Slashdot Mirror

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 3 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.

At times, search engines remove different results from country-specific searches.

You appear to have gotten here from a search. Click to compare your search across national domains.

I'm curious to know why you chose to respond to my post rather than the parent. Specifically, why didn't you respond to the question:

"What allows an ISP to ignore copyright violation, via transmissions through the network, while a website can't?"

Are you claiming that YouTube qualifies as a service provider under 512?

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cg i?QuestionID=127

"A service provider is defined as "an entity offering transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received" or "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities thereof.""

YouTube clearly does not qualify. How would you address ""...without modification to the content of the material as sent or received"? YouTube creates their own modified versions of the content you upload; it is not simply a neutral conduit for it's users' data.

"...because they have failed to adequately use the 512 safe harbor.."

Yes, it's this one.

To claim safe harbor and quickly have most any copyright suit dismissed, you need to become an online service provider. ChillingEffects.org has a nice FAQ on the topic.

When I published my OS X remote root (link-local remote root for the pedantic), a poorly chosen use for DHCP, Apple had advance notice of when I was going to release it, numerous avenues to attempt contact and I didn't hear one peep from Apple Legal. That this guy was suddenly chilled and can't produce evidence of it other than making vague insinuations just sounds hoakey to me.

If he doesn't feel okay about releasing details until they've patched the driver that's one thing. But insinuating that the big bad lawyers have silenced you is quite another. The only circumstance I can think of where they could actually be legitimately silenced is: they are/were being paid to do pen testing for Apple, they submitted this bug, they blabbed about it at a conference when they were under a contractual NDA, they're now claiming they didn't say enough violate the NDA and are remaining mum until the rest of the details go public.

Given the nature of this scenario (i.e. that they'd have to have violated an NDA to wind up where they are insinuating they are now), I'm not overwhelmed with trust for the researchers who are positing this security hole's existence. On the other hand, I was led on and on by Apple waiting for them to release a patch for my earlier security issue that had a similar attack vector and security impact to this posited new security hole. If these researchers are actually waiting, we may all have to sit around for a good long while before the proof is actually shown.

This dilemma is more evidence of why full disclosure is a good idea.

I hope the EFF really lays the smack down on Lyons Partnership.

The letter: http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cg i?NoticeID=2476 Link to site found in letter: http://www.dustyfeet.com/evil/enemy.html

Don't dismiss Ogg completely; be grateful for people who support it, because, otherwise, Fraunhofer would be collecting patent license fees from decoder manufacturers, which means "users once-removed".

http://www.chillingeffects.org/patent/notice.cgi?N oticeID=464

Your thesis depends on MP3 being "free", and the only reason it is is because of the threat of OGG. Fraunhofer is willing to give up the otherwise obtainable revenue to maintain the overwhelming popularity of the format, in order to collect revenue from hardware manufacturers. If OGG wasn't around, all of MP3 would be a revenue stream for them, and it would never have achieved it's present hegemony.

Depending on what would maximize their income, Fraunhofer should (or should not) be grateful to Vorbis.

• the "Electronic Frontier" is woven into everyone's life: what happens electronically can be more real, longer lasting, than any real-world event, and
• "Foundation" doesn't mean the same as "Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation" (it can buy countries), or the "Ford Foundation" (it can casually sponsor a year of PBS). The EFF, unless it wins the trillion-dollar lawsuit, is a small donor-supported non-profit.
• And in some cases, the ACLU doesn't do as well. The EFF's AT&T lawsuit is still going strong. The EFF filed in January to get that amazing 'not automatically dismissed on state secrets' ruling. I admit I'm biased- I know people there and am a supporter- but damn, they're good.

Consider voter disenfranchisement. In the old days, you had to physically block people from voting, one by one. Now you can do badly-designed joins on voter-rolls and stop thousands of people from voting in an afternoon.

Consider Free Speech. In your world you have to hire goons- expensive at overtime- to physically intimidate speakers. In the actual world automated intimidation, expensive intimidation, exists. In the actual world, entire subjects can be disappeared from view, thousands in one software installation.

Or maybe you really don't worry about building innovative tech companies, music CDs, publishing electronically. You really don't worry about credit scores, credit card records, HIPAA, test results, university records, voter data, flight records, VoIP calls... in your world. Funny, I didn't think they'd let you online in Supermax, Mr. Kaczynski.

