An excerpt from a transcript of a speech by actor Tim Robbins: `` A famous middle-aged rock-and-roller called me last week to thank me for speaking out against the war, only to go on to tell me that he could not speak himself because he fears repercussions from Clear Channel. "They promote our concert appearances," he said. "They own most of the stations that play our music. I can't come out against this war." '' How does this affect you?

Perhaps you're not affected. Perhaps you don't have any music on a Clear Channel radio station, and perhaps you're nowhere near being a famous middle-aged rock-and-roller... but what if you were, or more closely, what if you intend to one day fit that description? No matter, really, since the economic repercussions of such fear will reach you eventually. See, and here's another scare tactic to make you care; a tragedy for sure, but your freedom is something for which you ought to fear. The transcript of Tim Robbin's speech shares decent reasoning for this understandable concern so we won't reiterate here. In fact, this article's already at an end. So... check out the transcript and return here to share your thoughts on such vital matters as freedom and democracy. These are central building blocks of dmusic's commitment to the end-user and the artist alike, and we want them on the table for everyone to understand.

Tim said "In the 19 months since 9-11, we have seen our democracy compromised by fear and hatred. Basic inalienable rights, due process, the sanctity of the home have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear. A unified American public has grown bitterly divided, and a world population that had profound sympathy and support for us has grown contemptuous and distrustful, viewing us as we once viewed the Soviet Union, as a rogue state."

You could say the same thing about music or movies and the DMCA. When corporations (or anyone for that matter) are given the right to issue subpoenas WITHOUT Judicial oversight (Section 512h of the DMCA) to find out your personal information by simply stating that in their belief, with no evidence needed, that you have their copyrighted materials on your computer and can obtain name address, cc info and any information your isp has such as surfing habits, emails, etc. then you have a serious problem. Imagine a predator hanging around a chat room. He begins a conversation with a 12 year old. They exchange e-mails. With the info contained in the header of that email he has your isp or the info to obtain the isp. A quick trip to the local federal courthouse clerks office, fill out a simple form, stating that they are a copyright holder and have reason to believe person at this internet address has your copyrighted files on their computer, and a subpoena is issued. No judge has to look the request over, it is issued automatically. They then send this subpoena to the ISP. The isp must give the person or corporation complaining the info. The predator then has all the info they need to stage a kidnapping or worse. Sure they had to lie on the form, but do you really think that will stop someone from doing it? The risk of a federal perjury charge? Not when they are planning even more despicable acts. It isn't a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

This is what the Verizo case is about. Not the right to hide criminals or copyright infringments, but to require judical oversight.

Under the DMCA section 1201 provides for fair use to make copies for education uses, but yet criminalizes that act if you bypass the encryption to use the fair use. The fines and damage awards put criminal penalties to shame in this country. The came about in 1996 and was passed into law in 1998. While we were all watching the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal wondering whose "DNA" it was on that blue dress, the DMCA slipped through virtually unnoticed. The day the DMCA was passed we lost our basic freedoms. The fact that people haven't been outraged and demanded from their congress that this be revoked, or changed to reflect the basic rights Americans have enjoyed for over 200 years, was the beginning of the downfall of those rights.

This didn't begin after September 11, it began in 1996 and was passed into law in 1998.

Nice to be "committed" to freedom and freedom of speech, but you may as well be singing "Sunshine of my Love" as you're flushed down the War on Terrorism toilet.

Look around. Look at the person on your left, look at the person on your right. These fine, ethical Americans will argue for your right to free speech, but when the hammer falls as it has for some, they'll lose eye contact, they'll go out for their Extra Value Meal lunch, they'll do anything but try to stick a stopper in the civil liberties toilet dissidents are facing.

Whether it's Clear Channel, your state government, your Federal government or any other big power structure, you feel like there's nothing you can do. You stand around with your thumb up your ass and the toilet grows stronger.

Do you want to make a difference? It means people will call you a troublemaker, an asshole, an unamerican, a loser or worse. To be a loser today, get these phone #'s: your state representative, your Congressional representative and your Senate representative. Don't write them e-mails. Don't write them letters. Call these 3 local offices and schedule an appointment to discuss your *1* issue (this isn't an all-you-can-eat buffet, folks). Hint: you're probably not going to be talkiing to your rep, you will probably be talking to one of their staff. Guess what - that's OK.

When each meeting is over, *then* write a brief thank you note for their time to listening to your concerns. Now the work starts.

You need to follow up with each office (by phone) every two weeks. I hope you weren't an ass during the meeting, otherwise these follow-up phone calls won't do squat. Follow up every two weeks. Not sooner, not later.

