Slashdot Mirror
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
Politech is featuring this press release from EFF stating Judge Garrett Brown of the Federal District Court in Trenton, New Jersey, threw out the EFF-Felten case challenging the DMCA after less than 25 minutes of debate. DoJ and RIAA both made motions to dismiss the case, which the court granted. We'll have a story about what occurred at the hearing tomorrow. EFF plans to appeal. In addition, 2600 is reporting that they've lost their Appeal in the 2nd Circuit court.
It usually takes quite some time for an issue to percolate up to the Supreme Court. It has to show up at the district and appellate levels for two separate districts. Generally, there also has to be an obvious collision between appellate rulings. The Supremes are loth to get involved with anything, since their authority is largely smoke-and-mirrors. The more a wise man talks, the less wise he is, I guess.
You can rant and rave but let's face it: one of the jobs of the DoJ is to defend the government. They are the government's lawyers. So if you sue against this (or any other) law, it's the DoJ who'll show up opposite you in court. And what's more, they're professionally obligated to do the best defense they can, and this motion falls under that. It would have been irresponsible not to file it.
Right now people like to rag on the US judiciary. But just a few days ago, everyone was aglow (Message Boards are Opions and District Court Denies Injunction against bundlings and DeCSS Injunction reversed).
Here's my point: Like all other institutions, the federal judiciary is not monolithic. Yet we have a lot of good news coming out of there, too... perhaps more than good. At the very least, these rulings show that the pot is beginning to boil -- that the whole IP mess has wormed its way into and throughout the federal court system, and will soon have to be dealt with.
If you really believe you're right, how can that be a bad thing?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
"Get out from behind the monitor and write your congressman. No, don't e-mail him/her, they won't read it."
YES, THEY WILL. Some Senators have actually pointed out that right now electronic mail is a better way to go (For an example, CLICK HERE.) because of the Anthrax threats on Capitol Hill. I can personally vouch that politicians read email, because I have recieved multiple personal, specific replies to emails I have sent to my representatives. These were well written letters, not just a generic form letter about a topic with a fake signature stamp.
On the topic, Americans need to stop buying into the myth that politicians do not read email. This story is spread by:
1- American media corporations, who want to keep people from contacting representatives. Actually writing a letter and mailing it intimidates some people (Those who do not know how to prepare elegant business letters or have poor handwriting and lack spelling skills.), and is too time-consuming for others. By making sure that the people's thoughts are not heard, companies like AOL and Microsoft make sure that theirs ARE.
2- Old Guard politicians afraid of progress, the guys like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond who are afraid of change, especially one that gives a lot of voters a voice in a manner that they do not understand.
Use email to contact politicians. It works. If a politician will not care about your email, chances are that he is enough of an asshole that he would not care about a letter anyway,.And if a politician expresses disdain for email, note it, and make sure he gets voted out!
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
At Carnegie Mellon University on Friday there is going to be a moderated debate between David Touretzky of DCSS webpage fame, and Michael Shamos who defended the DMCA in court against Touretzky.
l
Here's the link: http://calendar.cs.cmu.edu/scsEvents/demo/554.htm
--------
It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
Guess again.
Check out the Notable First Amendment Cases page at the American Library Association. More specifically, see the case of Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973).
Here is part of Justice Byron R. White's decision:
Litigants, therefore, are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own right of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute's very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.
In other words, you can preemptively sue the government if it is possible for someone to be silenced by a law.
Ergo Felten was completely in the right.
AlfIn Soviet Russia, sig types you!