Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty‘s web site was taken off of Envirolink this week after Huntingdon Life Sciences sent a letter to Envirolink accusing the SHAC web site of being in violation of provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The DMCA is a controversial revision of copyright law designed to deal with the unique situations created by electronic media. Unfortunately, the DMCA was written largely to benefit large media corporations and is front loaded with a number of questionable requirements.
In the case of a web site such as SHAC’s, for example, as soon as Envirolink received a letter from HLS accusing the site of a copyright violation, it was legally obligated to take down the site for a minimum of 10 days, regardless of whether or not Envirolink thought HLS had a legitimate complaint. SHAC can have its site restored only after it sends a certified letter saying it is in compliance with copyright laws, but the site can’t be reinstated until at least 10 working days have passed. If Envirolink keeps the site up, it could potentially end up bearing some of the liability for any copyright infringements.
As much as I dislike SHAC, this essentially gives a broad power of prior restraint for just about anyone to take down sites with which they disagree.
For example, a few months ago I wrote about a staged picture from the VegSource.Com web site and included a copy of the picture and an extreme close-up showing it had been altered. Such use is clearly covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws.
But if VegSource wanted to they could send a letter to my Internet host alleging a copyright violation, and unless my host wants to be sued itself, it would have to take down that portion of the site for at least 10 working days.
As Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard Law School told Salon, “It’s a ridiculous balancing act. It’s clearly Congress trying to strike a compromise: Once the cat is out of the bag on the Internet, it’s all over, on the other hand, this idea that prior restraint of speech [is OK] because someone sent a letter sounds pretty bad.”
Not that it’s easy to get too worked up about SHAC’s predicament given its propensity for advocating and using violence to achieve its means. SHAC’s minimalist web page notes that the lawsuits and other actions by HLS, Stephens, and others are having an effect on the group:
SHAC USA is in desperate need of funds to keep us operational. We are currently fighting an upwards of nine lawsuits and we can’t do it without your support. Please help us in anyway that you can!
Source:
No free speech for animal rights Web sites. Katharine Mieszkowski, Salon.Com, August 31, 2001.