alt_religion_scientology/FACTNetARS20020406a

Legal Protection Turns Service Providers Into Speech Police
Saturday, April 06, 2002

NEW YORK - A 1998 federal law meant to combat digital piracy is increasingly
being used to challenge free speech online as well.

In one recent case, the search engine Google removed links to a Norwegian
site that criticizes the Church of Scientology International after the
organization complained of copyright violations.

Free-speech advocates worry that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
effectively gives powerful copyright holders the ability to push parodies,
criticisms and unpopular viewpoints to the fringes or off the Internet
completely. >>>

"The notice and takedown provision is ripe for abuse," said Siva
Vaidhyanathan, a University of Wisconsin professor critical of modern
copyright laws. "It gives the accused no real due process."

Andreas Heldal-Lund, who runs the Scientology criticism site in question,
says the effect is to strip the Internet of its value as a democratic medium
where the strong and the meek can be equally heard.

Scientology lawyer Helena Kobrin insists the organization is trying to
protect intellectual property -- not silence critics. She said Heldal-Lund's
site, "Operation Clambake", made available substantial excerpts of
copyrighted writings.

Heldal-Lund ignored repeated requests to stop, leaving the organization with
no other recourse, Kobrin said.

The organization won several copyright lawsuits in the past to stop
publication of its materials offline and online. It was a different case
involving Scientology and online postings that helped persuade Congress to
give Internet service providers immunity in the 1998 law. >>>

Danny Sullivan, editor of Search Engine Watch online newsletter, worries
that others may get the idea that they, too, could use the DMCA law to
silence critics.

Already, rival search engine Ask Jeeves saw a jump in removal requests "from
virtually zero to getting a few" in recent weeks, said Sharon Anolik, the
site's associate general counsel.

"It is a challenge for us to maintain our credibility and not engage in
censorship, but to also comply" with the law, she said.

Even if silencing critics is not the intent, free-speech proponents believe
the clause has that effect because it pressures service providers to remove
materials and links without waiting for courts to determine whether such
usage is permitted as "fair use."

And because few challenges are mounted, such temporary removals tend to
become permanent. >>>

"People who are engaging in what you might describe as parody and fair use
need to be willing to defend those rights, and that's expensive," said
Stewart Baker, a lawyer who heads Steptoe & Johnson's technology practice.
"People are not always willing to do that."

Supporters take that unwillingness as a sign the law works. >>>

Though most removal requests are "within the realm of reason, ... a
significant minority" misuse the provision, said Charles Kennedy, an
Internet lawyer critical of the law. The copyright holder may never intend
to follow through with a lawsuit, but decide to pressure service providers
anyhow, he said.

"Why wouldn't you?" he said. "It doesn't cost you to try."

.....end of Fair Use educational extract . To Read the full article, go to :
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49699,00.html

IOHO
FACTNet Staff
--
F.A.C.T.Net, Inc.
PO Box 3135
Boulder, CO 80307-3135 USA

* Web site http://www.factnet.org/
* Discussion Board http://www.factnet.org/discus/
* E-mail mailto: manage@factnet.org
* Donations http://www.factnet.org/donation.htm

* Subscriptions to Newsletters http://lists.factnet.org/mailman/listinfo/factnet-news

F.A.C.T.Net is a non-profit 501(c)(3) news source, referral service, and
archive protecting freedom of mind from harms caused by psychological
coercion.