[DMCA-Activists] Re: [DMCA_Discuss] Balkin on 1st Amendment + DMCA, post-Eldred

[Ruben I Safir]

This was what I said.  Not so much the 1str ammendment, but ALL
the right, especially property rights.

The case established Copyright as an exception of Fair Use
and defined Fair Use as the protections of the Bill of Rights
visa-vi Copyright

Ruben

On 2003.01.18 11:00 Seth Johnson wrote:
> 
> (I said early on that the aspect of the Eldred case that
> held the moist definite promise was not the limited times
> and public domain issues, but the fact that the Supreme
> Court had accepted for consideration the petitioners' second
> question, addressing the lower court's assertion that there
> was no First Amendment consideration in the case. -- Seth)
> 
> 
> > http://balkin.blogspot.com/
> 
> 
> Is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Unconstitutional
> under Eldred v. Ashcroft?
> 
> 
> In an earlier post, I strongly criticized the Supreme
> Court’s First Amendment analysis in Eldred, arguing that the
> first amendment issues were not well thought out and that
> the Court seemed so preoccupied with the Copyright Clause
> that it dismissed the First Amendment issues as an
> afterthought. But anyone who understands the important
> connections between the free speech principle and the public
> domain should also understand that there is no way you can
> resolve the First Amendment issues in the case simply, or
> without making new law, and if you don’t pay careful
> attention to the larger picture, even what appear to be the
> simplest and most uncomplicated statements of law will have
> all sorts of unintended side effects.
> 
> As a lawyer and legal scholar, it’s my job, when confronted
> with decisions I don’t particularly agree with, to make
> lemonade out of lemons-- to see how the court’s reasoning
> might apply to future cases in ways I do approve of. And
> after thinking about Eldred’s First Amendment analysis, it
> seems to me that the Supremes have made new law that puts
> the DMCA into question.
> 
> The key holding of Eldred is that “when ... Congress has not
> altered the traditional contours of copyright protection,
> further First Amendment scrutiny is unnecessary.” The reason
> for this is that fair use and idea/expression provide
> “built-in free speech safeguards,” which “are generally
> adequate to address” the problem that copyright makes
> reproducing certain speech illegal. Slip Op. at 31.
> According to Justice Ginsburg, alteration of time limits in
> the CTEA does not “alter[] the traditional contours of
> copyright protection,” presumably because “limited
> monopolies are compatible with free speech principles” Slip
> Op., at 28, as long as they are limited and as long as the
> traditional contours of fair use and idea/expression
> distinctions remain in place. It’s unclear whether Ginsburg
> means to say that any copyright term extension short of
> perpetuity would raise no first amendment issues, as long as
> fair use and idea/expression are not touched, or whether she
> is just saying that the CTEA isn’t a very significant
> extension in the larger scheme of things. But either way,
> she does seem to rest first amendment protection on two
> other elements of copyright law: fair use and
> idea/expression.
> 
> Well, what happens if Congress decides to “alter[] the
> traditional contours of copyright protection,” by greatly
> restricting fair use, or begins to offer protection to ideas
> in the guise of protecting mere expression? In that case,
> “further First Amendment scrutiny” would be necessary. If
> Ginsburg does not mean this, then its hard to see what her
> argument amounts to other than a blank check to Congress to
> rewrite copyright law any way it wants.
> 
> And that brings us to the DMCA. As many people know, the
> Digital Millenium Copyright Act creates a new species of
> intellectual property protection, sometimes called
> “paracopyright,” that protects not copying itself but the
> creation of various devices and technologies that might be
> used to facilitate copying by circumventing copyright
> management devices. The DMCA prohibits the distribution of
> technologies that circumvent copyright management devices,
> and the Second Circuit has held that it reaches even linking
> to sites where such technologies may be found. Moreover, the
> DMCA protects copyright management devices from
> circumvention even if these devices are employed
> deliberately to prevent people from using copyrighted
> materials in ways completely consistent with fair use.
> 
> Does the DMCA “alter[] the traditional contours of copyright
> protection”? Yes, it does, in two respects. First, it
> creates a new property right that allows copyright owners to
> do an end run around fair use, effectively shrinking the
> public domain. Second, it extends that property right to
> prohibit the use and dissemination of technologies that
> would protect fair use and vindicate fair use rights.
> Congress has exceeded the traditional boundaries of
> copyright protection, superimposing a new form of
> intellectual property protection that undermines the
> “built-in free speech safeguards” crucial to the holding in
> Eldred. Hence, under the logic of Eldred, the DMCA is
> constitutionally suspect.
> 
> Three caveats about this argument.
> 
> First, do I think that the Supremes understood the
> consequences of what they were doing when they wrote the
> words “traditional contours of copyright protection”? No,
> because as far as I can tell, they are pretty much clueless
> about the interface between first amendment law and
> intellectual property and how that interface has been
> affected by the new information technologies. I specifically
> include Justice Ginsburg in this, even though she is related
> to one of the foremost copyright scholars in the United
> States. By defending extended terms on the theory that fair
> use and idea/expression were effectively held constant, they
> opened themselves up to the argument that fair use and
> idea/expression have not been held constant, and that they
> won’t be held constant in the digital age. That’s why I
> think they were clueless. But they said it, and now we have
> to live with what they said, and for those of us who think
> the DMCA is a bad statute, Eldred creates a new argument for
> its repeal or for a constitutional challenge.
> 
> Second, as Bill Clinton would say, it all depends on what
> you mean by the word “traditional.” If the notion of
> “traditional” has any teeth to it, paracopyright is not
> traditional. If you say there is long tradition of giving
> media interests anything they want in the copyright field no
> matter what, then I guess paracopyright is as traditional as
> any other form of politically sanctioned protection of
> corporate interests. A more plausible response, I think, is
> that the idea of “traditional copyright protections” is a
> bad test for the digital age. It can't be the right way to
> assess the first amendment values at stake, and it’s as
> short sighted as the notion that only traditional public
> forums– streets and parks– deserve first amendment
> protection in an age of television, cable, and the Internet.
> But that’s an argument for why Eldred was wrongly decided in
> the first place.
> 
> Third, the fact that the DMCA is subject to first amendment
> scrutiny under this argument does not mean that it
> necessarily falls. But I think there is a strong argument
> that if you take seriously the logic of Eldred, it must
> fall. Copyright has both temporal aspects-- length of
> copyright term-- and horizontal aspects– scope of rights at
> any one point in time. Ginsburg’s opinion suggests that you
> can expand copyright protection temporally as long as you
> don’t mess with the horizontal aspects that preserve free
> speech interests. Congress clearly did mess with those
> horizontal aspects in the DMCA, and so, under the logic of
> Eldred, it infringed on the “built-in free speech
> safeguards” of copyright law.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> ------------------------
> http://www.anti-dmca.org
> ------------------------
> 
> DMCA_Discuss mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss
> 
-- 
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
__________________________
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com

http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and 
articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....

1-718-382-0585