. I understand their
reasons, of course, but it makes me wonder: if ADA expresses an official
opinion, should it be unashamedly fringe? Should put out press releases
like they did manifestos 100 years ago?
Probably nothing will come of this. I'm just curious as to whether ADA
members want their trust to be making statements on stuff like this, and
if so, what they want said.