Slashdot Mirror

die_jack_die writes: "SFGate is running this article about the Business Software Alliance. I'm sure the BSA loves when they get scary stories of their tactics into the press, but this piece does quote the EFF's Fred Von Lohman making the point that companies who don't want to deal with the BSA can always use Open Source software. Most telling quote: 'every cent of those massive settlements stays within the BSA -- member software organizations receive only the licensing fees.'"

phalse phace writes: "The EFF is reporting that Prof. Felten et al will not be appealing the judge's dismissal of his case challenging the DMCA. According to the press release, the government, the RIAA, and a federal court have assured them that threats against his research team will not be repeated. This may be all fine and dandy, but does this promise extend to everyone, or will it only apply to 'his research team?' I'm afraid that until the DMCA is ruled unconstitutional, we'll continue to see others threatened by this ridiculous law."

phalse phace writes: "The EFF is reporting that Prof. Felten et al will not be appealing the judge's dismissal of his case challenging the DMCA. According to the press release, the government, the RIAA, and a federal court have assured them that threats against his research team will not be repeated. This may be all fine and dandy, but does this promise extend to everyone, or will it only apply to 'his research team?' I'm afraid that until the DMCA is ruled unconstitutional, we'll continue to see others threatened by this ridiculous law."

phalse phace writes: "The EFF is reporting that Prof. Felten et al will not be appealing the judge's dismissal of his case challenging the DMCA. According to the press release, the government, the RIAA, and a federal court have assured them that threats against his research team will not be repeated. This may be all fine and dandy, but does this promise extend to everyone, or will it only apply to 'his research team?' I'm afraid that until the DMCA is ruled unconstitutional, we'll continue to see others threatened by this ridiculous law."

EconomyGuy writes: "ElcomSoft, the Russian software company accused of such evils as producing software to enable the blind to read legally obtained e-books, has filed for a dismissal of the charge that they violated the DMCA. Their main arguments seem to be what we anyone would expect: the DMCA is too vague, copyright holders have too much power, infringement of 1st amendment rights. CNN has all the details, as well as news.com. Interesting to note that there is no mention of the 'we didn't violate Russian law' argument." The efforts to get the case dismissed will no doubt continue.

Seth Schoen writes: "EFF has been following the work of the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (which was featured in a CNet article linked from slashdot on Thursday) since it was founded in November. Co-incidentally, we today released an EFF overview of this work which contains some of our criticism of these efforts to control the ability of future consumer devices to record digital HDTV broadcasts."

copyfight writes: "Elcomsoft filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and a Motion to Dismiss the Conspiracy charge. Elcomsoft is Dmitry Sklyarov's Moscow employer who developed the software that defeated Adobe E-book copyright management protections. You can read the motions that were just posted at EFF. Essentially, they are arguing that the US has no jurisdiction because Elcomsoft loaded the software into "cyberspace," not the US. Also, they are arguing that Congress did not specifically intend to have the DMCA apply extraterritorially. The US can only have jurisdiction outside of its borders if Congress explicitly (and in some circumstances - implicitly) intends for the law to reach activity beyond its borders, as with terrorism and drugs. They also argued that there can not be a criminal conspiracy between an employer and employee and that Count 1 of the indictment should be thrown out."

Well, no one submitted it (guess no one reads the LA Times), but from the Red Rock Eater list we have a link to Freedom Fighters of the Digital World, a laudatory history of the EFF. Read it, live it, remember it when you think "I can't make a difference".

javacowboy asks: "I'm a Canadian citizen who recently emailed the Electronic Frontier Foundation to ask about the tax-deductibility of donations to that organization. They replied telling me that they have no presence in Canada and that they can't issue a Canadian tax receipt. What I would like to know is if there is a similar organization in Canada, working towards the same goals, that I can donate to as well as writing off the donations on my tax form."

jregel asks: "In the US, the Electronic Frontier Foundation works to protect digital rights on the Internet. I live in the UK, and would like to give money to a similar organization that will fight for my rights. Is there an EFF equivalent for those of us in the EU?"

It's not a contradiction: Free software costs money. (That's because server space, bandwidth, coffee, electricity, computers, and workspace all cost money.) Besides which, the time it takes to code new window managers, programming libraries (and languages), web browsers, and all the other goodies which make a modern computer useful may be spent as a labor of love, but it's time that competes with real-world jobs, family time, vacations in the Riviera and sleep. Besides the relative few who work at work on their Free software projects, the programmers, project managers, web-site maintainers, documentation jockeys and QA volunteers behind the programs we enjoy every day don't seem to be in it for the money, so much as the thrill of releasing new software, a desire to make their own world a little better, and for plain old fun. The staffers and volunteers who put long hours and dedication into organizations trying to safeguard online freedoms are also obviously interested in rewards that go way beyond salaries. This New Year's, consider giving them a little money anyhow. Here are a few ideas; you're invited to point out projects and organizations that I've left out.

As you may have read the other day, the FreeBSD project is now taking donations via PayPal. And if you're in a clean, roots-UNIX kind of mood, the folks at OpenBSD and NetBSD (NetBSD PayPal) would probably also appreciate your goodwill, not to mention your money, hardware and time.

If you don't have a specific project in mind, but would like to donate some of your chunk of the time-money continuum to a worthy software undertaking, a good place to start is Software in the Public Interest. They can take both general donations as well as earmark for projects they support, like Berlin, Debian, GNOME and more. (Not into GNOME? KDE could use some assistance, including money, too.)

If you like the projects funded by the boxed-distribution makers (like paying for full-time work on endeavors like KOffice), you can do more than buy the box: Mandrake has recently formed something called the Mandrake Club as a gathering place for both people and funds.

To encourage (and reward) cross-platform goodness, supporting the Mozilla project is hard to beat. (This story was posted using a 9.7 build using the wonderful Modern theme.) Source of Mozilla wisdom Mozillazine could use some help paying for the switch to a new host, and to defray ongoing costs. Another good place to cast your perls is Yet Another Foundation, which supports the somewhat scrutable development of the not-so-scrutable Perl.

More generally, consider investing some money in organizations like the Free Software Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC), all of which help battle (in court and in the marketplace of ideas) the forces who wish to monitor and otherwise exert top-down control of your computer and everything to do with your on-line life.

Remember, with all of these projects, non-monetary contributions are welcomed as well -- if you can write or correct some online documentation, create test-cases to root out weaknesses, or create some pretty graphics to smooth the user experience, you can contribute. (Long-distance pizza deliveries to developers are also generally appreciated.) Teaching a coworker, classmate, parent or friend how to set up mailfilters on a Linux box, or how to edit photos in the GIMP, is a nice way to save them money, too. Making a difference locally might also mean contributing some time, money or hardware to help run local LUG events.

Note: Many of the organizations named above are set up as 501(c) charities; if you'd like to claim any charitable contributions as tax deductions, now's the time to get the postmark, at least if it's important to you for those donations to be on the current calendar year. For a few more ideas on ways to donate geekily this year, see Jack Bryar's Newsforge column with some more links.

And a Happy New Year's!

You asked Stanford Law professor, author and general voice of reason Lawrence Lessig some great questions about rights, law, and the electronic world. Lessig has has gotten back with some fittingly thoughtful answers -- some optimistic, some discomfiting, some biting. Read on to find out what he's got to say.

1) The question of harm
by caduguid

In round two of Valenti vs. Lessig a crucial question arose but due to the to-and-fro of debating was only addressed anecdotally. The question was one Valenti posed to you. To paraphrase it roughly: "Who cares? I would like someone to explain to me what harm is being done to the world by Mickey Mouse's copyright being extended twenty years. How does that harm anyone's ability to be creative or incentive to be creative." In the debate you only had the opportunity to present an anecdotal response. (A teacher whose class film projects couldn't be shared due to copyright infringement fears, I think.) Beyond the anecdote, however, a clear answer would be very helpful. We can all see that the copyright extension bargain was one-sided: copyright holders profited and the public gained nothing. We see the inequity in the action, we sense that the fix was in, and we resent it. But resentment over seeming corruption and the copyright holders' good fortune can only take us so far. A clear conception of direct harm to the public might be far more persuasive than the secondary harm of the copyright holders getting a really sweet deal. I kept hoping during the debate that the opportunity would come for you to address the question more fully, but it never did.

Lawrence Lessig:

Exactly right. This was a great weakness in the debate. It has been a weakness of mine for a long time. In my way of looking at the world, the point is a matter of principle, not pragmatics:

(1) Copyright law silences speech. It you want to set my book to song, you need my permission. If you don't have it, the law will banish your song.

(2) If the government wants to silence speech, it needs a very good reason. And if it doesn't have that reason, it should not silence my speech. Period. I shouldn't have to prove how valuable my speech is before I have the right to speak.

Yet this is just what Jack's question demands: Prove your speech would be better than Disney's. I see it the other way round: Prove the government has a good reason to silence my speech.

Now I do believe the government sometimes does have a good reason. And in particular with copyright, I do believe that the aim of copyright law in general is a sufficiently good reason. Copyright law gives authors an incentive to produce. By offering authors a limited monopoly, it supports their creativity. And subject to lots of lawyerly quibbles, I believe this support on balance produces more speech than it silences. The quid-pro-quo (produce speech and we'll give you a limited monopoly) functions, as the Supreme Court has said, as an "engine of free expression."

But that argument just cannot justify extending the terms of existing copyrights. Extending the term for already produced speech can't produce more speech. Even with Hollywood's help, Congress can't make causation go backwards. No matter what we do, Walt will not produce anything more in the past. Giving Disney the right to control speech about Mickey for another 20 years in exchange for nothing is just to silence speech with no compensating pro-speech benefit. And as there is no pro-speech benefit for this speech-supressing regulation, it should be struck under the First Amendment.

The weakness in this argument, however, is that most people think pragmatically, not in principles. The point for them isn't the ideal; the question for them is how much does it really matter. I've not done a great job in showing that. Others have. Check out, for example, the OpenLaw amicus briefs in the Eldred v. Aschroft case, of law professor Dennis Karjala's website.

But if I had a second (or I guess it's a third) chance, I'd say this to Jack:

First, Jack, this is not about Mickey alone. The retrospective extension of copyright reaches to all works presently under copyright (essentially work published after 1922), not just the favored few. Just think practically about what that means:

In 1930, there were 10,027 books published. Today, 174 of those books are still in print. Yet it would be illegal because of copyright law for Michael Hart of Project Gutenberg to take those 9,853 books not in print and make them available on the Internet for free - at least without tracking down the present owners of those copyrights and getting permission.

How hard is that?

Almost impossible. There is no requirement that copyright holders register. To track down the current holder of a copyright from 1930, therefore, would require first determining whether the author was alive, and if not, then which of his or her relatives were alive, and one once you found a relative, who among the relatives received the copyright at issue, and then whether they'd be willing to let this decaying book be digitized. Bottom line: without an army of lawyers, it is impossible to imagine making these books available because of the regulation of copyright.

What justifies this? If the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (passed in 1998, adding 20 years to existing copyrights) had not been passed, then all work through 1943 would be now be in the public domain. Project Gutenberg, Eric Eldred's Eldritch Press, Brewster Kahle's Internet Archive could all make this stuff available to others for free or, as Dover Press does, for money. But as it is, because of the law, this stuff will fall into a black hole of legal regulation. As Brewster Kahle said in his Amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Eldred case, we are at a point where we could put all human knowledge onto the net. Yet legal regulation stops us. Why?

Second, Jack, what about the new work that gets quashed by this perpetual extension? After we argued the Eldred case in the DC Circuit, a woman approached us with a story about a play she had written based on a work published in 1923. She had worked for almost 10 years writing the play, but the copyright holders would not grant her the right to publish or produce it. In 1998, the copyright was to expire; she had received a commitment to produce the play. But after the Sonny Bono Act, the underlying copyright was now extended for 20 more years. Her words were therefore silenced.

What could possibly justify this? The book published in 1923 was not even in print. Why should the government be in the business of threatening new authors in defense of a work that has all but disappeared? How many other creators will look at this reality and, thinking practically, say: "it's just not worth it. The hassle is too great. The uncertainty too high."

There are thousands of examples like this, and many times that that we could never know: At the debate, I told the story of an elementary school that had made films based in part on other film, and how it couldn't even display its work without fear of the lawyers. I told the story of Alice Randall who wrote "The Wind Done Gone," telling the story of "Gone With The Wind" from the perspective of African slaves. The Mitchell Estate told Alice Randall she couldn't publish her book. It took months of high price lawyering before she was granted the right to publish. How many Alice Randall's would simply say, forget it?

