The controversial law, which prohibits people from using or
distributing devices that can bypass copyrights and copy prevention
measures, was the subject of two court decisions this week.
The DCMA was passed in 1998 and is keenly supported by the music
and movie industry but criticised by civil liberties groups,
including the EFF, which campaigns for civil liberties in the
electronic age.
In New Jersey, a judge dismissed a case brought against the
music industry by a university professor who sought to challenge
the validity of legal threats made against him. Princeton
University Professor Edward Felton sued the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA) over its threats of legal action if
he published his research into the flaws of copy prevention
technologies. Felton argued that certain parts of the DCMA should
be overturned for being unconstitutional.
However, the court found in favour of the RIAA, which was
supported in the case by the US Department of Justice. The Justice
Department had argued that Felten had published his results
regardless of any concerns he had voiced.
In another case, Eric Corely, publisher of hacker magazine 2600,
lost his case in a US Court of Appeal in which he sought to
overturn an order made last summer which prohibits him from
publishing or linking his web site to a DVD-cracking code. The case
has been seen as a conflict between the right to free speech and
copyright protection on the internet. Corley’s defence was led by
the EFF.
The court upheld the provisions of the DCMA and was of the
opinion that it did not run counter to the principles of free
speech. It said: “The DCMA as applied to [Eric Corley’s] linking,
served substantial governmental interests and was unrelated to the
suppression of free speech.”
