The copyright maximalist position taken by the Clinton Administration in 1995 involved a radical rolling back of the public--interest portions of copyright, under the guise of clarifying matters for the age of electronic distribution. The Administration "White Paper" can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/ipnii/. The ensuing debate brought forth a wealth of information, a particularly interesting example of which is an open letter of opposition to the White Paper from 100 law professors, followed by Bruce Lehman's response, and a rebuttal of the response by Prof. James Boyle (of American University's Washington College of Law). [See http://www.harvnet.harvard.edu/online/moreinfo/boyledeb.html] Boyle and others argued that the changes sought in the White Paper would have "negative implications for public, journalistic and scholarly access to information, for free speech and for privacy," including: 1) Temporary reproduction of a document (for instance, in the cache of your Web browser as you read it) becomes a copyright violation. 2) "Fair use"-- the cornerstone of much public debate, scholarly research, and news reporting--is effectively overturned. 3) Online service providers are held liable for the copyright violations of their subscribers--which essentially puts an end to online privacy, and probably most service providers as well. 4) Removing copyright management information and devices, even if no violation of copyright occurs, becomes a Federal crime. Others have also pointed out that the copyright maximalist position represented by the White Paper effectively dismantles "first sale" rights--those that allow us to lend a book or magazine to a friend, and that allow libraries to function. If these overreaching ideas of "intellectual property"--designed to benefit only the largest rights holders--become the basis of our recorded culture, we will most likely find ourselves in a future as dark as that portrayed in Richard Stallman's essay/fiction "The Right to Read." [See the February 1997 issue of Communications of the ACM (Volume 40, Number 2) or http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html] To find current information on these issues, and to contact those who are working in these areas, please consult: Digital Future Coalition (http://www.dfc.org) Union for the Public Domain (http://www.cpsr.org)