Valenti said the Randall example is insignificant. But what makes it insignificant? An author wants to tell a counter story about one of the most influential books of the last 100 years, and she can't do so without the permission of the estate of the original author. This is America, but you need the permission of a lawyer before you can criticize a favored author?

Again, there are many others who are better at this pragmatism stuff. To me, it just feels insulting. You want to tell the Alice Randalls of the world that they need the permission of a lawyer before they can speak? I want you, Jack, to justify that rule. You tell me I have to justify Alice Randall's right to speak? I want to say in response something we lawyers don't say enough: Bullshit.

2) Is Copyright law a sham?
by bw

It seems increasingly appearent to me that Intellectual Property law generally and Copyright law specifically, has become a corrupt instrument whereby campaign finance coffers are filled by metering out favors to large monied special interests. I am basing this on personal observation after having attempted to participate in the process. For example, I participated in several of the Copyright Office requests for public comment that produced easily 10X as many anti-DMCA comments as pro, only to see the Copyright Office ignore what seemed to me to be the clearly expressed objections of actual people in favor of the large corporations who lobbied for the bill. Worse, no serious attempt (in my view) was made to respond to the issues raised by the public. Congress is even less responsive, in my observation.

If and when I conclude that the deck truly is stacked, such that the political process producing copyright regulation is a sham, should I not also conclude that the best course of action is to engage in covert civil disobediance targeted to deprive the specific entities responsible for the corruption of profits? My question is not whether the DMCA is a corrupt law, but rather what moral obligation one has to obey a law that you earnestly believe symbolizes corrupt government.

After all, if push comes to shove, the anti-circumvention provisions are utterly unenforcable (to the point of being a joke) if they are disregarded in ways that do not attract attention. I'm not someone who has decrypted any DVD's or downloaded many MP3's, but I'm wondering what reason there could possibly be not to start.

LL:

I am not against copyright. I think the copyright our framers gave us, for example (a term of 14 years, renewable once; granted only if you register; for limited kinds of work; and protecting a limited range of rights) was a bit weak, but not much. I would favor a somewhat stronger right than they gave us, but for just about as long.

Yet obviously I believe copyright law has gone too far, at least in the digital age. When the power of creativity has been granted to a much wider range of creators because of a change in technology, the law of yesterday no longer makes sense. It must be changed.

The question is how will it be changed?

Disobedience is one technique. It is risky and increasingly costly. But that's not why I would resist disobedience.

The problem I have with disobedience is that it reenforces the Valenti-way of looking at the world. Copyright hoarders demand increasingly extreme rights so that they may exercise almost perfect control over how their content gets used. In response, the civil disobedience movement sends a message that they should have no control over how their content gets used at all. Between perfect control and no control, most would choose perfect control. And hence, we lose.

Disobedience makes sense when you are saying there should be no regulation of the kind you attack. When Martin Luther King led marches in Selma and Birmingham, he was not calling for a limited, or balanced form of segregation. He was calling for no segregation at all.

But we should not be calling for the repeal of all copyright. We should be calling for a balanced and limited form of copyright - much like the right of our framers - that gives artists the right to earn a living, without giving copyright hoarders the power to veto innovation.

We could make progress in demanding that right if those who got it did something. If, for example, slashdot readers weren't such political slugs, something might happen. If more of you did something about this, whether spamming your Congressman, or giving money to those who resist this regulation (like the EFF), then we could resist this extremism.

I am not optimistic, however. Those who get it (e.g., you) are pathetically apolitical. You're proud of your apathy. You're disgusted with people who try to persuade politicians. So am I. But while you do nothing, the future of creativity and innovation is sold in DC - typically to the highest, and most disgusting bidder.

3) The Judicial Branch
by lblack

I just wrote out way too long of a question, so I'm deleting and starting over.

Members of the judiciary are largely unqualified to comment or judge upon issues of a technical nature, simply because their careers do not incorporate a great deal of technical knowledge, and also because they have not sought it (and I don't blame them, probably didn't have time) on their own.

Now, they *are* qualified to comment on matters of criminality, which are supported by a huge amount of precedent, legislation, etc that has been repeatedly modified, challenged, or simply let stand.

However, there are new "crimes" coming into being, called "cybercrimes" by the buzzwordish. Our judges, lacking technical skills or a real awareness of digital culture, are passing judgement in cases that have either very loose or no precedent to be found, or that are the result of new and innovative legislature (see: DMCA).

My concern is that the judges who are making the decisions are the least qualified to do so -- that we won't have a lot of judges with a high awareness of the intricacies involved for several years. However, the judges presently seating are essentially creating a body of law to govern what they do not understand.

My question: How large of a threat will these precedents pose to the continuation or reclamation of freedoms? Will we be able to take back the ground we've alrady lost, or will the intricacies of the legal system vis-a-vis tort & precendent, ensure that we cannot?

LL:

There was a time when I thought that lawyers wouldn't do too much damage. The first Supreme Court case about cyberspace, Reno v. ACLU, striking down the Communications Decency Act of 1996, made it sound as if the constitution required that lawyers be careful before they muck up this free speech haven. Reno put a strong burden on the state to demonstrate that the state's regulation won't do any harm. That made the future sound hopeful.

All that has changed now. As the courts have shifted from porn to copyright, concern for balance, and limits have disappeared. Courts make illegal all sorts of technology because of its "threat" to copyright, without any concern about whether such regulation will threaten cyberspace and free speech generally.

This is, in part, because courts don't understand the technology. But I don't think it's because courts don't know how to code. I think the problem is that courts don't see the connection between certain kinds of technology and legal values. And this is because we've not done a good job in demonstrating the values built into the original architecture of cyberspace: That the Internet embraced a set of values of freedom; that the end-to-end design constitutionalized the idea that the network owner should not be allowed to veto content or applications; that those values produced a world of innovation that otherwise would not have existed. If courts could be made to see this, then we could connect this struggle to ideals they understand.

Sometimes when I read Slashdot debates, I wonder whether you guys get this connection either. The passion that is expended to defend the right to encrypt is wonderful and important. But just as important to the future of freedom is to assure that end-to-end values don't get corrupted by cable companies or network owners. Just as important to the future of freedom is to assure that essential parts of the network not become corrupted by copyright hoarders. And just as important to the future of freedom is to assure that spectrum remain free from the regulation and control of the state.

Yet these debates about freedom get bogged down on these pages. And this leads me to the greatest pessimism: If you guys don't get the importance of neutral and open platforms to innovation and creativity; if you get bogged down in 20th century debates about libertarianism and property rights; if you can't see how the .commons was critical to the .com revolution, then what do expect from judges?

You guys (not Howard Roark) built an architecture of value. Until you can begin to talk about those values, and translate them for others, courts and policy makers generally will never get it.

4) Leverage the knowledge of technical community
by 2Bits
A lot of obscure laws have been passed, and the majority of the population are not even aware of their existence. However, the technical community is watching the legislation quite closely. And we seem to understand the potential impact and risk on freedom and privacy. But the technical community has a very small influence on politics, and seems almost clueless in "playing political games."

How can we leverage the knowledge of the community to help educate politicians and the general population in terms of technologies, and the impact of the proposed bills? Briefly, how can we help better, not just sending letters to congress people or senators?

LL:

This is a great question. We need translators. We need to translate the values of the network into terms that nontechnical people get. And we need to watch for changes in the architecture or mix of technologies layered into the network, and raise warnings about how those changes will alter the environment for innovation and creativity. As one of my heroes in the law, James Boyle, puts it, we need an environmentalism for the Internet. You are the environmental experts. You can credibly show the world how changes in the ecology of the Internet will destroy the environment for creativity, innovation, and freedom that it produced.

Will you do that? Again, I am skeptical. Rather than trying to focus this debate, or agree on ways to make others understand, you guys immediately turn these questions into irrelevant bickerings. When someone reported that I had written a book described as the "Silent Spring" of the Internet, that opened up a thread about whether in fact DDT had harmed the environment. Someday, when freedom is gone, and all we've got is the right to whisper our thoughts to those closest to us, our children will look back and ask, why did we think we had the luxury to quibble?

But if you don't want to become translators, if you don't want to write environmental impact statements, if you don't want to try to convince the North in California that if it gets taken over by the South, freedom and innovation ends, then you could do as Torvalds has recommended: give money to those who are fighting the battle, in particular, EFF. I'm on the board of EFF, so blissfully biased about to whom. But whether EFF or someone else, follow Torvalds and the other christ-figures in history: Tithe. Take the cost of Internet access (whether you pay it or not) for one year; send 10% to an organization fighting for your freedom.

5) file sharing and copyright law
by stevenj

What do you think of OpenNap, Gnutella, Freenet, Morphius, and similar file-sharing systems? Do you think it is legal for a person to distribute unauthorized copies of a copyrighted recording or video that way, especially if no commercial entity is involved (e.g. excluding Napster or Morphius)? Should it be legal? (Should it matter how many copies you distribute, or to whom?)

If you think it should not be legal, what remedies should the law consider, since these systems can have significant non-infringing uses as well?

LL:

I support these technologies. More importantly, I support the right of innovators to develop these technologies. But I don't support copyright violations using these technologies.

You'd think this would be an easy distinction to understand: We live in a country where 10 children are killed by hand guns every day. But Smith and Wesson doesn't worry that the FBI will come arrest them because someone used their technology to commit a crime. The law targets illegal uses of technologies, not the technologies - at least where there is a legitimate and legal use of that technology. Yet because of our extremism when it comes to copyright law, we ban technologies that threaten copyright interests whether or not they have legitimate, independent uses.

6) Microsoft settlements?
by Lumpish Scholar

What is your take on the proposed settlements in the antitrust and civil Microsoft cases? To most Slashdotters, the former seems like a slap on the wrist, the latter like a a punishment turned into a reward (increasing dominance of the U.S. education market). Is there something we're missing?

LL:

The short answer is this: the settlement is fatally flawed. There is no effective enforcement mechanism to assure that Microsoft lives up to the terms of the decree. The "technical committee" does not have the power to interpret the decree. The only entity that can interpret the decree is a federal court. We've seen how well that works: The last decree (signed in 1994) was the subject of the case that began in 1997. It took the courts 8 months to work out the meaning of 20 words.

The decree would be close-to-fixed if it had an effective special master who could monitor and enforce the decree effectively (and no, I'm not interested.) It still wouldn't be a perfect decree - I like the nine states' proposed alternative better - but at least it would have a chance.

But though I've been attacked by Microsoft as strongly as anyone, and though I completely agree with the Court of Appeals that Microsoft violated the antitrust laws, I do believe something that will not endear me to many of you: As I said in my testimony, I don't believe Microsoft is the greatest threat to the Internet. And indeed (and more controversially), there's at least one understanding of how the .NET strategy gets implemented that would reenforce the best of the Internet against the threats posed by the Time Warners of the world and cable interests. On at least one understanding of .NET, .NET would reenforce an end-to-end network. It would resist "intelligence" within the network. And except for the open source and free software movements, it is about the only strategy out there that could produce real freedom.

My claim is not that Microsoft will adopt that strategy on its own. I am not arguing we should trust the company. But I do think that an effective remedy could push Microsoft in the direction of something good, and if it did, the company could become an ally, not an enemy.

I know there are many who resist this view. Many believe MSFT is the devil. I'm not one of those people. And my concern is that if we obsess about old wars, we won't understand the nature of the new.

7) Doctrine of First Sale Dead?
by burris

Back near the turn of the last century, book publishers printed contracts on their books, limiting the ability of the customer to resell or lend his purchases. This practice was halted by the U.S. Supreme court and the consumers right to do what they wish with legitimately purchased copies (with certain limited exceptions) was eventually codified in the US code as part of the '76 Copyright Act.

Given that software is a work of authorship protected by Copyright law, how is it that software publishers get away with these old tricks of printing restrictive contracts on their works, claiming assent simply by using the software, denying people their rights under Copyright law?

LL:

They get away with it because their lobbyists have convinced Congress to change the law. So, for example, the first sale doctrine has been repealed for some content. And it is not being supported with other content.

The history is important, however, to remind people about the balance that copyright law has typically tried to draw. We have never until now understood the rights of copyright to be the right of the author (or publisher) to exercise perfect control over copyrighted material. The framers of our constitution gave copyright holders a tiny set of rights; this is not because the framers we communists. We need, as a culture, to remember that copyright is a form of state regulation. And we need, as political culture, to become, with respect to this regulation, a bit more Republican: Where is the regulatory impact statement that shows that this form of regulation does any good?

8) IP Laws of the Future
by Catiline

Rather than ask about current copyright/patent laws, or pending ones, I would like to know what you think the ideal Intellectual Property laws are (assume you could rewrite them as you wish). Also, what sort of international agreements would have to be passed alongside this?

