Slashdot Mirror

Obviously something went wrong with the way I posted it. I think I know what went wrong (I used spaces instead of %20). Let me try again. If that doesn't work, I copied the link from another response to your post (actually a response to a response). ntk responded to the first response to your post so you can find the link there.

As another respondant mentioned, the subpoena asks for a lot more than Google's affirmation that the blogger is/isn't the former mayor. It specifically requests the blogger's:

1. Account holder name
2. mailing address
3. email address
4. telephone number
5. URL
6. IP address
7. browser type and language
8. and any and all account information including account settings and profile information.
9. Copies of weblog posts and comments, including drafts
10. Any and all email received by Google from the account holder
11. Any and all emails sent on Google's server by the account holder
12. ...
13. and any other information associated with this account

we have already won on FAXs and on Caller-ID. Next will be eMails and executable codes. NO SIGNATURE? NO EXECUTE.

• Digital rights management
• Prevent users from being able to to modify software
• Remove control over or access to data from users
• Strip away anonymity
• Leave backdoors into computer systems
• Remote 'bricking' of computer
• Forced upgrade/downgrade of system

You can check out the original subpoena here, to see what information they are attempting to find out from Google. It's not a single bit.

More information here:
http://www.eff.org/cases/manalapan-v-moskovitz

You can check out the original subpoena here, to see what information they are attempting to find out from Google. It's not a single bit.

More information here:
http://www.eff.org/cases/manalapan-v-moskovitz

You can make a start by supporting the EFF.

Hi toadlife,

we are aware of Richard Bennett's theories about why Comcast is doing this. As we said in our report, it's true that there are lots of problems with the DOCSIS cable modem protocol, and they certainly make congestion from P2P traffic worse for Comcast.

Bennett has some interesting theories, but none of them convinced us that Comcast's RST forgery would prevent congestion problems where dynamic traffic shaping couldn't. It's more likely that Comcast just bought this product from Sandvine without having examined its necessity carefully from an engineering perspective. The blocking of Lotus Notes, Windows Remote Desktop, and the strange impact on the Gnutella network all point in this direction.

Are you serious? How the hell did you get +3 Insightful for that mighty steaming pile of shit!?

I would like to know if the EFF is lobbying any political groups (especially since it would be a despicable waste of donation money, although I doubt they could afford it since they run on donations) but the EFF is basically just pro-privacy, pro-fair-use and anti-censorship:

http://www.eff.org/work

Do you think privacy, fair use and free speech are "leftist political goals?"

Anyone who is anti-privacy and/or pro-censorship is the EFF's rival, for no reason other than that.

I'm not sure if Freenet has any copyrighted works on it being distributed illegally, but the RIAA, MPAA, and MAFIAA can basically sue you on the sole premise that the files are available on your computer, meaning your IP address, which would be most easily accessible by the tracker. I would suggest the Electronic Frontier Foundation's guide http://www.eff.org/wp/how-not-get-sued-file-sharing/. Although a better method, perhaps, is to become politically immune by moving to Canada or Europe, but don't take that as legal advice, I'm not sure if that actually works. Probably better to consider the legal consequences now, and not later, considering the cost increases six thousand fold.

It does not matter if the communication is encrypted and broken down into packets if all that is needed is to intercept the complete communication at one (or both) ends. Under Windows, this can probably be accomplished trivially, since most apps run with administrator privileges under most Windows machines. And, running as a Windows administrator, Skype will alter your firewall configuration. Ooops.

What's more, most Internet packets these days pass through one of the MAE. And guess what? Most telecom companies who run the MAEs have agreed to cooperate with the NSA, including to the point they have built special facilities to allow NSA specialists to install eavesdropping equipment right there.

Finally, if you can intercept let's say 70% of a Skype communication, you probably have enough to determine if Alice and Bob should be put under further surveillance... Or maybe to disrupt their "nefarious" plans.

I would have thought the EFF ("Defending Freedom in the Digital Age") would be the more appropriate NGO to address this issue. I thought the FSF was just an organization promoting the GPL?

--Rob

We already have.

but doesn't necessarily help with the prevention of bad laws in the first place

The EFF also engages in lobbying, as do the professional lobbying firms hired by the MAFIAA and other corporations, only this time the lobbying is being done on behalf of the people. In fact, I have contributed several hundred dollars to them over the years to support just these types of activities. It is an unfortunate truth in American society that if you want good laws (or a better defense against bad ones) then you have to engage in lobbying and counter lobbying. It is not an option to merely stand on the sidelines (as even Microsoft found out with the antitrust cases), you have to actively protect your interests against those who are trying to take away your rights and subjugate you to their interests. If your lawmakers are only hearing the story from one side (i.e. the MAFIAA and other corporations) then don't be surprised when you lose the battle by default (i.e. forfeit).