I've always wondered what would happen if you saved yourself the money for attorneys' fees etc. by just showing up in court and telling your side of the story in 100% not-fancy language.

Say you're the JMRI guy, being sued for patent infringement. If you were allowed to speak in plain English, the case would last 5 minutes and cost nothing:

I know; the team of lawyers buries you under a mountain of papers, discovery motions, etc. Why can't you say:

"Your honor, they're burying me in discovery motions, etc. to intimidate me into settling. Please make them

And so on. Just wondering.

...."Word is protected only by market forces, while iTunes enjoys the protection of a corrupt law that gives Apple the right to exclude competitors from the market" and "For example, in the software industry, it's legal to reverse-engineering a file-format in order to make a competing product."

The article seems to be a generic troll by a recording industry lobbyist and his arguments are allover the place.

My Gripe no 1: ITunes does not need DMCA to hide behind and "market forces" does not make microsoft's products superior. What if ITunes patented the DRM file format and licensed it for 1000$ per track ? It would effectively kill competition. (can you patent a file format ? well yes and yes).

My Gripe no 2: Apple may be interested in ripping you off when you buy an Ipod, they certainly arent interested in ripping you off when you buy a music track. The article's title should be "Apple's DRM is bad for Ipod consumers", taking it a step further, if apple didnt have DRM it is bad for music consumers, because if apple didnt keep the recording industry in check, they will rip you off. Remeber the whining about variable pricing ?

It boggles my mind that something like this can go on. Have you seen the patent for swinging on a swing? How the hell does something like that make it through the USPTO? (Patent 6,368,227 if you're interested) The entire patent systems needs an overhaul...

I don't get this. The referenced article says that the infringing website is www.xenu.net and that links to it must be removed. But www.xenu.net is the first result listed. www.xenu.net is the second result if you search for Scientology. So what's been removed? Why would this be a Google bomb?

Brian

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi? NoticeID=861

You can find the sensored links. This all says probably more about Kazaa than about Google.

I agree - Wendy (founder of Chilling Effects) and Fred (EFF laywer) rock!

>When is a copy a copy?
This reminds me of this famous letter. I know is long for the average /.er attention span but it's worth it.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/resource.cgi?Resour ceID=31

Letter to Warner Brothers: A Night in Casablanca
Groucho Marx

Abstract: While preparing to film a movie entitled A Night in Casablanca, the Marx brothers received a letter from Warner Bros. threatening legal action if they did not change the film's title. Warner Bros. deemed the film's title too similar to their own Casablanca, released almost five years earlier in 1942, with Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman. In response Groucho Marx dispatched the following letter to the studio's legal department:

Dear Warner Brothers,

Apparently there is more than one way of conquering a city and holding it as your own. For example, up to the time that we contemplated making this picture, I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers. However, it was only a few days after our announcement appeared that we received your long, ominous legal document warning us not to use the name Casablanca.

It seems that in 1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, your great-great-grandfather, while looking for a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and, raising his alpenstock (which he later turned in for a hundred shares of common), named it Casablanca.

I just don't understand your attitude. Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don't know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.

You claim that you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without permission. What about "Warner Brothers"? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were. We were touring the sticks as the Marx Brothers when Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor's eye, and even before there had been other brothers--the Smith Brothers; the Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brothers, an outfielder with Detroit; and "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?" (This was originally "Brothers, Can You Spare a Dime?" but this was spreading a dime pretty thin, so they threw out one brother, gave all the money to the other one, and whittled it down to "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?")

Now Jack, how about you? Do you maintain that yours is an original name? Well it's not. It was used long before you were born. Offhand, I can think of two Jacks--Jack of "Jack and the Beanstalk," and Jack the Ripper, who cut quite a figure in his day.

As for you, Harry, you probably sign your checks sure in the belief that you are the first Harry of all time and that all other Harrys are impostors. I can think of two Harrys that preceded you. There was Lighthouse Harry of Revolutionary fame and a Harry Appelbaum who lived on the corner of 93rd Street and Lexington Avenue. Unfortunately, Appelbaum wasn't too well-known. The last I heard of him, he was selling neckties at Weber and Heilbroner.

