RE: [dvd-discuss] DMCA used to supresss "animal rights" site

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

>That's a very good point. Previously, the JUDICIAL SYSTEM was where
>disputes were settled. The DMCA *circumvents* that process. Furthermore,
>there have been numerous cases where city statutes that banned certain
>forms of speech such as flyers or posters or displays have been struck
>down as too restrictive and violating the FA. Clearly under the DMCA we
>have a situation where individuals or more likely corporations can do this
>at will without any review by a judge. If courts have repeatedly ruled a
>city, state, or the federal government does NOT have this ability, WHY
>should it be granted to corporations? <I'm attempting to formulate an
>argument here not showing my naivete>

Well, the courts have been extremely reluctant to extend 1A rights to 
private transactions, in part no doubt, because of your next point. 
They don't want to deal with the flood of litigation that would 
result.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the "safe harbor" section 512 
grants to ISPs who remove material upon notice and keep it off as for 
a minimum of 10 business days could be enough governmental 
participation to bring 1A into play.  One fast track  way to assert 
this might be for Animal Rights to send a counter declaration under 
sec 512 and demand immediate restoration of their site. The ISP 
claims its safe harbor, the district rules, yea or nay, and the 
appeals begin.

Arnold Reinhold
(Who is not a lawyer)


>I might also add that the judicial system should start to consider the
>impact upon itself when this becomes widespread. How many cases to judges
>want to deal with when clearly the suit is nothing but a harassment tactic
>with the judge being used as a pawn in the game.
>
>