LL:

In my book I argue for a number of changes. They include a much more restrictive term - basically 5 year renewable terms, up to a maximum of 75 years. For software, the term would be even shorter, and conditioned upon the software author depositing his or her source code with the copyright office, to be open sourced upon the expiration of the copyright.

More importantly, I think we need to restrict the scope of "derivative rights" more than we do today. Copyright owners deserve to be paid for the use of their work; they should not be allowed to veto follow on work that builds on theirs.

Finally, during a time of technological transition, we need a strong set of compulsory rights so that new content producers and distributors can get access to material to enable these new businesses to take off. Compulsory rights require that the author of the original work get paid, but the rate is either set by the law, or set by a panel to be relatively low. This will give artists more than they would have had, had there been no Internet. But it will assure that innovators can build out the future of the Internet without the control of dinosaur industries.

9) Patents, Copyright and the law community
by gdyas

Dr. Lessig,

Looking from the outside in on the legal community's response or lack thereof to the constitutionality and legal basis of recent court rulings (Napster, Eric Corley), the DMCA/SSCA, etc, I see very few lawyers taking a stand against this -- there's mostly a massive shrug. There's the ACLU, the EFF of which you're a part, and Jessica Litman, and that's all I see trying to do something about the co-opting of copyright and patent lawmaking by corporations through appeals based on the interest of business, lobbyists' dealmaking, and outright graft. By and large however there seems to be little interest even amongst lawyers and congressmen about the arcana of copyright and patent law, and thus it's left to such companies and libraries because they're the only ones who both have power and care about it. Has trying to fight this caused conflict in your professional work? Is it lonely being a "vox clamantis in deserto"? What's your game plan for beating these guys back, or do you have one? There's a certain sadness and resignation in both your and Litman's writing that's very disencouraging that would lead me to think that even our flag-bearers feel there's little hope at this point.

LL:

There are more of us than you think, but certainly not enough. Again, check out the OpenLaw page, and you'll see over 50 of the most active resisters to this expansion of copyright working together to overturn the Sonny Bono Act. These scholars and lawyer represent a critically important resistance.

That said, we still need more help. I produce lawyers for a living; I watch as many try to find jobs to do good, but find the only available work is within the system. People who understand the importance of freedom and see the importance of protecting the future of freedom on the net need to support institutions that fight for that freedom. Pam Samuelson of Berkeley, and her husband, Bob Glushko, have given an extraordinary amount of money to support clinics at law schools around the country. At Stanford, we also have a clinic that defends hackers (soon to be known officially as "terrorists"). But again, I think EFF has been the most important player in this area.

10) Will the extension of copyright continue?
by Artifice_Eternity

Do you think that the gradual increases in the length of time that works can remain copyrighted (most recently the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" of the 1990s) will continue every time that the media companies feel that they are about to lose control of some of their "intellectual property"?

Or do you think that the public interest will reassert itself and hold or even turn back some of these copyright extensions?

When a work's copyright is extended, one person (the author or the corporation that owns it) benefits. But when its copyright expires, everyone benefits by being able to copy, modify, expand on and extend it. Can we convince lawmakers with this kind of social and economic argument?

LL:

Exactly right. When Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), which we've renamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act," we filed a law suit on behalf of Eric Eldred and others. Eldred had threatened civil disobedience. He runs a web based archive of public domain works, and promised to publish works in violation of the CTEA. We convinced him that jail was ugly and that courts may do the work better. We've been litigating the case now since 1998, and have convinced at least two federal judges that the law is unconstitutional. Tight this moment I should be writing a reply to the government's argument against the Supreme Court reviewing the case. That reply is due in a week.

If we get to the Supreme Court, I am certain that we will win. This is not a left/right issue. The conservatives on the Court will look at the framers' constitution - which requires that copyrights be granted for "limited times" - and see that the current practice of Congress, repeatedly extending the term of existing copyrights (11 times in the last 40 years) makes a mockery of the framers' plan. And the liberals will look at the effect of these never ending copyrights on free speech, and conclude that Congress is not justified in this regulation of speech. The Supreme Court doesn't give a hoot about Hollywood; they will follow the law.

It is not enough, however, to win in the Supreme Court. Ordinary people need to rediscover the importance of the public domain to creativity. The Internet could teach this - Brewster's Internet Archive, for example, is a great demonstration of the value of the public domain. But it will take real political action by real people (i.e., not lawyers) to get Congress to recognize what our framers understood.

11) Cyberspace Amendment
by kzinti

Many years ago, in the early days of the WWW, Laurence Tribe proposed a "Cyberspace Amendment" to the US Constitution that would explicitly extend all the rights and freedoms of the Constitution to all forms of speech, regardless of the medium. The idea was brought to many of us geeks in a Dr. Dobbs article by Michael Swaine. I know what many of my fellow Slashdotters opinions probably are, but I'd like to have yours: how have our Constitutional protections held up on the Internet, in e-mail, and in WWW publishing? Do we still need a Cyberspace amendment -- or do we perhaps need it now more than ever?

LL:

Professor Tribe's article was typically Tribe: Way ahead of its time, and right. But the sad fact is that our liberties have not been eroded because the protections in cyberspace are weak. Our liberties are weak because courts have eroded constitutional protections generally.

The more I'm in this battle, the less I believe that constitutional law on its own can solve the problem. If Americans can't see the value of freedom without the help of lawyers, then we don't deserve freedom. We should be working to help Americans recognize freedom again.

12) Activism by coding
by melquiades

It seems like a lot of judges who face abstract technology questions -- code as speech, DMCA, etc. -- just don't get it. And can we really blame them? Technology is complicated; can we expect every judge to be an uberhacker?

Perhaps it would be helpful to have some bright programmers set up some concrete examples for judges to consider, which clarify the problems we all see, and help judges refine their intuitions about code and digital information.

For example, to further the "code is protected speech" cause, we could create a full-fledged programming language which reads as plain English, then use it to implement a copy protection circumvention program (DeCSS or the like). This raises all sort of interesting questions: it's English and code; is it protected under the first amendment? Presumably it was before it could be run as a program, so does my inventing a programming language change the status of existing speech? If it's protected as only source code, is an interpreter for that language illegal? Is bundling the English script with the interpreter illegal? And so forth ...

... but that's a very thorny example. Are there examples of this kind that we programmers should be producing -- software that makes these theoretical arguments more concrete? Is there anything in this spirit that won't just confuse and/or piss off a judge? What examples do our causes need? We're ready to implement them!

LL:

Again a great question. The answer is more communication between lawyers and technologists. There is ignorance among lawyers and judges about technology no doubt. But there is also ignorance among technologists about the law.

The "code is speech" debate is a perfect example. Obviously, this is an important victory to have -- and indeed, the one good thing that came out of the 2600 appeal was a clear affirmation by the Second Circuit that "code is speech." But among constitutional lawyers, that "code is speech" is not the hard question. The hard question comes next: even if it is speech, how much power does the government have to regulate it. For just because "code is speech," it doesn't follow, under standard First Amendment law, that the government can't regulate code. Think again about copyright law. Obviously, what copyright law regulates is speech. But even though speech, under some circumstances the state can regulate it.

I think the place where technologists could do the most good is by showing the rest of the world something much more fundamental about the network. Not just how code is speech, but also:

(1) how the architecture of the Internet built a set of values,

(2) how those values are fundamentally linked to the most important freedoms in our tradition, and

(3) how changes in that architecture of the net could undermine those values.

Find ways to demonstrate how the architecture built a commons, and how that commons induced innovation: That's the stuff that lawyers, and politicians, don't get.

13) International Freedom
by bfree

We seem to be living in "Interesting Times". The events of 911 have given law-makers the impetus to have acts passed which would have been at the very least debated for a lot longer pre 911. Up until now the Internet has been an incredibly open network with minimalist intervention and legislation from individual countries governments (a few notable exceptions). It seems as if we are going to enter a new legal phase for the internet where legislators in many countries will try to enact and apply laws to take control of this wild beast. Each countries individual efforts will hamper their own citizens without overly effecting the rest of the net.

My question is how much of the above do you disagree with and why? And what body (UN, w3.org, wipo, coporation of ISPs, Microsoft) do you forsee holding the international legal legislatory responsibility for the net at large in 1/5/10/25/50 years time?

LL:

I don't disagree with any part of your description. That was the argument I tried to make in my first book - that the original freedom of the Internet could be changed by relatively small changes in the architecture, and we should expect governments to work hard to effect those changes. I made a bunch of dark predictions in that book. History has proven I was not pessimistic enough.

I don't know what body can resist these changes. I would have hoped the IETF would play a bigger role. And W3 too should see what's at stake. But the fact is that the strongest advocates for freedom are overwhelmed by those who have the most to lose from freedom. The key to our success would be if a strong commercial actor became deeply invested in freedom. Except for its patents, I would have said IBM was that commercial actor. But we'll need more than Big Blue.

14) DMCA
by Amazing Quantum Man

What, in your opinion, are the chances of getting the DMCA declared unconstitutional?

Given the recent court defeats in both the Felten and 2600 cases, do we even have a chance?

LL:

The DMCA as a whole won't be struck down - ever. But I continue to believe that at least the parts that disable the use and deployment of technologies to protect traditional fair use will eventually fall. At least they will fall if litigation about them could continue. But notice again: the only group out there supporting this litigation (Felten and 2600) is EFF, and EFF's resources are, surprise surprise, limited.

Skeptical on both, though as I've said, I do think there is a way that .NET could get implemented that would reenforce freedom on the Internet. That's not to say Microsoft would on its own follow that path. But it is important to see that if it did follow that path, its architecture could reenforce freedom.

The same could be said about the Liberty Alliance. Nice title, but Sun has never quite resolved itself to the idea of open and free networks, so I'm not convinced Liberty is what it calls itself. I do think we as a community need to develop a much better authentication architecture - one that is not controlled by any one single, or group of companies, but instead a platform upon which authentication services could be built. I hear whispers from Red Hat that they would be interested in such a future. I hope that's true, but its too soon to tell.

The dangers in both .NET and Liberty could be better resisted if we would only develop a consistent and clear message about the importance of neutral platforms to innovation and freedom. When we built the highway system, we didn't say to GM: "if you build the highways for us, you can build them so that GM trucks run better than Ford trucks." When we needed a passport system, we didn't tell Chase Manhattan bank that they could develop the passport system in exchange for a piece of every transaction. In both cases, there was a recognition of the importance of neutral, commons-like, infrastructures upon which others could build neutrally.

We need to relearn this lesson - in general, and in the context of the Internet. You guys could help teach that lesson. Indeed, only technologists have the credibility to speak reason to this idiot power. But that will require something more than a life of quibbling on Slashdot. And so far, you've not shown you're up to very much more.

15) .NET-enabled futures?
by Nikau

What is your opinion on things like Microsoft's .NET or the Liberty Alliance (I believe that's what it's called - the one being developed by AOL and other companies to counter .NET)? Do you see these as a potential problem in terms of a free online world?

LL: p>Skeptical on both, though as I've said, I do think there is a way that .NET could get implemented that would reenforce freedom on the Internet. That's not to say Microsoft would on its own follow that path. But it is important to see that if it did follow that path, its architecture could reenforce freedom.

The same could be said about the Liberty Alliance. Nice title, but Sun has never quite resolved itself to the idea of open and free networks, so I'm not convinced Liberty is what it calls itself. I do think we as a community need to develop a much better authentication architecture - one that is not controlled by any one single, or group of companies, but instead a platform upon which authentication services could be built. I hear whispers from Red Hat that they would be interested in such a future. I hope that's true, but its too soon to tell.

The dangers in both .NET and Liberty could be better resisted if we would only develop a consistent and clear message about the importance of neutral platforms to innovation and freedom. When we built the highway system, we didn't say to GM: "if you build the highways for us, you can build them so that GM trucks run better than Ford trucks." When we needed a passport system, we didn't tell Chase Manhattan bank that they could develop the passport system in exchange for a piece of every transaction. In both cases, there was a recognition of the importance of neutral, commons-like, infrastructures upon which others could build neutrally.