Now about the Burbank studio. I believe this is what you brothers call your place. Old man Burbank is gone. Perhaps you remember him. He was a great man in a garden. His wife often said Luther had ten green thumbs. What a witty woman she must have been! Burbank was the wizard who crossed all those fruits and vegetables until he had the poor plants in such confused and jittery condition that they could never decide whether to enter the dining room on the meat platter or the dessert dish.

This is pure conjecture, of course, but who knows--perhaps Burbank's survivors aren't too happy with the fact that a plant that grinds out pictures on a quota settled in their town, appropriated Burbank's name and uses it as a front for their films. It is even possible t

In case anyone is curious, the letter can be found here.

> The DMCA is a large act, it contains a lot of provisions, and many of them are provisions that other countries required to continue recognizing U.S. copyrights. To boil it down to a pithy summation of one section, and some example of how that one section has been used in a questionable fashion by a few companies, is not only simplistic, but bordering on propaganda.

I agree, and I've said as much elsewhere. I still stand by the assertion that it shouldn't have been passed. Inaction is always preferable to bad action, right? 1201 has a lot of crap in it that we've had to live with for 8 years or so that should have never become law. Stuff that will remain law for years to come with all the chilling effects, cease and desists, expensive and ultimately futile law suits, reinventions and reimplimentations, and finally damages to fair use (including time- and format-shifting as well as excerpting for commentary, personal backup, even the things the 'computer maintenance' provisions allow!) and damages to the public domain (criminalization of even inadvertant circumvention even when the copyright of work has expired or deliberately been gifted to the public domain).

You and ISPs may like the the safe harbour provisions -- and maybe that makes it on balance a win for you -- but we didn't need a new law for that either. We only needed one ruling to cement ISPs' positions as common carriers, just as Ma Bell and Xerox were never held accountable for the infringements of others with the aid of their products.

The attitude that new legislation is the answer to everything is short-sighted. (And there's no shortage of the side effects: http://chillingeffects.org/)

So no, I'm not advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I'm saying the baby shouldn't have ever been in that bath. I was against it then. I wrote my rep, I did the ineffectual crap you're supposed to do; but we all knew it wasn't going to be stopped.

I'll check to see if you've answered this else where (so pardon me if you have), but what's the story with this:

> Before the DMCA had I planned on Internet distribution [...] I would have been in a very tenuous position had someone infringed on the material, and I had not found out about the infringing property until after it was published.

Why? What section of the DMCA is even relevant? A movie is a movie. 17-USC-201 is pretty straight forward about ownership -- how would it be any different if it was fixed on a hard disk or on film? I mean even the characters are copyright the first time you ink or model their likeness...? With copyright by default every subversion carries your life plus 70 (or more).

Anyway, I'm really hoping you can show me some utterly necessary, superbly shiny silver-lining.

(Insert rant about Blizzard and how this relates to bnetd and the DMCA here.)

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca-sub/faq.cgi#QI D508

Anonymous pamphleteering is protected under the first ammendment. There are a number of cases that set a precident for this. For this NJ law to stand would fundamentally change the law of the land.

This is a link to the letter that Perfect 10 sent to Google regarding the copyright infringement. http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=898

"THAT is what the DMCA can be fairly used for,"

Read this:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi? NoticeID=1328

From what I read about the case Perfect 10 served a DMCA request, Google ignored it, Perfect 10 sued, Google lost.

Is this not what happened?

No, they were told. From what I read they ignored the complaint.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi? NoticeID=1328

"Sent via: fax
Re: Customer Support DMCA Complaints
We have discovered a massive misappropriation of Perfect 10 images and images belonging to third parties on websites that appear in Google indexed listings. This situation is very serious as consumers can view essentially the entirety of the Perfect 10 library over and over without paying anything by utilizing Google search. Consumers can also see thousands of high quality third party copyrighted images without charge, which makes the situation even more damaging for our company."

"Perfect 10's copyrighted works which have been infringed can be found in Perfect 10 Magazines and/or on its subscription website at www.Perfect10.com. If you wish to examine such copyrighted works, we can provide you with a temporary username/password with which you may do so. Specific volumes of Perfect 10 Magazine, issue number, and page number on which most of the copyrighted pictures can be found are set forth below."

