12.14.01 |
I had planned to write only "holiday related" posts until Christmas ... or perhaps, even until the New Year.
However, something has come across my desk today that has caused me to raise an eyebrow and give pause.
As many of you may know, I am a bit of a copyright activist and work online to educate toward copyright understanding.
In 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed. Its purpose is to establish guidelines for copyright protection (and violation punishment) in this "new" electronic age of computers, software, and the Internet.
While much of the D.M.C.A. is inherently valid and reasonable, I have compared its final version to a "rough draft".
Too much of the D.M.C.A. is impractical, not founded in Constitutional Law, too broad, or perhaps even too incident specific ... to be considered as the standard for "new" copyright guidelines in the digital age.
However, some of the laws enacted have been put to test.
A Russian software programmer, Dmitri Sklyarov, was arrested five months ago for writing a program that allowed people to disable encryption software protecting Adobe electronic books.
He was released Thursday, to return to Moscow. The release was contingent on Mr. Sklyarov testifying against the Russian software company he was working for when he wrote the violating software program.
Was Mr. Sklyarov wrong to write this program?
According to the D.M.C.A., he was. In basic English, the D.M.C.A. makes it illegal to sell technology that circumvents encryption software.
So why has Mr. Sklyarov become a martyr to so many people worldwide?
Ponder this:
The program he wrote functions solely to do an illegal activity.
However, until the program is actually used and an encrypted electronic book is circumvented, is the software itself actually illegal?
Hmmmmm.
And then today, along comes an article regarding Eric Corley and a lawsuit implemented by the Motion Picture Association of America.
A lawsuit based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A lawsuit that was won by the MPAA.
It appears that Mr. Corley had numerous websites and was prolifically active on message boards and newsgroups.
So what did Mr. Corley do to make the MPAA angry?
He linked. Yes, he hyperlinked. Yes, you read correctly ... the (A HREF="Whatever.com") dance.
However, he linked to websites that contained downloadable software that circumvents the encryption on movie-based DVDs.
What? He was sued for linking to the violating software?!
Yes indeed. Because the D.M.C.A., in part, prohibits an individual from "trafficking" in or providing to others a computer program that is designed to circumvent the copy-protection scheme shielding a copyrighted work.
I must stay on my toes regarding the law, copyrights, and new rulings.
This medium is so very dynamic.
The only thing that I recognize as static is the intent behind both cases.
Want to learn more about these cases or copyright?
• New York Times: Sklyarov Article (free login/password needed)
• New York Times: MPAA vs. Eric Corley (free login/password needed)
• Digital Millennium Copyright Act (.pdf file)
• R.I.G.H.T.S.
|