We need to relearn this lesson - in general, and in the context of the Internet. You guys could help teach that lesson. Indeed, only technologists have the credibility to speak reason to this idiot power. But that will require something more than a life of quibbling on Slashdot. And so far, you've not shown you're up to very much more.

liquide writes "The DMCA affects every American, indeed, every human on the planet. The problem is that the average person doesn't realize this. EFF wants the input of our supporters to come up with slogans that will raise the mainstream consciousness to the destructive effects of the DMCA and inspire us all to continue the fight for free expression. Put on your thinking caps, summon the creative muse and submit ideas for slogans and 'soundbytes' to help us fight the DMCA. If your idea is chosen, you will win your choice of vintage EFF T-shirts. Send your entry to slogan@eff.org. Thanks for your help." And Seth Schoen writes: "The EFF, Linux Journal, and Free Dmitry activists are pleased to present a combination going-away and birthday party for Dmitry Sklyarov. (According to Reuters, today is Dmitry's 27th birthday.) The party is Wednesday evening in San Francisco. (LJ article, Craigslist post.)"

liquide writes "The DMCA affects every American, indeed, every human on the planet. The problem is that the average person doesn't realize this. EFF wants the input of our supporters to come up with slogans that will raise the mainstream consciousness to the destructive effects of the DMCA and inspire us all to continue the fight for free expression. Put on your thinking caps, summon the creative muse and submit ideas for slogans and 'soundbytes' to help us fight the DMCA. If your idea is chosen, you will win your choice of vintage EFF T-shirts. Send your entry to slogan@eff.org. Thanks for your help." And Seth Schoen writes: "The EFF, Linux Journal, and Free Dmitry activists are pleased to present a combination going-away and birthday party for Dmitry Sklyarov. (According to Reuters, today is Dmitry's 27th birthday.) The party is Wednesday evening in San Francisco. (LJ article, Craigslist post.)"

liquide writes "The DMCA affects every American, indeed, every human on the planet. The problem is that the average person doesn't realize this. EFF wants the input of our supporters to come up with slogans that will raise the mainstream consciousness to the destructive effects of the DMCA and inspire us all to continue the fight for free expression. Put on your thinking caps, summon the creative muse and submit ideas for slogans and 'soundbytes' to help us fight the DMCA. If your idea is chosen, you will win your choice of vintage EFF T-shirts. Send your entry to slogan@eff.org. Thanks for your help." And Seth Schoen writes: "The EFF, Linux Journal, and Free Dmitry activists are pleased to present a combination going-away and birthday party for Dmitry Sklyarov. (According to Reuters, today is Dmitry's 27th birthday.) The party is Wednesday evening in San Francisco. (LJ article, Craigslist post.)"

On Wednesday I attended a hearing in Felten vs. RIAA, the lawsuit filed by Professor Felten, other Princeton researchers, and USENIX against the RIAA, SDMI, Verance, and the Department of Justice. As you already know, the judge dismissed the case. But taking a look at the hearing might provide some insight into how the judicial system works.

An incredibly brief review of the case: SDMI created an open challenge to break various forms of technical restrictions they had designed to allow music publishers to control how people use legitimately purchased music. A team led by Felten participated and was mostly successful at breaking them. The team wrote a paper, intending to publish it at a scientific conference. The RIAA/SDMI sent a letter to Felten, his employer, and the conference threatening them with legal action. Private legal discussions and a very public flap broke out. Felten filed a pre-emptive lawsuit, seeking to have his right to publish vindicated without waiting for a suit from the RIAA or SDMI. Immediately afterward, the RIAA publicly and repeatedly withdrew their threat to sue. Eventually the paper was, in fact, published, but the suit has continued.

Or just read through the Slashdot stories.

On to yesterday's hearing. The judge has before him a request from the defense to dismiss the case - they state that there is no real issue since the threat has been withdrawn. The Plaintiffs oppose this - they feel the threat is real, even if the RIAA has now withdrawn it.

Each side is represented by a half-dozen attorneys. Felten and several of the other plaintiffs are present as well. There are four or five press representatives. Other than that, the courtroom is empty. The first thing the judge does is take care of some routine business - the plaintiffs have requested that a C program, tinywarp.c, be filed under judicial seal with the court. The judge accepts this. He then goes briefly over the case so far, saying that he feels fully briefed by the papers submitted by both sides. He invites the plaintiff's lawyer, Gino Scarselli, to speak and respond to the last set of papers filed by the defense, but cautions him to avoid repeating any of the arguments set forth already in the many papers filed.

Scarselli emphasizes that the plaintiffs are in court for more than just the single threatening letter - he notes that the threat of legal action was considered quite real by the universities, who assigned lawyers to deal with the threat. He notes that Felten's paper was described as a "recipe for circumvention" by the defendants. He says that Felten also fears criminal prosecution due to his desire to publish a paper on SDMI in Scientific American - since Scientific American pays for papers, unlike the conference, this makes publication of the paper a commercial enterprise which might be charged as a criminal violation of the DMCA.

The judge is rather skeptical. He states that the difference between Felten and Sklyarov is "night and day". Sklyarov's actions are clearly criminal to the judge - Felten's actions not at all.

Scarselli and the judge spar a bit over a possible amendment to the complaint, regarding what exactly the plaintiffs were seeking in the lawsuit, and Scarselli retires from battle. Next up is David Kendall for the RIAA, responding to Scarselli.

Kendall starts off by talking about a stipulation (an agreement on facts) that both parties were negotiating over. Apparently both sides had almost been able to reach an agreement, except that the RIAA wanted the agreement to include dismissing the lawsuit and the plaintiffs did not. Kendall moves on to emphasize the argument they are making - that the suit should be dismissed because there is no conflict between the RIAA/SDMI and Felten. There are three reasons why a suit might be dismissed in this fashion - for mootness, because the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the suit, or because the issue isn't ripe. The judge asks Kendall which of the three would apply to this case - Kendall disclaims mootness (because that implies there once was an issue, but no longer), and states that this could be dismissed under either of the other reasons.

Richard Phillips is called to speak for the Department of Justice. Phillips states that his argument has been covered by the papers submitted and sits back down.

At this point only 40 minutes or so has elapsed. Normally, the judge might now take the case for decision, then some time later issue a written decision - instead, he decides (obviously he planned to do this in advance, since he has notes prepared) to render his decision in the case orally and immediately. He notes that he's doing so to save both parties further time and trouble, which indicates that he agrees with the defense that the case should be dismissed.

The judge starts off with the basics, which must have been rather boring to the lawyers involved. Under the Constitution, courts are limited to deciding cases where there is an actual case or controversy. He states flat-out that he sees no case or controversy here, in case anyone in the courtroom missed the hint he's already given.

He now takes a deep breath and begins going through his notes. He recaps the case from the beginning. I'll spare you that, read the documents if you wish.

Finally we get to his analysis. There are two separate issues - is there a case against the private entities? Is there a case against the Federal Government? The judge looks at the private entities first.

Again he discusses the requirement that cases be limited to actual controversies, that judges can't rule on abstract, theoretical, or speculative cases. He uses the word "speculative" approximately 20 times during his opinion, always referring to the plaintiffs' case. He relates a rambling analogy about bank fraud, essentially saying that the plaintiffs were asking for blanket immunity against ever being sued or prosecuted, which was impossible. He covers in great detail the RIAA's retraction of their threatening letter, how they've plainly denied any desire to sue Felten or anyone else over Felten's original paper.

The judge now looks at the First Amendment considerations relating to the suit against the RIAA/SDMI. He notes that the courts are required to avoid Constitutional questions if at all possible. He also notes that according to case law on the subject, there must be a real and immediate threat, that must remain throughout litigation, in order for the courts to consider the Constitutional questions around a non-criminal law (that is, the part of the DMCA that doesn't involve criminal penalties, only the possibility of civil lawsuits). Since the threat has not remained throughout litigation, he sees no Constitutional questions relating to the non-criminal part of the DMCA. He also notes that Plaintiffs do not allege they intend to violate the statute [ed. note: I'm not sure which part of the DMCA the judge was talking about right now - he may have been getting ahead of himself and talking about the criminal penalties.] and thus proceeding further would be "pre-enforcement review", which is not permitted. He closes this section by saying that he finds the Step-Saver and Salvation Army cases (referred to in the briefs submitted by both parties) instructive.

Somewhere during this speech, one of the attorneys for SDMI starts grinning, hugely, as if his team has just won the Super Bowl. He continues grinning and looking over at the attorneys for the plaintiffs until the hearing is over. None of the other attorneys for either side show any particular reaction.

The judge now continues with the suit against the Federal Government for Constitutional violations. He notes that the plaintiffs have not been directly threatened by the Government, nor prosecuted. He contrasts Felten's situation with that of Dmitry Sklyarov - the plaintiffs don't sell their program to the public, they do it for scientific purposes. Again he mentions the Step-Saver case. He quotes from the DMCA extensively. He states that the Government and plaintiffs have no adverse legal interests - that is, there is no possible criminal threat to Felten for doing what he's doing, in the judge's opinion. He notes that in the Sklyarov case there is such an adverse legal interest - obviously, Sklyarov was imprisoned! - and suggests that the Sklyarov case is a better way to get any First Amendment consequences of the DMCA adjudicated by the courts. The plaintiffs are not "manufacturing", according to the judge; nor are they offering their code for sale. The judge segues to what he sees as deficiencies in the plaintiff's legal complaint - they did not assert they planned to fully violate the criminal sections of the DMCA, mainly their assertions were that the Act is unclear and vague. Finally he closes - the plaintiffs must have an "objectively reasonable fear" of prosecution in order for the required legal conflict to exist, and the judge sees no such objectively reasonable fear.

A few more sentences and he's done. He reminds everyone that he may revise his written/final opinion from what he just dictated. He doesn't provide a time-frame for when the written opinion might be expected.

And that's it. My impression is that the most important phrase in the decision is "night and day". Judge Brown saw Sklyarov as a pirate, well-deserving of a long imprisonment term, and Felten as a goodie-two-shoes scientist who didn't have a care in the world. The very factors that made Felten a "good" subject for a civil liberties case allowed the judge to rule that there wasn't a case at all. Both the Justice Department and the RIAA prefer to have their test cases with suitably unsavory defendants - Russian pirates and shady hacker magazines are much preferred over all-American Princeton professors. The RIAA won't make the mistake of sending threat letters to professors again - not until the DMCA issues have been well-settled in the courts, anyway. Some people have criticized the EFF for over-reaching - trying to make a case out of nothing. But to a great extent the civil liberties groups have to play with the hand they're dealt. Felten was legitimately threatened, and even if the RIAA saw their mistake and starting trying to weasel out of it, I can't fault the civil liberties groups for trying to pursue this. They plan to appeal, of course.

On Wednesday I attended a hearing in Felten vs. RIAA, the lawsuit filed by Professor Felten, other Princeton researchers, and USENIX against the RIAA, SDMI, Verance, and the Department of Justice. As you already know, the judge dismissed the case. But taking a look at the hearing might provide some insight into how the judicial system works.

An incredibly brief review of the case: SDMI created an open challenge to break various forms of technical restrictions they had designed to allow music publishers to control how people use legitimately purchased music. A team led by Felten participated and was mostly successful at breaking them. The team wrote a paper, intending to publish it at a scientific conference. The RIAA/SDMI sent a letter to Felten, his employer, and the conference threatening them with legal action. Private legal discussions and a very public flap broke out. Felten filed a pre-emptive lawsuit, seeking to have his right to publish vindicated without waiting for a suit from the RIAA or SDMI. Immediately afterward, the RIAA publicly and repeatedly withdrew their threat to sue. Eventually the paper was, in fact, published, but the suit has continued.

Or just read through the Slashdot stories.

On to yesterday's hearing. The judge has before him a request from the defense to dismiss the case - they state that there is no real issue since the threat has been withdrawn. The Plaintiffs oppose this - they feel the threat is real, even if the RIAA has now withdrawn it.

Each side is represented by a half-dozen attorneys. Felten and several of the other plaintiffs are present as well. There are four or five press representatives. Other than that, the courtroom is empty. The first thing the judge does is take care of some routine business - the plaintiffs have requested that a C program, tinywarp.c, be filed under judicial seal with the court. The judge accepts this. He then goes briefly over the case so far, saying that he feels fully briefed by the papers submitted by both sides. He invites the plaintiff's lawyer, Gino Scarselli, to speak and respond to the last set of papers filed by the defense, but cautions him to avoid repeating any of the arguments set forth already in the many papers filed.

Scarselli emphasizes that the plaintiffs are in court for more than just the single threatening letter - he notes that the threat of legal action was considered quite real by the universities, who assigned lawyers to deal with the threat. He notes that Felten's paper was described as a "recipe for circumvention" by the defendants. He says that Felten also fears criminal prosecution due to his desire to publish a paper on SDMI in Scientific American - since Scientific American pays for papers, unlike the conference, this makes publication of the paper a commercial enterprise which might be charged as a criminal violation of the DMCA.