I don't see that Google has removed any links for "xenu". Google has a note at the bottom of the page with a link to the Scientology DMCA complaint*. The DMCA complaint demanded that Google remove the link to "www.xenu.net". Google did not remove the link to www.xenu.net as the Scientology DMCA complaint had demanded. The top result for a Google search for "xenu" is: Operation Clambake - The Inner Secrets Of Scientology at www.xenu.net/ * The link to the DMCA complaint is http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi? NoticeID=232

Question: What is the DMCA's malfunction exemption?

Answer: Due to the incidences of software and electronics products manufacturers that go bankrupt or do not respond to customer service complaints, it is not a violation of the DMCA to circumvent malfunctioning, damaged or obsolete software programs that use access control mechanisms. The Copyright Office noted that such circumvention is reserved for only those circumstances where an individual sought, but failed to receive assistance from the copyright owner.

I don't know if this means that DVDs will ever qualify, but they are technically considered software.

This is the "loophole" that many people are now using to play ROMs from old systems which are no longer available.

The "censorship" itself is rather different too.

First, it was brought about be a private entity, not a government (Kazaa threatening Google).

Second, Google links to this page where you can see the request that was made, and which sites have been blocked.

This is much different. You're told content is missing, why, and what content it was.

it was a complaint by kazaa, about kazaa-lite infringing their copyright. kazaa lite is censored, worldwide, despite the fact that the DMCA only applies in the USA. there are several other sites censored, worldwide, because google is obeying US law, even in countries where it doesnt apply. use this link to find other examples of censorship - http://www.chillingeffects.org/search.cgi if you search for google, you'll notice several governments are keen to censor google search results, but only us censorship applies worldwide.

Really?

A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material

The MP3 patents that Phillips et al have been enforcing are 5,214,678, 5,323,396, and 5,777,992. These were filed in 1990 and expire in 2010-2011.

" removing content, from Google News sources ": Google's always had a policy of not indexing things people don't want indexed. That's not evil, that's polite. Agence France Presse is shooting itself in the foot by not being indexed by Google News, but hey, that's their point.

" Google Print caving in to publishers legal threats ": Did you read the article. This is temporary. Google is continuing to fight for the right to index books in the courts. Having to wait until the court case is finished is annoying, but is hardly Google actively being evil.

" DMCA complaints ": Google's just obeying the law. The law is bad. To try and show that the law is bad, Google is working with Chilling Effects to document the cases, specifically provides links to the takedown notices with contain the links in question. Maybe it would better if Google were to break the law, but I'm hard pressed to call someone attempting to protest a bad law to the extent possible "evil." At worst they've simply failed to be as good as they could be.

Funny how they always link to the specific content removed: http://images.chillingeffects.org/notices/232-xenu _chart.html. I remember that has already happened once before, I can't remember the details though.

Well that DOES kind of suck!

For a Kazaa Lite search, at least they state at the bottom of the page:

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

Removed entirely, according to BoingBoing.

MSN ought to comply with national laws, and be willing to assist in making sure a nation's citizens comply with them, even when Microsoft doesn't agree with those laws. (Would that Microsoft did that with business practice laws in the US and EU....) However, there are ways to do so, while still fighting censorship. Presumably, the Chinese were the ones objecting. They want the blog removed? Fine; but put the official objection complaint from the Chinese Government up instead. Or see if Chilling Effects is willing to expand their program, and try to have them host the official notice.

Using a mouse to make an online purchase .... Oops too late Amazon already did it... http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/ask_tim/2000/ amazon_patent.html

Automatically updating security software over the internet ... Sorry McAfee already got that one ... http://www.dotgnu.org/patent-analysis.html

Use of graphics and text to sell products over the internet... Darn too late again (see Pangea Intellectual Properties) http://www.chillingeffects.org/ecom/

Tabbed browsing... You might be thinking Mozilla or Opera... Nope Microsoft http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 406551

Maybe "techniques for cleaning one's anus using rolls of soft paper"... I have not checked but I am sure that one's covered too.

ChillingEffects.org keeps a library of submitted DMCA takedown notices.