Now you're making a difference.

thumbtack: This is about freedom in general though, and we've had attacks against the rights long before the DMCA. More to the point is what fatchunk brought up; the fact that the average American actually has to put forth effort to help democracy work. The problem with this perfectly sensible concept is that most people are too lazy to make an effort if they're not put under adverse conditions first. I'm wondering if we can't design a democratic system that allows the average user easier access to the final vote, or straight to their representatives to try and make a difference under the current structure. Currently, representatives are innundated by the lobbying by monied interests, and the average person's word, even in great numbers, seems to go unheard. What can be done about this?

Actually I'm glad you asked. Written letters to your reps work better than emails. As Chuck points out visits work even better. In my area our rep has town hall meetings from time to time. I go and ask questions concerning the issues on DMCA etc. I've met with Rick Boucher and his staff on several occaisions, ans well as discussed issues with Bob Goodlatte's office. (I was really incensed that he took $31,000 fromt he RIAA and its members for his 2002 campaign, when he was running unopposed.)

Politicians need votes before they need the money from fat cat lobbyists. Otherwise they never get the money.

...but once they get elected they get the money, which makes *who* you vote for fairly unimportant. Unfortunately, there's no portable morality detector that can be used to screen candidates. I wasn't so much asking what could be done in the current context of our democratic format, but more along the lines of what could be done to reform and reimplement the process.

Shame to see that users aren't jumping on this... i hope it's not true that apathy shall continually rule.

Thumbtack, I've always loved your insight on the semen/dress scandal and the odd coincidence that the White House/Bruce Lehman DMCA was passed through Congress with no debate. You are right about that. It was all paid for by Clinton golf buddy Mikey "Mouse" Eisner.

I have one caveat to add to your predator example. The RIAA has one nasty slippery slope to contend with---apparently their efforts to use weapons of mass corruption would extend only to major corporations. How the fuck do you determine "where" that line extends?

Does that mean Razor and Tie Records is big enought to have unlimited search and seizure authority? Or--what--Righteous Babe? Artemis? Rhino?

No answer, you grasshopper mobs. My suggestion then is that George Z Records (of which you are all part of)--start a paper storm of DMCA complaints to your local court clerk---Everyone in Amerika is a Kopyright Holder. Even Bill Evans for the Beautiful YMCA parody we concocted in Christmas season. Bill wrote the lyrics.

Seems to me (Bill) that you might have a serious doubt about Don Henley granting Safe Harbor and Alien Sedition Kopyright Losses on your part.(No one says you must prove reasonable search and seizure)--(just a suspicion)-- Fuckkit---issue him a summons.

Tom,

Anyone claiming to be a copyright holder can take advantage of Section 512H to abuse the system. I tried a different tack. (no pun intended) I contacted America's Most Wanted and John Walsh and told them of the possibility of this being used by predators to find out where kids live based on their ip. I asked them to look into the law and how it could be misused. I asked them to look into the section and suggested that they might want to make this a cause. I haven't heard back from them as of yet, but I expect that I will. If they take this up it would bring a powerful voice to the fight against this section.

Well, yes, kids are a hot button for sure. The State of California has much more strict laws regarding drivers licenses and Private Investigators. This is the Rebecca Shaeffer law, the actress who was stalked and shot.

Another example we have fought is the unconstitutional practice of demanding ID's and scanning at nighclubs. Obviously, security guards, bouncers (and liquor store clerks) could stalk women. Not that policemen don't do it all the time. You realize that all the States are connected in an instant database of drivers license bureaus. It's a small world, folks, imagine how leaky that address access is, to scummy private investigators across the country.

The Privacy Issue "should" be a priority to Conservative congressmen. But they are tortured by the temptation to increase surveillance databases.

I think (still) the regulation of private investigators is very weak.We had a case this week in LA of a low-level guy in the LAPD who was proven to be hitting the computers repeatedly for addresses and phone numbers of celebrities in Bel Air. He was selling the information to the National Enquirere. Who is to say, he doesn't have the same arrangement with unregulated private investigators.

This example then will prove to you that the government sucks, to grant them additional terrorism authority is a disaster.The RIAA seems to think of the taxpayer-funded FBI to be their own private security force. This can be read in no other way then to say--"The RIAA wishes to have unlimited access to the FBI, hoemland Security, and Patriot Act Files on Seditious Aliens." "We don't need no stinking search warrant."

I would say that the Rebecca Shaeffer law covers the situation already, that is--in the interest of protecting children and women, we have to tighten security and noinformation is to be granted except by a judge signing a warrant. But isn't that already covered by Unreasonable Search and Seizure requirements of the Contstitution.