The judge is rather skeptical. He states that the difference between Felten and Sklyarov is "night and day". Sklyarov's actions are clearly criminal to the judge - Felten's actions not at all.

Scarselli and the judge spar a bit over a possible amendment to the complaint, regarding what exactly the plaintiffs were seeking in the lawsuit, and Scarselli retires from battle. Next up is David Kendall for the RIAA, responding to Scarselli.

Kendall starts off by talking about a stipulation (an agreement on facts) that both parties were negotiating over. Apparently both sides had almost been able to reach an agreement, except that the RIAA wanted the agreement to include dismissing the lawsuit and the plaintiffs did not. Kendall moves on to emphasize the argument they are making - that the suit should be dismissed because there is no conflict between the RIAA/SDMI and Felten. There are three reasons why a suit might be dismissed in this fashion - for mootness, because the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the suit, or because the issue isn't ripe. The judge asks Kendall which of the three would apply to this case - Kendall disclaims mootness (because that implies there once was an issue, but no longer), and states that this could be dismissed under either of the other reasons.

Richard Phillips is called to speak for the Department of Justice. Phillips states that his argument has been covered by the papers submitted and sits back down.

At this point only 40 minutes or so has elapsed. Normally, the judge might now take the case for decision, then some time later issue a written decision - instead, he decides (obviously he planned to do this in advance, since he has notes prepared) to render his decision in the case orally and immediately. He notes that he's doing so to save both parties further time and trouble, which indicates that he agrees with the defense that the case should be dismissed.

The judge starts off with the basics, which must have been rather boring to the lawyers involved. Under the Constitution, courts are limited to deciding cases where there is an actual case or controversy. He states flat-out that he sees no case or controversy here, in case anyone in the courtroom missed the hint he's already given.

He now takes a deep breath and begins going through his notes. He recaps the case from the beginning. I'll spare you that, read the documents if you wish.

Finally we get to his analysis. There are two separate issues - is there a case against the private entities? Is there a case against the Federal Government? The judge looks at the private entities first.

Again he discusses the requirement that cases be limited to actual controversies, that judges can't rule on abstract, theoretical, or speculative cases. He uses the word "speculative" approximately 20 times during his opinion, always referring to the plaintiffs' case. He relates a rambling analogy about bank fraud, essentially saying that the plaintiffs were asking for blanket immunity against ever being sued or prosecuted, which was impossible. He covers in great detail the RIAA's retraction of their threatening letter, how they've plainly denied any desire to sue Felten or anyone else over Felten's original paper.

The judge now looks at the First Amendment considerations relating to the suit against the RIAA/SDMI. He notes that the courts are required to avoid Constitutional questions if at all possible. He also notes that according to case law on the subject, there must be a real and immediate threat, that must remain throughout litigation, in order for the courts to consider the Constitutional questions around a non-criminal law (that is, the part of the DMCA that doesn't involve criminal penalties, only the possibility of civil lawsuits). Since the threat has not remained throughout litigation, he sees no Constitutional questions relating to the non-criminal part of the DMCA. He also notes that Plaintiffs do not allege they intend to violate the statute [ed. note: I'm not sure which part of the DMCA the judge was talking about right now - he may have been getting ahead of himself and talking about the criminal penalties.] and thus proceeding further would be "pre-enforcement review", which is not permitted. He closes this section by saying that he finds the Step-Saver and Salvation Army cases (referred to in the briefs submitted by both parties) instructive.

Somewhere during this speech, one of the attorneys for SDMI starts grinning, hugely, as if his team has just won the Super Bowl. He continues grinning and looking over at the attorneys for the plaintiffs until the hearing is over. None of the other attorneys for either side show any particular reaction.

The judge now continues with the suit against the Federal Government for Constitutional violations. He notes that the plaintiffs have not been directly threatened by the Government, nor prosecuted. He contrasts Felten's situation with that of Dmitry Sklyarov - the plaintiffs don't sell their program to the public, they do it for scientific purposes. Again he mentions the Step-Saver case. He quotes from the DMCA extensively. He states that the Government and plaintiffs have no adverse legal interests - that is, there is no possible criminal threat to Felten for doing what he's doing, in the judge's opinion. He notes that in the Sklyarov case there is such an adverse legal interest - obviously, Sklyarov was imprisoned! - and suggests that the Sklyarov case is a better way to get any First Amendment consequences of the DMCA adjudicated by the courts. The plaintiffs are not "manufacturing", according to the judge; nor are they offering their code for sale. The judge segues to what he sees as deficiencies in the plaintiff's legal complaint - they did not assert they planned to fully violate the criminal sections of the DMCA, mainly their assertions were that the Act is unclear and vague. Finally he closes - the plaintiffs must have an "objectively reasonable fear" of prosecution in order for the required legal conflict to exist, and the judge sees no such objectively reasonable fear.

A few more sentences and he's done. He reminds everyone that he may revise his written/final opinion from what he just dictated. He doesn't provide a time-frame for when the written opinion might be expected.

And that's it. My impression is that the most important phrase in the decision is "night and day". Judge Brown saw Sklyarov as a pirate, well-deserving of a long imprisonment term, and Felten as a goodie-two-shoes scientist who didn't have a care in the world. The very factors that made Felten a "good" subject for a civil liberties case allowed the judge to rule that there wasn't a case at all. Both the Justice Department and the RIAA prefer to have their test cases with suitably unsavory defendants - Russian pirates and shady hacker magazines are much preferred over all-American Princeton professors. The RIAA won't make the mistake of sending threat letters to professors again - not until the DMCA issues have been well-settled in the courts, anyway. Some people have criticized the EFF for over-reaching - trying to make a case out of nothing. But to a great extent the civil liberties groups have to play with the hand they're dealt. Felten was legitimately threatened, and even if the RIAA saw their mistake and starting trying to weasel out of it, I can't fault the civil liberties groups for trying to pursue this. They plan to appeal, of course.

On Wednesday I attended a hearing in Felten vs. RIAA, the lawsuit filed by Professor Felten, other Princeton researchers, and USENIX against the RIAA, SDMI, Verance, and the Department of Justice. As you already know, the judge dismissed the case. But taking a look at the hearing might provide some insight into how the judicial system works.

An incredibly brief review of the case: SDMI created an open challenge to break various forms of technical restrictions they had designed to allow music publishers to control how people use legitimately purchased music. A team led by Felten participated and was mostly successful at breaking them. The team wrote a paper, intending to publish it at a scientific conference. The RIAA/SDMI sent a letter to Felten, his employer, and the conference threatening them with legal action. Private legal discussions and a very public flap broke out. Felten filed a pre-emptive lawsuit, seeking to have his right to publish vindicated without waiting for a suit from the RIAA or SDMI. Immediately afterward, the RIAA publicly and repeatedly withdrew their threat to sue. Eventually the paper was, in fact, published, but the suit has continued.

Or just read through the Slashdot stories.

On to yesterday's hearing. The judge has before him a request from the defense to dismiss the case - they state that there is no real issue since the threat has been withdrawn. The Plaintiffs oppose this - they feel the threat is real, even if the RIAA has now withdrawn it.

Each side is represented by a half-dozen attorneys. Felten and several of the other plaintiffs are present as well. There are four or five press representatives. Other than that, the courtroom is empty. The first thing the judge does is take care of some routine business - the plaintiffs have requested that a C program, tinywarp.c, be filed under judicial seal with the court. The judge accepts this. He then goes briefly over the case so far, saying that he feels fully briefed by the papers submitted by both sides. He invites the plaintiff's lawyer, Gino Scarselli, to speak and respond to the last set of papers filed by the defense, but cautions him to avoid repeating any of the arguments set forth already in the many papers filed.

Scarselli emphasizes that the plaintiffs are in court for more than just the single threatening letter - he notes that the threat of legal action was considered quite real by the universities, who assigned lawyers to deal with the threat. He notes that Felten's paper was described as a "recipe for circumvention" by the defendants. He says that Felten also fears criminal prosecution due to his desire to publish a paper on SDMI in Scientific American - since Scientific American pays for papers, unlike the conference, this makes publication of the paper a commercial enterprise which might be charged as a criminal violation of the DMCA.

The judge is rather skeptical. He states that the difference between Felten and Sklyarov is "night and day". Sklyarov's actions are clearly criminal to the judge - Felten's actions not at all.

Scarselli and the judge spar a bit over a possible amendment to the complaint, regarding what exactly the plaintiffs were seeking in the lawsuit, and Scarselli retires from battle. Next up is David Kendall for the RIAA, responding to Scarselli.

Kendall starts off by talking about a stipulation (an agreement on facts) that both parties were negotiating over. Apparently both sides had almost been able to reach an agreement, except that the RIAA wanted the agreement to include dismissing the lawsuit and the plaintiffs did not. Kendall moves on to emphasize the argument they are making - that the suit should be dismissed because there is no conflict between the RIAA/SDMI and Felten. There are three reasons why a suit might be dismissed in this fashion - for mootness, because the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the suit, or because the issue isn't ripe. The judge asks Kendall which of the three would apply to this case - Kendall disclaims mootness (because that implies there once was an issue, but no longer), and states that this could be dismissed under either of the other reasons.

Richard Phillips is called to speak for the Department of Justice. Phillips states that his argument has been covered by the papers submitted and sits back down.

At this point only 40 minutes or so has elapsed. Normally, the judge might now take the case for decision, then some time later issue a written decision - instead, he decides (obviously he planned to do this in advance, since he has notes prepared) to render his decision in the case orally and immediately. He notes that he's doing so to save both parties further time and trouble, which indicates that he agrees with the defense that the case should be dismissed.

The judge starts off with the basics, which must have been rather boring to the lawyers involved. Under the Constitution, courts are limited to deciding cases where there is an actual case or controversy. He states flat-out that he sees no case or controversy here, in case anyone in the courtroom missed the hint he's already given.

He now takes a deep breath and begins going through his notes. He recaps the case from the beginning. I'll spare you that, read the documents if you wish.

Finally we get to his analysis. There are two separate issues - is there a case against the private entities? Is there a case against the Federal Government? The judge looks at the private entities first.

Again he discusses the requirement that cases be limited to actual controversies, that judges can't rule on abstract, theoretical, or speculative cases. He uses the word "speculative" approximately 20 times during his opinion, always referring to the plaintiffs' case. He relates a rambling analogy about bank fraud, essentially saying that the plaintiffs were asking for blanket immunity against ever being sued or prosecuted, which was impossible. He covers in great detail the RIAA's retraction of their threatening letter, how they've plainly denied any desire to sue Felten or anyone else over Felten's original paper.

The judge now looks at the First Amendment considerations relating to the suit against the RIAA/SDMI. He notes that the courts are required to avoid Constitutional questions if at all possible. He also notes that according to case law on the subject, there must be a real and immediate threat, that must remain throughout litigation, in order for the courts to consider the Constitutional questions around a non-criminal law (that is, the part of the DMCA that doesn't involve criminal penalties, only the possibility of civil lawsuits). Since the threat has not remained throughout litigation, he sees no Constitutional questions relating to the non-criminal part of the DMCA. He also notes that Plaintiffs do not allege they intend to violate the statute [ed. note: I'm not sure which part of the DMCA the judge was talking about right now - he may have been getting ahead of himself and talking about the criminal penalties.] and thus proceeding further would be "pre-enforcement review", which is not permitted. He closes this section by saying that he finds the Step-Saver and Salvation Army cases (referred to in the briefs submitted by both parties) instructive.

Somewhere during this speech, one of the attorneys for SDMI starts grinning, hugely, as if his team has just won the Super Bowl. He continues grinning and looking over at the attorneys for the plaintiffs until the hearing is over. None of the other attorneys for either side show any particular reaction.

The judge now continues with the suit against the Federal Government for Constitutional violations. He notes that the plaintiffs have not been directly threatened by the Government, nor prosecuted. He contrasts Felten's situation with that of Dmitry Sklyarov - the plaintiffs don't sell their program to the public, they do it for scientific purposes. Again he mentions the Step-Saver case. He quotes from the DMCA extensively. He states that the Government and plaintiffs have no adverse legal interests - that is, there is no possible criminal threat to Felten for doing what he's doing, in the judge's opinion. He notes that in the Sklyarov case there is such an adverse legal interest - obviously, Sklyarov was imprisoned! - and suggests that the Sklyarov case is a better way to get any First Amendment consequences of the DMCA adjudicated by the courts. The plaintiffs are not "manufacturing", according to the judge; nor are they offering their code for sale. The judge segues to what he sees as deficiencies in the plaintiff's legal complaint - they did not assert they planned to fully violate the criminal sections of the DMCA, mainly their assertions were that the Act is unclear and vague. Finally he closes - the plaintiffs must have an "objectively reasonable fear" of prosecution in order for the required legal conflict to exist, and the judge sees no such objectively reasonable fear.