The EFF regularly sends out alerts and bulletins concerning pending legislation with opportunities to contact your representatives and make your views known. If you want to get involved then check out the EFF: Effector Newsletter and stay informed.

Sounds like a good time to make sure you've donated what you can to the EFF. The big fear, obviously, is that the RIAA will get to define what constitutes infringement, and suddenly you can't rip CD's to your MP3 player anymore.

The entire opinion can be found at http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/warshak_v_usa/6th_circuit_decision_upholding_injunction.pdf

Perhaps you and the GP should read TFA and become aware of some of the issues here.
Oh, and for the "it's the Register, pooh pooh" crowd, the original FA was frist psoted on Security Focus.

Hey Pirate Bay folks, here's my list of feature requests for the new version of your open source torrent protocol:

ONION ROUTING:
1) Implement Onion routing (aka: Tor / anonymize the sources) as a built in feature.
2) Onion Routing should, where possible, try to use exit points and middle points that have roughly the same amount of bandwidth as you, otherwise torrenting will not become a reality through Onion Routing. So some kind of peer bandwidth algorythm needs to be incorporated.
3) Onion routing should be on by default, and each user should also become an exit point and donate 30% of their bandwidth to this. This will greatly increase the number of exit routers & provide this as a defacto alternative, as opposed to just some obscure security feature for the 31337 (hackers & government homeland types).
4) Individual site upload ratios, should take into consideration that fact that you are an exit point and some portion of that 30% should be counted toward your uploaded bytes ratio (even if traffic is going to other sites)... in other words, help promote torrent security = get bonus points from private trackers.

SIMPLIFY ISP SHAPING BYPASS
Background: Forcing protocol encryption isn't enough these days; some ISPs are shaping or even blocking torrent traffic by methods such as sending TCP RST packets to close a session, or their infrastructure auto-analyzes your encrypted traffic patters and if they are high bandwidth, very encrypted and on for long amounts of time to the same destination you get flagged & shapped (regardless of the fact that you could indeed be doing something legal)

1) There's a page on Wikipedia that lists all the "BAD ISPs" (http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad_ISPs). This is a list of ISPs internationally that in one way or another shape your bitorrent traffic (Comcast anyone?). We need to be one step ahead of these ISPs and render their multi-million dollars worth of shaping infrastructure useless - sooner rather than later - sooner so that they can't make up for the ROI on all that gear they purchased. If the ROI fails, the next time engineering dept approach CEO for X dozens of millions more, they will get declined and we (torrent community) will win.

2) This site breaks down "throttling" into 5 different categories or ways in which the ISP can throttle you... each listing the bypass method.
http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Avoid_traffic_shaping#Escalation_of_the_crypto_settings
Note that level 5 (the most aggressive shaping method known so far) is only bypassable by a single client today (Azeurus), utorrent to my understanding can not bypass this.

Anyway my point with these above 2 items is that these facts need to be considered:
1. The number of ISPs throttling internationally is already large and growing larger
2. Your new torrent client needs to simplify bypassing these various levels of encryption so that it can be adopted by the masses. If it is not adopted by the masses (rendering ISP throttling useless), the ISPs will have won.

I don't have time to type more, so please research what other clients out there (beyond just torrent) are doing and borrow ideas from them.
Here's a brief list of intelligent encryption/anonymous software out there to investigate:
RODI: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/01/1252232
MUTE: http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/
ANTS: http://antsp2p.sourceforge.net/
GNUnet: http://gnunet.org/
I2P: http://www.i2p.net/
FreeNet: http://freenetproject.org/
TOR: http://tor.eff.org/

THanks and good luck!

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an international non-profit advocacy and legal organization based in the United States with the stated purpose of being dedicated to preserving free speech rights such as those protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in the context of today's digital age.

They protect your freedom!

Join EFF today: https://secure.eff.org/

Citations please. http://www.eff.org/victories seems to disprove your words. Here's EFF's entire case history: http://www.eff.org/cases. Maybe that'll help.

Citations please. http://www.eff.org/victories seems to disprove your words. Here's EFF's entire case history: http://www.eff.org/cases. Maybe that'll help.

the original lawsuit was filed back in june, and the amended complaint filed in august. WHY is this on Slashdot's front page?

