[11-6] Ibid.

[11-7] Fara Warner et al., "Holes in the Net..." _Wall_Street_Journal,_ August 30, 1999, A1.

[11-8] See http://www.olga.net/about.

[11-9] See, e.g., Siva Vaidhyanathan, _Copyrights_and_Copywrongs:_The_Rise_of_Intellectual_
_Property_and_How_It_Threatens_Creativity_ (New York: New York University Press, 2001),
355 ("In July 1999, journalist Michael Colton posted an Internet parody of _Talk_ maga-
zine, which is a partnership between Hearst Magazines and Walt Disney-owned Mira-
max Films. Miramax lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter to Earthlink, the Internet
company that owned the server on which the parody sat. Earthlink immediately shut
down the parody. It only restored the site after _Talk_ editor Tina Brown appealed to the
Miramax legal department to let the parody stand. Because of widespread misunder-
standing of copyright law, cease-and-desist letters carry inordinate cultural power and
can chill if not directly censor expression.").

[11-10] See Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 105 P. L. 304, Sec. 202(c)(1)(iii) (1998).

[11-11] Lessig, 173-175.

[11-12] See Bennett Haselton, "Amnesty Intercepted," December 12, 2000, http://www.
peacefire.org/amnesty-intercepted.

[11-13] See _Microsystems_Software,_Inc._ v. _Scandinavia_Online_AB,_ 98 F. Supp. 2d 74
(D. Mass., 2000), aff'd, 226 F. 3d 35 (1st Cir., 2000) (enjoining "all persons in active con-
cert" with Jansson and Skala from "publishing the software source code and binaries
known as [CPHack]").

[11-14] See http://www.aclu.org/court/cyberpatrol_motion.html.

[11-15] _Sony_Computer_Entertainment,_Inc._ v. _Connectix_Corp,_ 203 F. 3d 596 (9th Cir.,
2000).

[11-16] _ProCD,_Inc._ v. _Zeidenberg,_ 86 F. 3d 1447, 1454 (7th Cir., 1996).

[11-17] See Paul Goldstein, "Copyright and the First Amendment," _Columbia_Law_Review_
70 (1970): 983 (describing the ongoing potential of copyright's grant of monopoly over
expression as censorship); Pamela Samuelson, "Reviving Zacchini: Analyzing First
Amendment Defenses in Right of Publicity and Copyright Cases," _Tulane_Law_Review_
57 (1983): 836 (same).

[11-18] For a detailed analysis of the DMCA, see David Nimmer, "A Riff on Fair Use in the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act," _University_of_Pennsylvania_Law_Review_ 148 (2000):
673 (discussing the formulation, adoption, and practical effect of the DMCA).

[11-19] See Carolyn Andrepont, "Legislative Updates: Digital Millennium Copyright Act:
Copyright Protections for the Digital Age," _DePaul-LCA_Journal_of_Art_&_Entertainment_
_Law_ 9 (1999): 397 (characterizing the DMCA as a necessary tool for protecting on-line
copyrighted material); and Michelle A. Ravn, Note, "Navigating Terra Incognita: Why
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Was Needed to Chart the Course of Online Ser-
vice Provider Liability for Copyright Infringement," _Ohio_State_Law_Journal_ 60 (1999):
755 (arguing that the DMCA was particularly needed to clarify liability for on-line copy-
right infringements).

[11-20] Or at least not significantly. It is true that if you could play DVD movies on any ma-
chine, there would be more machines that might demand DVD content.

[11-21] The MPAA filed suit against four Web site operators in the Southern District of
New York and in the District of Connecticut. The DVD Copy Control Association filed
suit in California State court against about twenty named defendants and five hundred
unnamed ones. For a history of these suits, see Openlaw/DVD: Resources, at
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/resources.html (visited April 19, 2001).

[11-22] _Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._ v. _Reimerdes,_ 82 F. Supp. 2d 211 (S.D.N.Y., 2000) and

[[312]]

p311 _ -chap- _ toc-1 _ p312w _ toc-2 _ +chap+ _ p313

v?