A few more sentences and he's done. He reminds everyone that he may revise his written/final opinion from what he just dictated. He doesn't provide a time-frame for when the written opinion might be expected.

And that's it. My impression is that the most important phrase in the decision is "night and day". Judge Brown saw Sklyarov as a pirate, well-deserving of a long imprisonment term, and Felten as a goodie-two-shoes scientist who didn't have a care in the world. The very factors that made Felten a "good" subject for a civil liberties case allowed the judge to rule that there wasn't a case at all. Both the Justice Department and the RIAA prefer to have their test cases with suitably unsavory defendants - Russian pirates and shady hacker magazines are much preferred over all-American Princeton professors. The RIAA won't make the mistake of sending threat letters to professors again - not until the DMCA issues have been well-settled in the courts, anyway. Some people have criticized the EFF for over-reaching - trying to make a case out of nothing. But to a great extent the civil liberties groups have to play with the hand they're dealt. Felten was legitimately threatened, and even if the RIAA saw their mistake and starting trying to weasel out of it, I can't fault the civil liberties groups for trying to pursue this. They plan to appeal, of course.

Politech is featuring this press release from EFF stating Judge Garrett Brown of the Federal District Court in Trenton, New Jersey, threw out the EFF-Felten case challenging the DMCA after less than 25 minutes of debate. DoJ and RIAA both made motions to dismiss the case, which the court granted. We'll have a story about what occurred at the hearing tomorrow. EFF plans to appeal. In addition, 2600 is reporting that they've lost their Appeal in the 2nd Circuit court.

Quintin Stone (and every other Slashdot reader on the planet) writes: "Wil Wheaton is among the many Star Trek actors on tonight's Weakest Link, except that the charity he's playing for is the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Though so far he's been doing well." CD: I don't want to give away the ending, many people have yet to see the show.

Gorgonzola writes: "Lawrence Lessig has written an accessible article in Foreign Policy on the threats to freedom on the internet, including the threat the DMCA poses to open and free software. Nothing new to Slashdot regulars, but good to see something appear in an influential magazine like Foreign Policy. An article mentioning the Sklyarov case like this one does, is going to draw a lot more attention from policymakers to the problems the DMCA and other legal troubles are posing to online freedom than your average rant on a board like this, how well reasoned it may be."

MattW writes "Yahoo is carrying the CNET story that EFF has come to the defense of MusicCity, which produces peer-to-peer software, but does not run central servers as Napster did. EFF has a whitepaper on the Sony Betamax case, and it discusses the implications of various court decisions during the Napster case and their effect on it as a precedent. A MusicCity lawyer, who was responsible for the successful defense of the Rio, is quoted, astutely observing: 'This case shows more clearly (than Napster) that what the plaintiffs are most concerned about is control of technology. This is all about whether they can leverage copyrights into control over software development.' And that's truly what the RIAA's interest in Napster was about: not money, but control."

MattW writes "Yahoo is carrying the CNET story that EFF has come to the defense of MusicCity, which produces peer-to-peer software, but does not run central servers as Napster did. EFF has a whitepaper on the Sony Betamax case, and it discusses the implications of various court decisions during the Napster case and their effect on it as a precedent. A MusicCity lawyer, who was responsible for the successful defense of the Rio, is quoted, astutely observing: 'This case shows more clearly (than Napster) that what the plaintiffs are most concerned about is control of technology. This is all about whether they can leverage copyrights into control over software development.' And that's truly what the RIAA's interest in Napster was about: not money, but control."

musicmaster writes "A couple of organisations that worry about too much copyright protection have organised an essay contest about intellectual property. This contest is meant as an alternative to a similar WIPO contest. The contest can be found at Wipout Among the participating organisations are Center for the public domain, the Register, the EFF and the GNU foundation."

Concerned Citizen writes "Both the EFF and WIAFLW are reporting that the "Senate Commerce Committee's hearings on the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA or DMCA-2) which had been originally schedule for today (Oct. 25, 2001) have been postponed due to mounting opposition, particularly from those in the tech community." Senator Fritz Hollings has yet to reschedule a hearing (it's likely that he won't), and has also indicated that he would consider modifying the bill."

Control-Z has brought our attention to the latest EFF newsletter which speaks out against MAPS ^? and ineffective spam legislation. According to the EFF: "The rights of users to send and receive email must not be compromised for quick and dirty ways to limit unsolicited bulk email. Neither misguided and ignorant legislation, nor collusive, high pressure protection schemes, have a legitimate function or place in our online future " The EFF is reminding us that freedom isn't always easy. I feel much worse for those who haven't figured out procmail yet though.

Ames Cornish writes: "The non-profit SDForum's Internet Security and Privacy group is sponsoring a panel on National Security versus Individual Privacy on Wednesday evening, Oct 17th in Silicon Valley. It includes representatives from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the California Office of Emergency Services, KPMG Israel, and the Technology Editor from the San Jose Mercury News. The panel will address both sides of controversial topics including the 'Patriot' Act, Carnivore, encryption back-doors, and questions from the audience. This event is an excellent way to participate in intelligent debate about the role of technology in Homeland Security and Civil Liberties. Get your issues heard, and watch the sparks fly!"

phalse phace writes: "The EFF is reporting that the Department of Justice has filed a motion to dismiss the pending Felten v. RIAA case because it's "not ripe" and it fails to address serious First Amendment problems. (Yeah, like threatening to sue someone for presenting their research on digital music access-control technologies isn't a serious First Amendment problem.) The preliminary statement of the DoJ's memorandum states: "Plaintiffs have not been prosecuted under the DMCA, nor have they been threatened with such prosecution...""

phalse phace writes: "The EFF is reporting that the Department of Justice has filed a motion to dismiss the pending Felten v. RIAA case because it's "not ripe" and it fails to address serious First Amendment problems. (Yeah, like threatening to sue someone for presenting their research on digital music access-control technologies isn't a serious First Amendment problem.) The preliminary statement of the DoJ's memorandum states: "Plaintiffs have not been prosecuted under the DMCA, nor have they been threatened with such prosecution...""

Carlos writes "Most computer crimes are considered acts of terrorism under John Ashcroft's proposed 'Anti-Terrorism Act,' according to this story on SecurityFocus. The Act would abolish the statute of limitations for computer crime, retroactively, force convicted hackers to give the government DNA samples for a special federal database, and increase the maximum sentence for computer intrusion to life in prison. Harboring or providing advice to a hacker would be terrorism as well. This is on top of the expanded surveillance powers already reported on. The bill could be passed as early as this week. I feel safer already."

securitas writes: "The most controversial part of the Combatting Terrorism Act of 2001 is Section 832 (full text) that would expand government powers to capture information about your Internet activities. A UCLA law professor and the former NSA general counsel debate the pros and cons at Slate in a series of e-mails this week (see the upper left hand side for links to each day's exchange). Here's an overview at the NY Times Archive (no registration required)."

dan g sent in word of this EFF Action Alert about keeping your rights to freely communicate without government eavesdropping. It includes sample letters you might want to send to your elected representatives, if you'd like to remind them that you elected them, and that they represent you. As the alert points out, snail mail is too slow -- but email, faxes and phone calls are not.

Imagine Slashdot closing its Your Rights Online section because you no longer have any rights online, and find many of your other rights severely curtailed, too. Saturday a small group of people, including U.S. Representative Lynn Rivers, from Michigan's 13th Congressional District, met in the University of Maryland Baltimore County [UMBC] library to discuss ways to maintain Americans' civil liberties despite major pressure to curtail them in the name of "fighting terrorism." The government does listen, you know, if you speak to the right people in the right way. So here's a guide, a HOWTO, if you will, that will teach you how to lobby effectively for your Constitutional rights.

Let's start with one simple and rather sad truth: You are going to be less free next week than you were last week.

We are already seeing what several newspapers have called "the biggest criminal investigation in history." Sure, a lot of this investigation's energy is being focused on Islamic countries, but it is also going on in Europe and, more than anywhere else, the United States itself. Landlords who have rented to young men with Arab-sounding names are being interrogated. Topless-bar patrons are being asked about conversations they allegedly heard, boasting about upcoming mass destruction.

And then there's email and the World Wide Web. Imagine a technically unhip Senator or Member of Congress who has read about Osama bin Laden allegedly using encrypted email and secret messages hidden in online porn to communicate with his followers and allies. Put the words "Osama bin Laden" in the same sentence as "pornography" and "the Internet," and you had better get out of the way of the avalanche of anti-online privacy laws coming your way -- or get crushed by them, even if people like bin Laden can switch to other means of communication at the drop of a hat.

Worse, disagreeing with the U.S. government right now may almost be viewed as treason in some quarters. "My Country, Right or Wrong" was a popular bumper sticker among the gunrack-and-confederate-flag pickup truck crowd in the late 60s, and this attitude, if not yet the bumper sticker itself, has been making a major comeback

But Dissent We Must
The problem with the "My Country, Right or Wrong" attitude is that it allows our government to go terribly wrong in many ways that may not be made right again for a long time, if ever. As Rep. Rivers pointed out Saturday, once laws are made that are supposed to help law enforcement in some way, they are almost never repealed because Members of Congress don't want to be seen as "soft on terrorism, soft on crime, soft on drugs."

Carry this a little farther. What about treason charges? At what point does it become illegal to speak out against a planned US government action that, on its face, is being taken to fight against the Terrorist Enemy, whoever he or she may be, even though that action may have very bad, long-term consequences for ordinary American citizens who want nothing more that to live their own lives quietly without being afraid of their own government?

Rep. Rivers said half the people in her district's gut reaction to the idea of legislation allowing government to read their email without getting a warrant first was along the lines of, "So what? I don't break any laws, so I have nothing to hide."

Long-time EPIC activist Kathleen Ellis told Rep. Rivers she believed questions about privacy should not be asked in the context of email. "Ask people if they should have the right to keep a secret and almost all of them will answer 'Of course,'" she said. Ellis also mentioned that cryptography is the email equivalent of an envelope on a letter sent by postal mail. "Unencrypted email is like a postcard," she said, "open for anyone to read. Ask people if they want all mail to be as open as a postcard and they're going to say no."

From that point on, the meeting focused on tactics. The question in the room wasn't, "Are privacy and freedom of speech good?" but "What can we do to protect our privacy and freedom of speech?"

Background on the Meeting Itself
The forum in which all this discussion took place was decidedly unofficial. It was an informal meeting thrown together hastily by local Linux user and ham radio afficianado Rob Carlson. Carlson sent a meeting notice to several email lists and posted it at cluebot.com. 13 people showed up at Saturday's gathering, most of whom were Baltimore and Washington D.C. area privacy advocates and/or Linux users. I was there myself for that reason. Wired News reporter Declan McCullagh is another "local" who hangs in the same circles, which explained his presence.

Rep. Rivers was there because her husband, William Simpson, is a computer consultant involved with the Internet Engineering Task Force [IETF] who spotted Carlson's notice on one of the cryptography-oriented email lists he's on. He had driven Rivers' chief of staff, who needed to get back to Washington but was marooned in Michigan by the airlines shutdown, to D.C., and was taking his Congresswoman wife back to her district for a little rest and some scheduled meetings (Congress had adjourned until Friday, Sept. 21), and they noticed that UMBC was on their way. So there they were, not dressed in "mover and shaker" clothing but looking like anyone else taking a 1000+ mile car trip.

One doesn't usually think of a Member of Congress fitting in with a group of downdressed geeks, but this one sure did. We only knew what she did for a living because Carlson asked everyone in the little circle to identify themselves by name and job, and when it was her turn Rep. Rivers gave her name as "Lynn," then added "Rivers," and softly, sort of as an aside, mentioned that she was "in Congress." Her husband had already mentioned that they were "from Michigan," which was curious enough in itself for a meeting with a decidedly local orientation. But Linux folks are friendly, and Rep. Rivers was as welcome as anyone else even though she was from out of town -- and freely admitted she used Mac OS, not Linux, both at home and in her office.

When he organized the meeting, Carlson said, "I didn't know whether no one or 100 people would show up." 13 did. And revolutions have started with as few as 13 people, so why shouldn't a strong pro-Constitution lobbying movement? The next step is to get 13 more, and another 13, and so on. This means calling and emailing friends until there are 13X13X13X13.... people talking to their elected representatives about privacy issues in terms they can understand, that will help them change their minds.

How You Can Lobby Against Anti-Privacy Laws
Start with this line Rep. Rivers laid on us, which is not new but needs to be said over and over: "Democracy is not a spectator sport."

