This source is an article written by Daniel Caruso which appeared on the 'Technology' page of the New York Times on January 19, 1998 amidst the hype over the Clinton Administration's push for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The article outlines the general dissent that occurred over the passage of the bill, which at the time was referred to as the "World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaties Implementation Act", hyped up by the Clinton Administration as a necessary step for the United States to take to align itself properly with the international community. Intellectuals and 'cyberspace' law experts came down strongly against the act, as many thought that it would limit technological innovation, and others thought that it was an illegal disruption of fair use. The author makes it clear to the reader that the fact that information that should be available by law would be stripped away if the owner of the copyright somehow technologically encoded it.
Although this article may seem to be old news with the benefit of ten years of retrospect, it is the type of polemic that gives a look into the mindset of Americans as the legislation was being negotiated and passed. Clearly, at the time there was much more limited use of information technology, and people were still using print versions of content. It is also quite fascinating that the law would be used to limit access to information in a time of growing interconnectedness. Furthermore, the author notes that the controversial anti-circumvention provisions enable content owners to receive favorable terms in renting or selling their property. The Clinton administration tried to sweep the provisions in as necessary protocol for accordance with an international treaty; however, this article calls into light that the interests of the legislation are aligned against the public interest, and rather with those of large corporations. This type of impassioned defense against the legislation shows that had the Clinton Administration and Congress been more transparent with its content and intent, it may not have passed so easily. This provides a dimension to my paper that is lacking in the journal articles.