IP: EFF: Protects Scientists' Speech While Government, Record Industry Disagree

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release
>
> For Immediate Release: October 25, 2001
>
>
> Contacts:
>
> Cindy Cohn, EFF Legal Director, cindy () eff org,
>   +1 415 436-9333 x108 (office)
>
> Robin Gross, EFF Intellectual Property Attorney,
>   robin () eff org, +1 415-637-5310 (cell)
>
>
> Government, Record Industry Disagree on Digital Copyright Law
>
> Electronic Frontier Foundation Protects Scientists' Speech
>
>
> Trenton, NJ - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
> today replied to the US Department of Justice's request to
> dismiss a digital copyright law dispute. EFF explained that
> the vagueness of the law, known as the Digital Millennium
> Copyright Act (DMCA), prevents even the DOJ and the
> recording industry from agreeing on their interpretation
> of the law in the Felten v RIAA case.
>
> The DOJ's dismissal request claims that the DMCA does not
> preclude scientists from pursuing and publishing research
> on digital copy prevention schemes, while the recording
> industry seeks to dismiss the case on grounds that they
> have withdrawn legal threats against the scientific papers
> already written by Felten and his team. These papers
> discussed the weaknesses in the music industry's proposed
> SDMI technology designed to control consumers' use of
> digital music.
>
> EFF points out that the case must go forward in spite of
> both dismissal arguments. First, the DOJ's argument that
> the DMCA exempts scientific research is not binding on them
> and is not supported by any court ruling or by the
> recording industry. Second, although the recording industry
> threats against publication of this scientific research were
> withdrawn, industry representatives have insisted that the
> DMCA permits them to review and censor future research on a
> case-by-case basis.
>
> "Since the government and industry cannot agree on what the
> DMCA means, it is not surprising that scientists and
> researchers are confused and decide not to publish research
> for fear of prosecution under the DMCA," said EFF Legal
> Director Cindy Cohn. "Regardless of specific government or
> industry threats in the past, scientists should not have to
> experience the ongoing chilling effects of this vague
> digital copyright law."
>
> Together with USENIX, an association of over 10,000
> technologists that publishes such scientific research,
> Princeton Professor Edward Felten and his research team
> have asked the court to declare that they have a First
> Amendment right to discuss and publish their work, even if
> it may discuss weaknesses in the technological systems used
> to control digital music. The DMCA, passed in 1998, outlaws
> providing technology and information that can be used to
> gain access to a copyrighted work.
>
> "Three more independent scientists today joined six other
> scientists and the Association for Computing Machinery and
> the Computer Research Association in  filing declarations
> explaining to the court the ways in which scientific
> inquiry and freedom of speech have been chilled by the
> DMCA," said EFF Intellectual Property Attorney Robin Gross.
> "The chill continues because neither the recording industry
> nor the government has agreed to be bound to an
> interpretation of the DMCA that does not threaten normal,
> scientific publication."
>
> Recording industry attorneys will not agree to stop future
> threats against scientists for discussing the insecurities
> in recording industry security systems. Even the government
> admits this possibility, stating in its brief that: "It is
> possible that making available a publication that describes
> in detail how to go about circumventing a particular
> technology, if written or marketed for the express purpose
> of actually circumventing that technology, would be
> prosecuted under the statute."
>
> The chill felt by researchers working in this scientific
> discipline continues to grow. As Plaintiff Scott Craver
> says in his Supplemental Declaration, "We do not write and
> use programs such as tinywarp.c because we view breaking a
> technology as an end unto itself. To the contrary, breaking
> a technology is nothing more than a crucial step either in
> attempting to improve the technology or in attempting to
> prove that the technology cannot be made to do what it is
> supposed to do. Both, of course, are legitimate research
> objectives, and in either case, writing and using tools to
> circumvent access or copy control technologies is essential
> to our work. If we can no longer use the necessary
> instruments of science, then our field of scientific work
> will be paralyzed."
>
> Oral argument on the both the government and recording
> industry motions to dismiss the scientists' case has been
> scheduled for November 28 before Judge Garrett E. Brown
> in Trenton, New Jersey.
>
>
> About EFF:
>
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil
> liberties organization working to protect rights in the
> digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and
> challenges industry and government to support free
> expression, privacy, and openness in the information
> society. EFF is a member-supported organization and
> maintains one of the most linked-to websites in the world:
> http://www.eff.org/
>
> For EFF's filing in opposition to the Department of Justice
> dismissal motion in Felten v RIAA as well as for other
> motions and declarations in the case:
> http://www.eff.org/sc/felten/
>
>
>                       - end -


For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/