Those Americans who don't vote, no matter how they excuse this failure, have no right to criticize their government. And those who don't bother to tell their elected representatives what they want and don't want their government to do should not act shocked when the government passes laws they don't like. It gets sickening, going to hearing after hearing about proposed laws like UCITA, DMCA, and SSSCA and always seeing a whole bunch of industry lobbyists wearing expensive suits, but hardly ever anyone who could be classified as an "ordinary citizen."

You need to make some noise instead of letting "them" talk while you sit around and let "them" get their way. Pump up the volume. Take some of the time you spend posting on Slashdot and register to vote. Write email and snail mail letters, send faxes, and make phone calls to Congresspeople and Senators and other representatives, and tell other people (13X13X13X13.... voices, remember) to do the same. This, not just complaining, is what this whole representative government thing is all about.

Rep. Rivers says phone calls "...have a sense of personal contact to them," and this makes them the most effective grassroots lobbying tool. "Stick to one issue," she advises. "Don't come up with a laundry list."

Also send email and write letters, even though they probably won't have as much impact as calls. And don't forget the fax machine; reps who are too technically unhip to read email read faxes. The ACLU and NRA have both famously used fax as a means of rapid communication with legislators for many years.

Now comes the matter of what to say. A letter, call or email that starts with something like, "I has nevir voted for you I am not registered to vote but you got to lisen to me," will go nowhere, says Rivers, pointing out that many pro-Napster messages she got were along those lines -- and got ignored. Better, she says, is something that tells your representative you are a computer professional (or manager or student or business owner or whatever) whose business, occupation or future will be hurt by whatever legislation you are working against. In this case (this week), privacy and online crypto are under attack. Next week, who knows?

So you're not a business owner? Know any? Know anyone who depends on privacy to transact their business? How about your doctor? Doesn't he or she want to keep patient records confidential? Ditto any lawyer you know. If a lawyer is serious about maintaining client trust, he or she certainly doesn't want the government snooping on email through Carnivore or a similar system with a less aggressive name. Other businesses have client information they want to private, along with trade secrets and other information they would rather not share with competitors. These are all points to bring up rationally, in an orderly debate format, when communicating with an elected rep, and they are ones you should ask others to bring up, too.

Stay calm, in other words. Assume your representative is sane and really wants to do what's right and what most people want, based on the input he or she gets. Your trick is to become part of that input, and right now the input you need to give must be strong and focused because Congress is caught up in post-attack hysteria and, like the rest of us, is saying, "We need to do something to help those poor victims and their families and make sure nothing this awful ever happens again."

The only problem here is that what Congress does is make laws, not post on Slashdot, and a law made in the same emotional heat as a flame post on Slashdot can't be moderated down to -1 after it is passed. Once that law is on the books, if you break it you can be arrested, tried, and fined or sent to jail. You've heard the saying, "If [guns/crypto/brains] are outlawed, only outlaws will have [guns/crypto/brains]." It's true, you know.

Right now, legitimate Americans are in danger of having many of their Constitutional freedoms revoked by a government that is doing its best, possibly in a misguided way, to protect its citizens. This is not about Disney's copyrights or the freedom to play DVDs on computers running Linux. The current debate is about much more basic issues than those, issues I will not repeat here because they have been written about so extensively elsewhere.

An Aside: How Congress Works
Rep. Rivers said it this way: "The House [of Representatives] is ruled by brute force."

Since she was talking to geeks who follow such things, she used the DMCA as an example. She told us that the "unanimous" vote that got DMCA through the House was not really unanimous at all; that the bill got through a committee dominated by a powerful chairman (which is how bills generally get to the floor for a vote) and that the Speaker called for a voice vote. "Most yelled 'Aye,'" Rivers said, and some yelled 'Nay.'"

The voices yelling "Aye" were the loudest, so DMCA passed by acclamation. Brute Force. People yelling at the top of their lungs. If 50 loud voices had yelled "Nay" instead of "Aye," perhaps we wouldn't have the DMCA as law today, and the EFF wouldn't be begging for money to get it overturned in the courts.

Now think about a Member of Congress who is hearing, right now, from all the "Kill-the-Arab-bastards-and-stamp-out-Internet-porn" crowd loudly and repeatedly by phone, fax, mail and email, but isn't hearing from you. Who is shouting the loudest? Which wheel is so squeaky that it is going to get the grease? So far, it's not the voices of reason and Constitutionality. They are getting drowned out. Heck, they are hardly there at all. At least Rep. Rivers isn't hearing them, and if she isn't hearing them -- with her ear attuned to Internet privacy matters and a totally Net-hip husband at her side -- you can bet the rest of Congress don't even know those voices (yours) exist.

Don't Delay! Do It Today!
Congress reconvenes Friday, September 21. The anti-privacy bills and anti-privacy amendments to various anti-terrorist bills are being written now, not someday. This means you must act immediately. If you put off those calls and emails to friends asking them to help support their right to communicate with each other in private, and to live without fear of police breaking down their doors or seizing their computer hard drives without warrants for even a few days, it is going to be too late. We are in the grip of national hysteria. A $40 billion appropriations bill to support the war on terrorism was passed a few days ago, with bipartisan support, almost without debate.

I'm going to admit that I am as ready to kick terrorist butt as anyone else, so I can't really blame Congress for being so gung-ho that it will pass all kinds of measures that will make America a less free country for decades to come in response to the current emergency. All I'm really asking Congress to do -- and asking you to join me in asking Congress to do, and to convince 13X13X13.... others to ask your Representative and your Senator to do -- is remember that the freedoms that make this country great must not be forgotten in our rush to avenge our fallen fellow Americans and our attempts to keep ourselves safe from future terrorist attacks.

Specifically (concentrate on one issue, remember), as a Net user I am concerned about watching our online privacy and freedoms evaporate if the government makes strong cryptography illegal or tries to have it controlled by agencies like the NSA, CIA, and FBI, or starts reading all of our private email without due cause and legitimate judicial warrants.

The deadline is Friday. That's when the legislative fur will start to fly. So let's get to work now!

• How to find your representative
• How to contact your senator

chathamhouse writes: "It was mentioned last week on Slashdot. If you're a Canadian citizen, today is the final day to submit opinion papers for Industry Canada's Copyright Act reform process. You can quickly (cut, paste and email) try to avoid the legislation of a Son-of-DMCA in Canada, or write your own in a coffee induced last minute haze. My submission can be found here. Please read and provide comments. I hope that others post their submissions, so that the Slashdot community may point out flawed/broken logic, typos, stupid/embarassing ideas, and the like. Nothing like a bit of 11th hour polish -- remember that we're up against some very resource-rich copyright holders that have considerable vested interest in the evolution of a DMCA-style law!"

Brett Glass writes: "This weekend, the EFF is staging a public concert in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park to promote its "Open Audio License" (OAL), a music license based loosely on the GPL. But is a license intended for software a good starting point for a license for music? And is the EFF's license a good choice for composers and performers? This critique discusses the intended and unintended effects of the EFF's license, and suggests alternatives that might be more beneficial (and more palatable) to musicians, composers, and performers." Some of Glass' critiques seem a little silly - they're intended goals of the license, not flaws.

In fact, let me make a brief response to Glass' points as he makes them in the critique -

OAL gives away too much: No response to this. It's for the artist to decide.

No credit to performer: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. The performer is free to seek an alternate license from the author if he/she wants to profit off of the song.

Potential damage to reputation: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. Like the GPL, this license assumes that free and open should be free and open to everyone for every purpose, even those you find distasteful. "Oh my god, someone is using my GPL'ed program called grep to search for abortion providers in the phone book!"

Viral nature: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. Again, if you want to incorporate chunks of someone else's work in your own, you are free to a) be infected by the OAL, or b) seek a different license from the author. Free with restrictions, or, presumably, pay the author for a different deal. Without this license, only b) is available. The OAL only ever provides a possible alternative for people wanting to use a work.

ASCAP and BMI don't enforce the OAL: This is an issue to take up with ASCAP or BMI.

Irrevocable: Silly criticism. Even without this clause, you couldn't "take back" the license, at least for people who've already made use of your work - they took advantage of the license at the time.

Most of the rest of Glass' criticisms are general criticisms of any Free license - it gives away the rights of the author. Well, duh, that's what it's supposed to do. These are criticisms of the aim of the license rather than flaws in the license. What Glass is lacking here is a general BSD-type license for music to compare this against...

Brett Glass writes: "This weekend, the EFF is staging a public concert in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park to promote its "Open Audio License" (OAL), a music license based loosely on the GPL. But is a license intended for software a good starting point for a license for music? And is the EFF's license a good choice for composers and performers? This critique discusses the intended and unintended effects of the EFF's license, and suggests alternatives that might be more beneficial (and more palatable) to musicians, composers, and performers." Some of Glass' critiques seem a little silly - they're intended goals of the license, not flaws.

In fact, let me make a brief response to Glass' points as he makes them in the critique -

OAL gives away too much: No response to this. It's for the artist to decide.

No credit to performer: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. The performer is free to seek an alternate license from the author if he/she wants to profit off of the song.

Potential damage to reputation: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. Like the GPL, this license assumes that free and open should be free and open to everyone for every purpose, even those you find distasteful. "Oh my god, someone is using my GPL'ed program called grep to search for abortion providers in the phone book!"

Viral nature: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. Again, if you want to incorporate chunks of someone else's work in your own, you are free to a) be infected by the OAL, or b) seek a different license from the author. Free with restrictions, or, presumably, pay the author for a different deal. Without this license, only b) is available. The OAL only ever provides a possible alternative for people wanting to use a work.

ASCAP and BMI don't enforce the OAL: This is an issue to take up with ASCAP or BMI.

Irrevocable: Silly criticism. Even without this clause, you couldn't "take back" the license, at least for people who've already made use of your work - they took advantage of the license at the time.

Most of the rest of Glass' criticisms are general criticisms of any Free license - it gives away the rights of the author. Well, duh, that's what it's supposed to do. These are criticisms of the aim of the license rather than flaws in the license. What Glass is lacking here is a general BSD-type license for music to compare this against...

Brett Glass writes: "This weekend, the EFF is staging a public concert in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park to promote its "Open Audio License" (OAL), a music license based loosely on the GPL. But is a license intended for software a good starting point for a license for music? And is the EFF's license a good choice for composers and performers? This critique discusses the intended and unintended effects of the EFF's license, and suggests alternatives that might be more beneficial (and more palatable) to musicians, composers, and performers." Some of Glass' critiques seem a little silly - they're intended goals of the license, not flaws.

In fact, let me make a brief response to Glass' points as he makes them in the critique -

OAL gives away too much: No response to this. It's for the artist to decide.

No credit to performer: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. The performer is free to seek an alternate license from the author if he/she wants to profit off of the song.

Potential damage to reputation: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. Like the GPL, this license assumes that free and open should be free and open to everyone for every purpose, even those you find distasteful. "Oh my god, someone is using my GPL'ed program called grep to search for abortion providers in the phone book!"

Viral nature: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. Again, if you want to incorporate chunks of someone else's work in your own, you are free to a) be infected by the OAL, or b) seek a different license from the author. Free with restrictions, or, presumably, pay the author for a different deal. Without this license, only b) is available. The OAL only ever provides a possible alternative for people wanting to use a work.

ASCAP and BMI don't enforce the OAL: This is an issue to take up with ASCAP or BMI.

Irrevocable: Silly criticism. Even without this clause, you couldn't "take back" the license, at least for people who've already made use of your work - they took advantage of the license at the time.

Most of the rest of Glass' criticisms are general criticisms of any Free license - it gives away the rights of the author. Well, duh, that's what it's supposed to do. These are criticisms of the aim of the license rather than flaws in the license. What Glass is lacking here is a general BSD-type license for music to compare this against...

One week from today, the U.S. Judicial Conference will decide whether judges and their staff can handle grown-up responsibilities like ... using the internet. No, you did not click onto The Onion by mistake: after heated disagreement earlier this year, the issue is coming to a head. Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has a great Wall Street Journal opinion piece, today only. (It wants your email; try me@privacy.net.) Jeffrey Rosen's analysis in TNR is another good take on it. If you don't think the men and women who hold people's lives in their hands need daddy and mommy looking over their shoulder, you might take a moment to fire off a quick, polite email per the EFF's suggestion. If surveillance can invade a judge's workplace, it's for damnsure there's nothing keeping it out of yours.

stinkbomb writes "The venerable Association for Computing Machinery has posted a legal brief on it's site regarding Felten vs. RIAA. The ACM position is: 'ACM believes that the application of any law to limit the freedom to publish research on computer technology will impose a cost not only on ACM's members, but also on the academic community, the process of scientific discourse, and society in general.'"

