[KLUG Advocacy] IP legalese and proceedings (was Re: Movies? Weird!!!)

[Robert G. Brown]

"Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@ieee.org> wrote:
>Quoting "Robert G. Brown" <bob@acm.org>:
>> Also, as "TheBS" pointed out, we're talking about CIVIL proceedings
>> here. 
>[ Did Bob just agree with me? ;-]
Bryan it happens, perhaps more than you know. This was merely one of those
times where it was actually constructive to make it visible! :)

>> While it's true that the DMCA makes some of these civil violations
>> actual *criminal* acts, it is largely untested...
>> I susepct this is why there has been much smoke about the DMCA, but
>> very little fire.
>Yes, I would not be surprised if it is found to be Unconstitutional if it was
>taken to the highest levels.
That's probably going to happen. THe American system works like that. Someone 
takes things entirely too far in one drection, and other forices push things 
back toward something that has a stronger resemblence to sanity.

>If you look at the 2600 case (which was civil?), they didn't go after the
>software, but how the [independent] media reported it, which _is_ directly
>addressed by the DMCA. ....
I think it was civil. There are other problems here, notably one of depth of 
pockets.

>E.g., I don't have to prove copyright violation... tell...[a] content provider 
>....that their referenced material is a copyright violation, and if they
>refuse to remove.... I can now charge them with a violation of the DMCA...
It's not QUITE so simple, but this is essentially right. However, there are 
real risks to swearing out a criminal complaint. You can bet that if you do so
against me, I'm going to come after YOU with a whopping civil action later,
for all kind of stuff. THis is why The Elcommsoft case was an on-again-off-
again affair.. the companies wanted to know that the Governemnt was IN, because
on crimial complaints, the Government supercedes any other complaining party.

>Of course, the New York Times does the same damn thing and there wasn't a pep
>out of "Big Media." 
And now we come to the depth of pocket point. The New York Times has deep
pockets, and will use them to defend it's perogatives to cover stories, pro-
tect sources, and so forth. To behave otherwise would be giving in to a perma-
nent harm to one of its primary commodities -- news.

THe DMCA is bad law, not only because I don't agree with it, but because it
relies on the worst elements of the structure of the court system to intimidate
people. It has a chilling effect on a lot of activites.

>> The Elcomsoft case has been the exception that proves this rule.
>Yes.  Especially given the fact that Adobe recanted it's complaint but,
>because it was a criminal case, the US federal government is continuing it.
Therre was also a change in adminstration, and policy that went with it. The
atmosphere today in the governemnt is to prosecute this. Historically, the 
government drops the case if it was brought by outsiders, and they have no 
compelling evidence of harm, or ongoing harm.

>In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some of their staffers are silently
>hoping its going to trial will end up rendering the DMCA Unconstitutional.
Wouldn't knock me off my chair, either. 

>BTW, isn't the Johansen, the creator of DeCSS, trial now starting? ...
I'd like to see a reent URL on this, preferably a couple. I did acursory 
search, times demands my attention elsewhere.

							Regards,
							---> RGB <---