The Electronic Frontier Foundation has issued a call to the public to
protest the inclusion in the Free Trade Area of the
Americas (FTAA) treaty of language that grants even
greater control to publishers of intellectual property than the Digital Millenium Copyright Act:
While Russian graduate student Dmitry Sklyarov potentially faces five years in prison under the first criminal prosecution of a controversial new US law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) passed at the request of Hollywood in 1998, its backers are now busily exporting overseas its dangerous legal theories of excessive copyright protection at the price of civil liberties. Worldwide public intervention is immediately necessary to restore freedom of speech as a value promoted by free societies. . .
The lawsuit filed against the Schaumburg Township District Library by Illinois white supremacist Matthew Hale has been settled. Hale sued after the library revoked permission for him to use a meeting room for a speech. He will now be appearing at the library on a Saturday evening, after closing time.
The Times caught up with Dmitri in Cupertino, where he\'s awaiting phase two of litigation :)
Dmitri Sklyarov rarely reads electronic books. \"There are almost no e-books in Russian,\" said Mr. Sklyarov, the 26-year- old Moscow cryptographer who was arrested in Las Vegas last month under a 1998 digital copyright law. \"I prefer paper books. They\'re much easier to carry with me, and can be read anywhere.\"
In fact, most people still prefer paper books. Unlike music and film, books have yet to be popularly accepted in digital format. Nevertheless, the nascent market has heightened the publishing industry\'s sensitivity to the potential for digital piracy, enough so that it has initiated the first criminal case under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. And Mr. Sklyarov is the first to be charged.
[More (registration is required.)]
In this interview, Lawrence Lessig, Stanford law professor and supporter of consumer\'s rights, discusses the current state of \'fair use\' in the context of peer-to-peer networks. Lessig is one of the more notable critics of the DMCA. He will be the keynote speaker at the upcoming O\'Reilly Conference on Peer-to-Peer and Web Services.
Brian Surratt writes \"This article from the Chronicle of Higher Education discusses two Carnegie Mellon professors who are on opposite sides of the DMCA debate. David S. Touretzky (Anti-DMCA) is notable for maintaining the Gallery of CSS Descramblers at his college at CMU, Michael I. Shamos, was paid $30,000 by the Motion Picture Association to conduct experiments and provide testimony to support DMCA in court. The saga is far from over... \"
Georgia K. Harper\'s brief and useful introduction to U.S. copyright law, with a focus on fair use and the D.M.C.A.:
The balance that copyright law has achieved between the interests of copyright owners and the interests of the public has evolved slowly and has been only periodically adjusted. Today, however, the pace and the magnitude of change threaten to skew this balance to the point of collapse. Some of these changes -- licenses, access controls, certain provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) -- have the potential to drastically undermine the public right to access information, to comment on events, and even to share information with others.
The Canadian government is considering modifying the Copyright Act to address digital copyright issues:
In order for Canada to be an important player in the emerging digital economy, the Copyright Act may need to be amended to ensure that it continues to be meaningful, clear and balanced. In particular, the examination of key digital copyright issues is necessary to fully realize the government\'s priority of promoting the dissemination of new and interesting content on-line, for and by Canadians. The departments believe it is now an opportune moment to initiate consultation with stakeholders on whether the Act should be amended to:
1. Set out a new exclusive right in favour of copyright owners, including performers and record producers, to make their works available on-line to the public;
2. Prevent the circumvention of technologies used to protect copyright material; and,
3. Prohibit tampering with rights management information.
Another important issue relates to the circumstances under which Internet service providers should be held liable for the transmission and storage of copyright material when their facilities are involved. At present, the Act does not clearly identify the conditions for imposing liability, nor does it explicitly limit such liability. [More]
The public comment period ends September 15th. Thanks to Waterloo Wide Web.
Other interesting stories include:
When misguided plans go from bad to worse, from CNET. \"That plan never looked more misguided than now, when prosecutors want to close those loopholes around a man\'s neck.\".
Jailed Russian programmer and international cause célèbre Dmitri Sklyarov was released this afternoon:
Russian software programmer Dimitry Sklyarov, whose July 16 arrest on U.S. copyright charges provoked a firestorm of debate over Internet free speech, was released on $50,000 bail on Monday by a California court. Sklyarov, 26, was released into the custody of Sergei Osokine of nearby Cupertino, Calif., after his Moscow-based company, ElcomSoft Co., put up the $50,000 bond, court officials said. Sklyarov appeared in court for the bail hearing, looking tired and wearing orange prison-issued clothing. Outside the court, a small group of protesters demonstrated, saying his arrest was a violation of free speech rights. [More from Yahoo News.]
Scooped again by Slashdot.
I think I may have posted this before, but James Nimmo passed along This Findlaw story on the lawsuits challenging the Children\'s Internet Protection Act that makes federal funding for library technology contingent upon Internet filtering will move forward to trial.
The Justice Department asked to have the lawsuits thrown out, but a two-paragraph order issued Thursday rejected the government\'s argument that the challengers had no valid First Amendment claim.