Seth Schoen writes: "On Thursday, in San Jose, CA, free speech supporters can enjoy a double-header in Federal and State courts. At 9:30 in the morning, Dmitry Sklyarov is expected to be arraigned before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, and there will be a preliminary hearing in U.S. v. Sklyarov. sf.freesklyarov.org has details on the time and location. Thursday afternoon, about a mile away, a California appellate court will hear arguments in DVD Copy Control Assn. v. Andrew Bunner -- Bunner has appealed the trial court's preliminary injunction against him. He's asked the appellate court to overturn the injunction, which forbids him to post DeCSS code pending a trial. (This is the "California trade secret" DVD/DeCSS case, separate from the New York DMCA case.)" Update: 08/21 09:27 PM EDT by michael : According to the EFF, the Sklyarov hearing has been postponed until next week.

"Sklyarov is represented by Joseph Burton; Bunner is represented by the First Amendment Project and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF Sklyarov/Bunner media release has time and location information for this hearing, too. Both hearings will be open to the public; please dress nicely if you attend. You can probably attend both, because the Sklyarov hearing should be over before the Bunner hearing starts. The Federal court (N.Dist.Cal.), for the Sklyarov case, is on the 5th floor, 280 South 1st Street; the State appellate court (6th App. Dist. Ct.), for the DVD CCA case, is at 333 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1060."

Interestingly enough, the Washington Post ran an editorial knocking (if not actually blasting) the DMCA, with Sklyarov the example of what's wrong with the thing. Jerry Pournelle's column in Byte takes a slightly different tack, but raises the same troubling questions. (Thanks to fredistheking and SgtChairebourne for the links.)

Seth Schoen writes: "On Thursday, in San Jose, CA, free speech supporters can enjoy a double-header in Federal and State courts. At 9:30 in the morning, Dmitry Sklyarov is expected to be arraigned before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, and there will be a preliminary hearing in U.S. v. Sklyarov. sf.freesklyarov.org has details on the time and location. Thursday afternoon, about a mile away, a California appellate court will hear arguments in DVD Copy Control Assn. v. Andrew Bunner -- Bunner has appealed the trial court's preliminary injunction against him. He's asked the appellate court to overturn the injunction, which forbids him to post DeCSS code pending a trial. (This is the "California trade secret" DVD/DeCSS case, separate from the New York DMCA case.)" Update: 08/21 09:27 PM EDT by michael : According to the EFF, the Sklyarov hearing has been postponed until next week.

"Sklyarov is represented by Joseph Burton; Bunner is represented by the First Amendment Project and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF Sklyarov/Bunner media release has time and location information for this hearing, too. Both hearings will be open to the public; please dress nicely if you attend. You can probably attend both, because the Sklyarov hearing should be over before the Bunner hearing starts. The Federal court (N.Dist.Cal.), for the Sklyarov case, is on the 5th floor, 280 South 1st Street; the State appellate court (6th App. Dist. Ct.), for the DVD CCA case, is at 333 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1060."

Interestingly enough, the Washington Post ran an editorial knocking (if not actually blasting) the DMCA, with Sklyarov the example of what's wrong with the thing. Jerry Pournelle's column in Byte takes a slightly different tack, but raises the same troubling questions. (Thanks to fredistheking and SgtChairebourne for the links.)

Seth Schoen writes: "On Thursday, in San Jose, CA, free speech supporters can enjoy a double-header in Federal and State courts. At 9:30 in the morning, Dmitry Sklyarov is expected to be arraigned before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, and there will be a preliminary hearing in U.S. v. Sklyarov. sf.freesklyarov.org has details on the time and location. Thursday afternoon, about a mile away, a California appellate court will hear arguments in DVD Copy Control Assn. v. Andrew Bunner -- Bunner has appealed the trial court's preliminary injunction against him. He's asked the appellate court to overturn the injunction, which forbids him to post DeCSS code pending a trial. (This is the "California trade secret" DVD/DeCSS case, separate from the New York DMCA case.)" Update: 08/21 09:27 PM EDT by michael : According to the EFF, the Sklyarov hearing has been postponed until next week.

"Sklyarov is represented by Joseph Burton; Bunner is represented by the First Amendment Project and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF Sklyarov/Bunner media release has time and location information for this hearing, too. Both hearings will be open to the public; please dress nicely if you attend. You can probably attend both, because the Sklyarov hearing should be over before the Bunner hearing starts. The Federal court (N.Dist.Cal.), for the Sklyarov case, is on the 5th floor, 280 South 1st Street; the State appellate court (6th App. Dist. Ct.), for the DVD CCA case, is at 333 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1060."

Interestingly enough, the Washington Post ran an editorial knocking (if not actually blasting) the DMCA, with Sklyarov the example of what's wrong with the thing. Jerry Pournelle's column in Byte takes a slightly different tack, but raises the same troubling questions. (Thanks to fredistheking and SgtChairebourne for the links.)

Seth Schoen writes: "On Thursday, in San Jose, CA, free speech supporters can enjoy a double-header in Federal and State courts. At 9:30 in the morning, Dmitry Sklyarov is expected to be arraigned before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, and there will be a preliminary hearing in U.S. v. Sklyarov. sf.freesklyarov.org has details on the time and location. Thursday afternoon, about a mile away, a California appellate court will hear arguments in DVD Copy Control Assn. v. Andrew Bunner -- Bunner has appealed the trial court's preliminary injunction against him. He's asked the appellate court to overturn the injunction, which forbids him to post DeCSS code pending a trial. (This is the "California trade secret" DVD/DeCSS case, separate from the New York DMCA case.)" Update: 08/21 09:27 PM EDT by michael : According to the EFF, the Sklyarov hearing has been postponed until next week.

"Sklyarov is represented by Joseph Burton; Bunner is represented by the First Amendment Project and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF Sklyarov/Bunner media release has time and location information for this hearing, too. Both hearings will be open to the public; please dress nicely if you attend. You can probably attend both, because the Sklyarov hearing should be over before the Bunner hearing starts. The Federal court (N.Dist.Cal.), for the Sklyarov case, is on the 5th floor, 280 South 1st Street; the State appellate court (6th App. Dist. Ct.), for the DVD CCA case, is at 333 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1060."

Interestingly enough, the Washington Post ran an editorial knocking (if not actually blasting) the DMCA, with Sklyarov the example of what's wrong with the thing. Jerry Pournelle's column in Byte takes a slightly different tack, but raises the same troubling questions. (Thanks to fredistheking and SgtChairebourne for the links.)

dr. greenthumb writes: "With the Sklyarov-case still fresh in memory, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) wants to rally up against the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in order to preserve privacy and freedom of speech. The FTAA is currently negotiating agreements with several countries in the Western hemisphere concerning, among other issues, intellectual property rights. According to the EEF, the FTAA organization is considering treaty language that mandates nations pass anti-circumvention provisions similar to the DMCA, except the FTAA treaty grants even greater control to publishers than the DMCA."

dr. greenthumb writes: "With the Sklyarov-case still fresh in memory, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) wants to rally up against the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in order to preserve privacy and freedom of speech. The FTAA is currently negotiating agreements with several countries in the Western hemisphere concerning, among other issues, intellectual property rights. According to the EEF, the FTAA organization is considering treaty language that mandates nations pass anti-circumvention provisions similar to the DMCA, except the FTAA treaty grants even greater control to publishers than the DMCA."

JudTaylor writes " ZDNet has an article decribing a decision by a Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge allowing Yahoo to protect the privacy of posters to message boards. Lee Tien, an white hat attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, stated "This is a great victory for anonymous speech. I believe Judge Cabrinha's ruling will signal to other companies that judges will not permit corporate executives to abuse the courts in ferreting out their critics." Critics of Pre-Paid Legal Services had posted messages disparaging the company on Yahoo boards. Representatives of the company had no immediate comment." I'm glad to see a decision for freedome can still happen in this country.

iamblades writes: "Edward Felten is scheduled to present his research papers on SDMI on Wednesday at the annual USENIX security conference. Apparently the RIAA backed off their harrassment, which makes sense, as SDMI is almost completely dead already." And a Semi-Anonymous Coward writes: "Despite the RIAA's attempts to silence the Princeton Professor and his students, USENIX will broadcast the SDMI Crack Live via the web. The broadcast will be available for the world here along with a discussion concerning your Freedom."

Cryogenes writes "InfoAnarchy has posted an excellent piece on legal issues faced by participants in a P2P network. The article is written by Fred von Lohmann who was previously noted on /. for the white paper IAAL*: Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Copyright Law after Napster (which you can find on the EFF site here)."

Cryogenes writes "InfoAnarchy has posted an excellent piece on legal issues faced by participants in a P2P network. The article is written by Fred von Lohmann who was previously noted on /. for the white paper IAAL*: Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Copyright Law after Napster (which you can find on the EFF site here)."

The Sixth District Court of Appeals has denied Matt Pavlovich's challenge to being sued in California for the act of posting DeCSS on an internet web site. CNet has a blurb about it, or go straight to the ruling. The Court apparently believes that "open source" is shorthand for "pirate ring", as evidenced by their description: "At the time Pavlovich posted DeCSS on the Internet, he was a leader in the "open source" movement, the purpose of which was to make as much material as possible available over the Internet." Blatantly false statements like "Further; Pavlovich knew that his Web site allowed the illegal publishing and distribution of DVDs." do nothing to make me think the Court even understands what is alleged to have occurred. And since the Court describes Pavlovich's activities as "illegal", it appears to have already decided the main issue of the case itself (which has not yet been tried). Not good omens for the California DeCSS case. Below we have commentary from the attorney representing Pavlovich.

Appellate Court Issues Precedent Setting Ruling in Cyber-Jurisdiction ruling

The Sixth District Court of Appeals has issued its ruling in the jurisdictional case filed by Indiana student Matt Pavlovich, a foreign defendant in the California DVD case. You may recall that Pavlovich had moved the trial court to dismiss him from the main DVD action due to lack of jurisdiction. When the trial court denied his motion, Pavlovich filed a petition for Writ of Mandate with the Court of Appeals - that court summarily denied his petition. Pavlovich then turned to the Supreme Court for relief by way of a Petition for Review. In a rare move, all seven justices of the Supreme Court unanimously granted review and sent the matter back to the Court of Appeals with instructions that they re-consider the case. Following additional filings and oral arguments, today the Court of Appeals issued a published, written opinion again denying Pavlovich's petition. The Court's order will be available on our web site at www.legal.wao.com shortly, and is also accessible through the Court of Appeal's site.

Today's opinion dramatically increases the jurisdictional reach of California's court system, creating nearly limitless jurisdiction over internet disputes involving the motion picture industry, the technology industry, and any other industry reputed to exist in California. Because the exercise of jurisdiction is fundamentally a question of state power, we contend that this type of hyper-extension of California's long-arm statute violates the Constitutional safeguards found within the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Because the decision affects the Constitutional Rights of U.S. Citizens everywhere, we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will again grant review of the Appellate Court's decision.

The underlying California Case:

Pavlovich, along with Andrew Bunner and some 500 other individual defendants, have been targeted by the Motion Picture Industry trade group DVD CCA in the California case. DVD CCA alleges that the defendants, who allegedly found the DeCSS information on the World Wide Web and then republished it, may not continue to publish the information based on California's Uniform Trade Secret's Act. Bunner claims that, like any other innocent republisher of information, he has a constitutionally protected right to publish this particular information and is not liable under the UTSA. Bunner, along with Amicus briefs from the prestigious IEEE and ACIS groups, also argues that the information he republished was properly and permissibly reverse-engineered and as such cannot be enjoined under the UTSA. In his papers, Bunner explains that Reverse-Engineering, along with the publication of technical discoveries, has long been a mainstay of innovation and evolution in the field of high-technology. Enjoining the publication of technical information, and stopping permissible reverse-engineering, would necessarily empower entities to use technologies like CSS to manipulate markets and bar consumer protections.

NEW YORK CASE:

The New York case continues through the appellate process. Appellants presented oral arguments before the appeals court and have recently responded to a number of written questions posed by the court. Additional resources are available at www.eff.org.

Resources:

HS Law Group's web site with information about the DeCSS cases:www.legal.wao.com

http://www.cryptome.org- tends to get the most recent filings fairly quickly

EFF Archive for DVD-CCA Cal. trade secret case: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/

EFF's DVD Archive: http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/DVD/

Allonn E. Levy, Esq.

HS LAW GROUP a.p.c.
210 N. Fourth St. Fourth Fl.
San Jose, CA 95112