We're trying to figure out if it's even possible without unbelievable costs here at Davidson College, and the (some of) faculty is resisting like there's no tomorrow. We're trying to get the word out to students, but there's no voice for civil liberties yet. We already do next to nothing when we get C&Ds.
I know for a fact we're not CALEA-compliant today. And I'm trying to spread the word to create resistance.
(Oh, and The Davidsonian's front page headlines this week: "Student pulls knife at Warner," "Students robbed in satellite parking lot," and "Town makes plans for transit rail to Charlotte.")

If I'm bitter about anything, it's the market manipulation.

No one who's seen 1/10th of the internet can honestly say "the market" wants "family-friendly" content. Maybe you're thinking the market only wants adult content in privacy, not in the BnM world. Then why do studios always make
movies that push the edge of the ratings,
NC-17 films that only make it to R
after a healthy bout of resubmissions,
sometimes without changing a thing?

Besides, if the market really wants content to be produced within these arbitrary boundaries, why do we need centralized ratings at all?

So what could explain this apparent disconnect? Maybe it's because rating boards are supported by nothing more than industry-wide collusion. Collusion makes the baby market cry.

Someone who respected capitalism would prefer an open market of ratings systems that compete fairly with one another, as I advocate, rather than propping up these coersive cartels.

So why not make the "official" ratings system incredibly permissive, and let people who disagree with it consult one of the free alternatives that already exist? All this does is kill the chilling effects of a centralized system. This lets you keep your ratings system for your kids, letting me choose differently for mine. Why is that such a threat? Why do you need everyone else to follow the ratings system you happen to prefer, when it's supported by neither a free market nor democracy?

Google pulls anti-Scientology links, March 21, 2002. "The popular search company said it removed the links after it received a copyright-infringement complaint from the Church of Scientology."

Google Removes Links in Response to DMCA Complaint, August 31, 2003. They did so in response to a DMCA notice from Sharman Networks, Ltd.

They keeled over very fast. What's worse is that "the U.S. Patriot Act [sic] . . . specifically forbids companies from making disclosures about government requests for information." You don't even have to know when your records get seized -- assuming you're important enough to get inquired about, of course.

...a link that tells you what website was removed.

Google can't be above the law, but they can, at least, render dumb laws useless, and that's what they did.

I agree that those situations are different. However, they could be intertwined to the point that someone may technically have to violate an NDA in order to disclose morally corrupt behaviour. While a court could declare the NDA non-binding under certain circumstances, such an outcome cannot be reliably predicted by the whistle blower or the journalist before the information is handed over.

The journalist cannot know what information is covered by an NDA and what is not. Should he be afraid even to ask questions? Does the law effectively make him bound by the contract as well?

So, yes, the law does make him bound by the contract inasmuch as he has reason to know that the secrets are secrets.

The possibility of a contract being broken, or a crime being committed, does not necessarily allow every potential means of investigation. Can you obtain a search warrant or a phone wiretap in order to resolve a case of petty theft or a business dispute? Forcing a journalist to reveal his source sounds like pretty much the same thing.

More on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which is used by most US states.

True, but linking is a violation of the DMCA.

Yeah, because MP3 is such a proprietary format.

The format is not proprietary, but the algorithms to create files in the format are. The Fraunhofer corporation visciously defends its mp3 patent against any software on the market incorporating an mp3 encoder.

To those in the world of proprietary software, with companies available to pay royalty fees, it is a meaningless distinction. But to those of us in the free software community, the fraunhofer patent is a major annoyance, because we can't legally ship mp3 encoders in our favorite distros/oses. It's one of the many motivations in developing the ogg vorbis codec and flac.

If what you meant was something like "the mp3 format is ubiquitous, unrestricted, and unencumbered for most people", then I apologize, as that is definitely true.

- Concertina (peeved that iTunes does not support more open formats)

Satire is entirely protected by free speech in the United States. Since they changed the names of the charachters, they should be even more protected from the lawyers.

Use of the original material for parody and satire is generally Fair Use. But not all satire is necessarily protected speech by the Bourne Convention (which, btw, Finland is almost certainly a participant). Specifically, non-parody Derivative Works are probably *not* protected.

This particular implementation sounds very much like a parody, however, which is explicitly protected regarding derivative works, depending how much of the original ideas or scripts they copied.

