SCN: DMCA

[Steve]

x-no-archive: yes

========================

Does anybody care about fighting the DMCA? A protest at Stanford 
against the ultra-restrictive copyright law generates little heat and 
sparse attendance.  

by Damien Cave, staff writer, Salon Technology


"A scream is better than a thesis," Emerson wrote, his point being, 
of course, that making a lot of noise gets more attention than a 
carefully worded argument. But few screams were to be heard at a 
poorly attended press conference held Thursday at Stanford Law 
School to protest the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). 
Instead, critics appeared to pin their hopes on a private strategy 
meeting and a wide-ranging court campaign -- a campaign that, so 
far, hasn't been working to the advantage of DMCA foes.  

Technically, the gathering at the school was labeled a "protest" 
inspired by hearings held in a nearby campus classroom by the 
U.S. Copyright Office. The hearings are being conducted to allow 
public comment on how the DMCA might best incorporate 
exemptions to its strictures forbidding the creation and distribution 
of tools that circumvent copyright protection. But with only a dozen 
free software fans passing out flyers to the occasional passerby, the 
protest and even the hearing were unlikely to make much of an 
impact on the public debate.  

Indeed, despite the chance to argue for exemptions that would be 
put in place at the end of the year and the opportunity to alter the law 
before it clamps down any further on what the anti-DMCA movement 
considers its right to free speech, many protesters left the premises 
just as the hearing started and organizers said they were happy to 
simply have a few reporters in attendance.  

The real benefit of the gathering had more to do with legal strategy, 
said protest organizer Chris DiBona.  

After the press conference, DiBona, the "Linux evangelist" at VA 
Linux, a manufacturer of computer hardware pre-installed with Linux-
based operating systems, said, "We've got a lot of cases going on 
both coasts." He was referring to four legal actions involving 
DeCSS, a utility that allows computers running Linux to play DVDs. 
Eight movie studios are suing distributors of the program, including 
the so-called "hacker quarterly" 2600. "It's important to get everyone 
together for strategy and to clarify the thinking behind where we're 
going."  

The focus on legal strategy isn't a bad idea. In recent months, as 
copyright holders have won a string of courtroom success, the need 
for some kind of coordinated approach has become painfully 
obvious.  

On Jan. 20, for example, a judge enjoined 2600 from even linking to 
sites that contained information on the DeCSS program -- "limiting 
their right to free speech in an unprecedented way," says Eben 
Moglen, a law professor at Columbia who is assisting the DeCSS 
defense team.  

Meanwhile, in the music arena, a New York federal judge ruled 
against the MP3 access site MP3.com and in favor of the Recording 
Industry Association of America, determining that one of MP3.com's 
new services was in fact replaying music that it had copied illegally. 

And in the most high-profile clash between the recording industry 
and the Internet, Napster, which provides swapping software that 
makes it easier to find and play MP3s, failed to convince a judge 
that it qualified for DMCA "safe harbor" protection because no files 
actually resided on or passed through its servers.  

But these defeats tell only half the story, say DMCA critics. "Court 
cases are cropping up like mushrooms because the law is so 
vague," says Frederick Weingarten, director of the American Library 
Association's Office for Information Technology Policy, and a 
member of the press conference panel. "In the courts, that's where 
the boundaries of the law will really be defined."  

Indeed, the law's virginal status has already sprouted some 
interesting pranks. Pushing at the limits of the term "distribution," 
for example, a crowd of free software fans took to the streets of New 
York this winter and passed out the code for DeCSS on T-shirts and 
balloons. And this week, after Metallica asked Napster, the popular 
music-swapping software company, to ban 300,000 users from its 
service, Napster used the DMCA's fine print to try to gain a few back. 
Specifically, the company encouraged users who believed they had 
been misidentified to let Metallica know. If the band failed to 
prosecute within 10 days, according to the law, Napster could 
reinstate them.  

Such victories appear to be small successes as viewed against the 
larger setbacks. Big money has big power -- as Martin Garvis, an 
attorney for 2600 and the other three defendants, notes, "The 
concerns [of anti-DMCA critics] were not paid attention to in 
Congress and they won't be paid attention to here because there are 
very substantial financial interests standing in the way."  

It's hard not to hear defeat in these words; hard not to wish that the 
protest actually generated some steam -- or screams. But then 
again, no matter how important these issues may seem to geeks 
who just want their MP3s and DVDs, their concerns may be best 
expressed in courtrooms rather than on college campuses. As 
Garvis put it, "It's not like Vietnam."

Copyright 2000 Salon.com





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *