Aram Sinnreich and Masha Zager have an interesting article at TruthDig. They point to the increasing restriction on digital free speech. Many of these come about because of commercial restriction on transferring information, for example DRM which restricts what devices you can use to play music. Various laws and treaties get the government in the act as agents for corporate interests. As part of the article, they coin the term e-speech, making the point:

Without a name for the big picture, it’s difficult to do anything about it. Imagine trying to reverse global warming, reduce pollution and save species from extinction without the umbrella of the word environmentalism connecting the issues. Therefore, we propose the term e-speech as a concept to unite these issues, and to discuss potential solutions to the problem they collectively pose.

I don't know if e-speech will catch on. It sounds like something Apple would dream-up, although they would call it i-speech. But the concept is a good one. The increasing restriction of free digital expression has to become an issue that is debated in the mainstream. Our rights to free-expression may be dying from a million paper cuts.

However, there are contrary views. I have felt that the DMCA was a travesty, but this article in Wired argues 10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA is the Law That Saved the Web. The article argues that immunity to ISP for copyright infringement by their users has prvided the freedom for the growth of the web. Paired with the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which provides immunity against noncopyright claims like defamation, the DMCA made it possible for everyone to provide forums for users without constant fear of being sued.

I'm a bit dubious about that argument given the heavy-handed way the DMCA has been wielded by corporations. A major problem is that it is very difficult if not impossible for a single user to defend their free-use of digital material against a litigious corporation with deep pockets. Once sent a takedown notice, what do you do? You can certify that the material is noninfringing, but if the corporation decides to sue, can you afford to defend your rights?

This sort of activity even hurts the big guys like Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, who voted for the DMCA. McCain has been reusing snippets of broadcast news footage in his online campaign videos, and a variety of news outlets have been getting the videos yanked from YouTube with takedown notices. The McCain campaign is probably within their rights to use these snips, but can they afford to fight all the battles during an election campaign?

One big problem with DMCA is that it fails to recognize fair use. Until it is changed so that it does, it's a one sided law that penalizes the little guy while giving corporations the power to restrict speech.