News websites get less protection than print, judge rules

A NINTH Circuit Judge yesterday ruled that the 'good faith' test under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act was subjective, not objective.

The move, by Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson, means that internet websites and news outlets are given far less protection under the First Amendment than their print counterparts.

The case in question concerned internetmovies.com v the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Claims on the former website that full movies were available for download led the MPAA to send a cease and desist notice to the owner, Mike Rossi. When Rossi refused, the case came to court.

The crux is that nobody at the MPAA actually checked to see if there were movies available for download. That this case was found in favour of the MPAA means that, when filing a cease and desist request under the DCMA, neither the copyright holder nor the court actually have to check that there is copyright infringement taking place - the copyright holder merely has to act 'in good faith'. It's not hard to see how one can act in good faith but still be wrong.

Were this to be the case for printed press, Attorney for Rossi, Jim Fosbinder said, it would authorise a copyright holder to "Shut down the New York Times on a mere suspicion".

Fosbinder and Rossi are planning to appeal, but believe that if this truly is the interpretation to be given to the DCMA, it could violate the First Amendment and therefore be struck down as unconstitutional.

The 9th Circuit is the most reversed court in the nation, according to Fox News. It is currently the subject of a political battle between Democrats, who believe it should stand, and Republicans, who believe it is too activist and want it broken up. µ