Fan flicks are not protected free speech, though, personally I think anything you can create whether it be music, speech, or video should all be protected under our first amendment rights.

I am happy this is not allowed. Otherwise we'd have some great music being "stolen" by popular musicians, depriving the real authors (but not as popular performers). That type of thing *should* be licensed.

Of course, ianal. But you can see here for some interesting info.

No, there it was about patents.

Geez, people, learn to distinguish Copyright - Patent - Trademark - Trade Secret! It's not that hard and pretty important if you want to discuss stuff. I thought cognitive sciences has shown that most people can keep ca. 5 items in their mind at any time.

At a risk of being off-topic, I'll try to respond to this in a helpful matter. Yes, Google is removing some specific websites from its search results. Here's the Complaint from Kazaa and here's Google's page about the DMCA. I think Google is being really helpful, offering specific advice on how to get your situation fixed.

If you think that I am the "criminal" in this scenario then you either didn't follow the story properly or you're a moron. Next thing you're telling me is that I'm making that all up out of the blue.

I'd argue the following are provable examples of the U.S. government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech:

1. DMCA protection of algorithims used in commercial DRM encryption code.

Information here: http://www.legal.wao.com/decss.html

Computer code is copyrightable. In that sense, it is equivalent to speech; the government should not be able to arbitrarily repress it. However, the code for DeCSS, which does not violate either patent or copyright restrictions, is, according to the DMCA, illegal to reproduce or posses, since it is a circumvention mechanism. This is strange, since the DeCSS code is merely speech, you can reproduce it verbally, as a set of sentances describing it out loud, or on a teeshirt, in a few lines or perl code. This is odd; arguably, anything that is copyrightable *is* constitutionally protected speech.

There are more examples of this kind of nonsense here: http://www.chillingeffects.org/

This is stuff that according to copyright qualifies as speech; why isn't it protected by the 1st amendment? It's not copyrighted by the media cartels or by inventors; this is new, original, non-patent-encumbered code.

2. You make exceptions for 'terrorist' subjects, but how far does this extend? Should all court cases regarding terrorists have absolutely no public record?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1030/p01s02-usju.htm l
I find this appaling. We need more transparency, not secrecy. I find it *very* difficult to believe that these minor cases contained such earth shattering material regarding national security that the public can never know what happened. If anyone 'leaked' anything that occured at these hearings, you can damn well bet they'd be thrown away for good.

Even the defendant, who is unable to explain to anyone, including family members, just why they are in jail. What the heck?

The U.S., as a whole, has enough strength to give up some advantages to the 'terrorists' regarding secrecy. I'm not asking for terror-speach to be permitted. But it disturbs me when the government conducts all its operations in secrecy.

Right.

What is not so widely known is that it is ILLEGAL (in the USA) to:

a) BUY a PC
b) BUY a copy of OSX
c) Make "b" run on "a".

You heard me - against the law to do it in the privacy of your own home, like sodomy in Texas.

And don't think for a second that Apple is above invoking this stupid law (not the sodomy one)

If it can be demonstrated that whoever built the bombs used last week learned it from someone, then that someone could/should be held liable too.

Cool. So should a company that manufactures guns be held liable for someone who purchases such a weapon then uses it to kill someone?

Oooh, this is fun, let's see how deep into the stupid hole we can go before you say "no". How about someone who lets a friend borrow their car, should they be held liable when the friend runs someone over with that car? But no, that's not enough, let's go to the source - the woman that gave birth to the killer. Let's prosecute that bitch.

*climbs out of the stupid hole*

The same goes for knowingly hyperlinking to illegal material (lesser crime, not even a crime per se, but "having someone else do the dirty work for you" isn't any more legal).

There are debateable points on both sides in this case, that's one of the reasons it's interesting. Even though, morally speaking, I think it was fair to give the guy a bit of slap on the wrist, I really don't think there's any real public good served by setting this kind of a precedent. So great, they "sent a message" to all those evil people making hyperlinks (maybe next they'll start going after people who tell you where to find the "cheap DVD" street vendors).

This just gives the media lawyers more ammunition for their (Australian) intimidation campaigns. "Hey, we successfully sued this guy just for hyperlinking, you could be next!" Mmm, chilling effects.

Only funny if you like your diet high in irony.