[WEB4LIB] Support from strange places...

[Dennis Moser]

Neither paranoid and nor specious...see below.

As I pointed out in my response on Thursday, 24 August,
(http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Web4Lib/archive/0008/0344.html), the Napster
case, the DeCSS case and several other cases are all intertwined in their
assault upon First Amendment freedoms.

-----Original Message-----
From: GRAY, PAUL <PAUL.GRAY at TCCD.NET>
To: Multiple recipients of list <web4lib at webjunction.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 2:31 PM
Subject: [WEB4LIB] RE: Napster support from strange places...


>> "Charles P. Hobbs" wrote:
>>
>> > http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/review/crh452.htm
>> . . .
>> > AAPS' reasoning, though, seems more than a little
>> "paranoid" to me, though:
>> >
>> > "What if the owner of Ritalin asserted its intellectual
>> property rights, and
>> > demanded that Yahoo! only provide authorized links on
>> Ritalin? The outcome
>> > would be that of criticism of the use of Ritalin would be
>> effectively
>> > silenced,'' the association wrote. "
>
>Not only paranoid - but specious
>No one I have heard has ever questioned the right to link to information
>ABOUT songs - or any other copyrighted material - whether that information
>was favorable or unfavorable.

Broaden the domain...AAPS is saying that if they can circumvent criticism by
claiming copyright, it won't just be music that is affected, but ANY
criticism, hence the importance of such cases as those cited here:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38360,00.html

...to wit (dragging a VERY long quote from the above link, and probably
violating copyright by so doing:


                         "Efforts by copyright holders to ban links to
sensitive materials are on the rise.

                         In May, Microsoft demanded that links to a copy of
its Kerberos source code be
                         removed from a discussion forum. The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
                         successfully sued to bar a critic from linking to
copyrighted church handbooks.

                         Another example: Toy-maker Mattel, which sold
Cyberpatrol blocking software,
                         recently wanted to rid the Internet of a program
that descrambles the program's
                         secret blacklist of off-limits websites.

                         Instead of suing only websites that distributed the
"cphack.exe" program, Mattel
                         also threatened journalists who linked to cphack
with legal action. In March, a
                         Wired News reporter received a copy of a temporary
restraining order and a
                         subpoena from Mattel.

                         Because of a settlement in the Mattel case, that
federal judge never ruled on
                         whether such restrictions would be legal. That
leaves Kaplan's decision as the first
                         one that appears to restrict hyperlinks by a news
organization.

                         "It's bad enough that this decision diminishes the
expressive character of this
                         code," says Paul McMasters, the Freedom Forum's
First Amendment ombudsman.
                         "But it extends far beyond that to threaten the
ability of those writing about
                         DeCSS to even link to the code. That puts this
ruling in league with recent
                         legislative attempts to slap a prior restraint on
speech that links."

                         The U.S. House of Representatives currently is
considering the Methamphetamine
                         Anti-Proliferation Act, one version of which makes
it a crime for anyone, including
                         journalists, to knowingly link to drug-related
websites. "



>The case is about a company whose primary use (whether that was the intent
>of the founders or not) is to circumvent the retail purchase of copyrighted
>materials and avoid the paying of royalties etc. due to the owners of those
>copyrights.

It's nice to know that you agree wiuth Judge Patel...some of us do not
believe that this is what the Napster case is really about; rather it is
simply more of the "land grab" that the RIAA and others are participating in
with such great vigor.

Isn't it interesting that the Napster case would co,me even as the amendment
to the RIAA-backed Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act has brought a halt
to the RIAA efforts to steal more rights away from music artists?
(http://www.salon.com/ent/music/feature/2000/08/28/work_for_hire/)

Since when was a corporation a person? They certainly seem to be gaining
more civil rights...

>Of course - radar detectors have been deemed legal - even though their
>primary use is to help circumvent speed laws -- so --
>Thats why we have courts to decide these things.

Last time I checked radar detectors were still illegal in the state of
Virginia...and is this really we have courts?

>But let's compare apples and apples --
>If they want to use the ritalin example -- a more relevant comparison would
>be a company that provided the information necessary to produce ritalin or
>who provided a warehouse to store black market ritalin.

No, that would be Patel Apples to Apples logic; The DeCSS case reasoning
would be closer to the scenario you've described.

>Paul H. Gray
>All standard disclaimers apply


Dennis "Not Citing Any Disclaimers Here!" Moser