Re: [dvd-discuss] dvd-discuss] Harlen Ellison and the DMCA...

["Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold(at)world.std.com>]

>The judgment is at
>
>
>
>http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/bb61c530eab0911c882 
>567cf005ac6
>f9/47819ca5ada002af88256b7c006a4494?OpenDocument
>
>
>It makes interesting reading. The judge had to go back the the legislative
>history to interpret the DMCA. I realize that there is a school of law that
>believes that laws must be interpreted by congressional intent rather than the
>words themselves but how should the rest of us interpret them? I'd say  if you
>a judge has to go to the history to figure out what the law says, then that
>should be a valid defense against high damages if any.


I think it is a very well written and analyzed opinion.  If the 
ruling survives unchallenged, I think it's a big victory for Usenet.

The need to go back to legislative history stems, I believe, from 
plaintiff's attempt to stretch the meaning of the law. For example 
they argued that AOL exercised enough editorial control to lose safe 
harbor protection under DMCA just by deciding which Usenet newsgroups 
to carry. They also claimed that by keeping Usenet messages for 14 
days AOL was in a different category from those who merely transmit 
content.  The judge found good reason to dismiss those claims in the 
legislative history. Future judges can simply cite this opinion. 
With any law there will be situations where the meaning isn't 
completely clear. That is how the the system is supposed to work.

In this case, of course, there were no damages. I don't know what the 
general practice is, but in the original DeCSS case, Judge Kaplan did 
not award attorney costs against 2600 because he felt there were 
legitimate questions presented.


Arnold Reinhold