darkonc writes "I've been thinking about what slashdot refers to Super-DMCA. It hit me that they may actually be illegal. Consider that The Internet allows almost anybody with a connection to put up a web server )or a kaaza server, or whatever) and essentially become a mini-publishing house. In that context, these super-DMCAs that prevent users from setting up any service that their ISP doesn't explicitly OK are like outlawing printing presses, and allowing some random party to regulate the use of them. Simply put, this is censorship. Although the constitution allows capitol hill some limited rights to censor people in the name of copyright, I don't think that it gives any such rights to the states. Even if it did, these laws are so
overreaching as to go far beyond what the copright exception was intended to refer to. If that's the case, then -- to the extent to which they limit people's right to speak and publish their works -- these super-DMCA laws may be unconstitutional. Thoughts?"
|
GrepLaw
