Alan Cox states in the Felten case many of the speculated impacts of the DMCA and its enforcement. Cox is a Red Hat Linux (an open source operating system) developer residing in the United Kingdom. His statement includes a resignation letter to Usenix (a group that encourages foreign researchers to speak in the United States). In this letter, he tells all foreign software developers to avoid visiting and speaking at the United States until the “DMCA mess is resolved.”

This comes as a direct result of the Dmitry Sklyarov case. He fears that foreign researchers can be jailed for research in security and cryptology they performed in their own countries if it is viewed to be a DMCA violation in the United States. The DMCA prevents security experts from pointing out bad protection algorithms and only increases the profitability of the “businesses of the incompetent.” Without the ability of experts to point out and discuss bad algorithms, copyrighted material protected by these algorithms are exposed to hacking.

He further notes that the DMCA will not prevent people from discussing ways to break algorithms for illegal uses. His experience is that the “bad guys share their knowledge and act without regards to laws.” It's only the people aiming to increase the strength of computer security that will be silenced. The DMCA only helps pirates win in the end. Cox also claims that what the DMCA would prevent him from saying regarding inspecting computer security systems in the United States would be considered negligent in the United Kingdom.

From Cox's statement, the DMCA hurts the United States software development community in two main ways. It prevents international researchers from speaking, for fear of prosecution of their research or activities in other countries. It also means that the block of the DMCA will hinder US researchers from discussing decryption methods and our own security will be weakened when compared to the advances made by other countries who are able to have these discussions.

The courts' decision in “MPAA vs. 2600” prevented journals from writing articles about Digital Right Management that divulge methodology. After “DVD Jon's” deCSS program (which breaks the encryption on DVDs) began circulation, 2600 had an article in print and online which detailed the algorithm and decryption codes used in breaking the CSS encryption. The MPAA filed suit under the trafficking provision of the DMCA, claiming that 2600 was distributing a program which would contribute to breaking DVD encryption. 2600 claimed that this inhibits free speech. As a technical journal which specializes in computer encryption and decryption algorithms , it needed to be able to provide the details to its readers. The magazine complied with the injunction to remove the algorithm from their site but began to participate in what they referred to as “electronic civil disobedience” by encouraging others to post the algorithm and then provided links to these sites.

The court determined that both posting and linking were not protected by the first amendment. They determined that while there is a part of code which is speech, there is also a non-speech component which can be banned under the anti-circumvention clause. Exemptions are provided for reverse engineering and cryptography. However, these exemptions only extend to the cryptographers and the reverse engineers directly. Publishing their results is not considered an exemption. The consequence of this decision is that to prevent lawsuits, technical journals will likely avoid discussion of Digital Rights Management. For example, discovery of important security flaws would not be published because it might hint as to how to break the encryption. Understanding the flaws of the current generation however is essential to enhancing security for in the future. Development of future security methods have continued to be crippled by the DMCA, due to the limited scope of the exemptions.

In the same issue of The New York Times as the Macgowan letter in defense of Lifeboat, Bosley Crowther responds with a strong critique of Macgowan and the film.

Crowther's article is a strong reflection of the American view of films during the height of censorship. His article is not one of strongly synthesized arguments about why Lifeboat is bad for the war effort. Instead he frequently employs the use of rhetorical questions, asking questions like "What's going on out there[Hollywood]?" as if any film whose portrayal of America's strength is questionable is an outrage in itself and needs no further explanation.

One of Crowther's criticisms that does not feature a question mark is that of all the abilities given to the German. He is the only one with the mental, physical, and emotional ability to amputize Gus's leg, navigate the ship through the storm, and row it towards its destination. He credits all of his abilities as being well-explained, but critizes Hitchcock (and unfairly Steinbeck) for giving them to him in the first place.  His argument can be summarized as no matter how well you explain Superman's ability to fly, his super strength, or his heat vision, they still make him look like Superman.

He closes his critique claiming that anything that casts doubt on America is inherently bad to morale and for our image overseas, giving credence to the idea of film as Will Hays's silient salesman.  Censorship in the 1940s is often attributed only to organizations like the PCA and OWI. However, the critical reaction to Lifeboat shows that if they weren't strictly enforcing unquestionable pro-American ideals in film that their would be outcry from other outlets.