Zonk is like the employee that spends half his day with his feet on his desk, and the other half doing the bare minimum amount of work required to keep his job. Has he never heard of Google? A quick search would have revealed that.

http://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal

EFF Victories

With their pretty long list of cases listed here perhaps you could go through and point out out the hundreds listed, which ones they lost. If they have a track record of losing, I'm sure it won't take long to point out a few dozen cases the lost out of the hundred+ listed. I'd love to be more informed, but I suspect you probably have a couple headlines stuck in your head and are overgeneralizing.

EFF Victories

With their pretty long list of cases listed here perhaps you could go through and point out out the hundreds listed, which ones they lost. If they have a track record of losing, I'm sure it won't take long to point out a few dozen cases the lost out of the hundred+ listed. I'd love to be more informed, but I suspect you probably have a couple headlines stuck in your head and are overgeneralizing.

Bills are apparently numbered for each session of Congress.

The 109th Congress's HR1201 AKA "Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005," a bill to alter the Federal Trade Commission Act to punish companies that mislabel copy-protected CDs, got stuck in committee.

The 110th Congress's HR1201 AKA "Freedom And Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of 2007," a bill to alter Copyright Law to add fair use exemptions, is new.

Adding to the confusion, both were proposed by Rick Boucher.

http://www.eff.org/issues/printers

No, no, Comcast kept sending fake messages to the pirates to say their packets had never arrived, so the pirates would think their packets had never arrived and be afraid to take on the Ninjas without their cutlasses and cannons. For more details, check out old Slashdot articles or some notes from the EFF at http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/eff-tests-agree-ap-comcast-forging-packets-to-interfere.

Wrong Wrong Wrong. How can you be so wrong and yet get modded insightful (who says Geeks can't be Conservative stooges)? You've mashed different FISA issues together to make it sound like there were no FISA problems. I believe thats called a strawman, but you beat the crap out of him, congrats. No way you work at a telecom, no siree.

As noted below parts of FISA have been ruled unconstitutional. SO YES it is illegal. Your strawman argument is crap. A court ruled it was illegal to intercept communications where both parties were outside the US, that was the reasoning behind updating FISA. The Democrats were on board with that part, but the repubs put all kinds of extras in there (like the immunity) which is not exactly an earth shattering development (evil people do evil things). Yes some Dems love big business and don't mind the idea of legalizing anything that helps profits, but thats not a case to dismiss all the problems with FISA or the administrations handling of this issue. Then theres all the scare tactics the Repubs used to ram the vote down congresses throat. Everything around FISA has been yet another Repub. clusterf#!k.

If you want a detailed, thoughtfull analysis from, i dont know, a constitutional lawyer, I suggest you check out Glen Greenwald's blog at Salon. He's far more knowledgable than I.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald

might also check out the eff. who are involved in this case
while you're there, give 'em some money, because there are too few people fighting the good fight and far too many like the parent spreading misinformation.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/09/parts-fisa-held-unconstitutional
http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html

Wrong Wrong Wrong. How can you be so wrong and yet get modded insightful (who says Geeks can't be Conservative stooges)? You've mashed different FISA issues together to make it sound like there were no FISA problems. I believe thats called a strawman, but you beat the crap out of him, congrats. No way you work at a telecom, no siree.

As noted below parts of FISA have been ruled unconstitutional. SO YES it is illegal. Your strawman argument is crap. A court ruled it was illegal to intercept communications where both parties were outside the US, that was the reasoning behind updating FISA. The Democrats were on board with that part, but the repubs put all kinds of extras in there (like the immunity) which is not exactly an earth shattering development (evil people do evil things). Yes some Dems love big business and don't mind the idea of legalizing anything that helps profits, but thats not a case to dismiss all the problems with FISA or the administrations handling of this issue. Then theres all the scare tactics the Repubs used to ram the vote down congresses throat. Everything around FISA has been yet another Repub. clusterf#!k.

If you want a detailed, thoughtfull analysis from, i dont know, a constitutional lawyer, I suggest you check out Glen Greenwald's blog at Salon. He's far more knowledgable than I.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald

might also check out the eff. who are involved in this case
while you're there, give 'em some money, because there are too few people fighting the good fight and far too many like the parent spreading misinformation.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/09/parts-fisa-held-unconstitutional
http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html

Sorry, but Clinton is not blameless here. We wouldn't be in this mess if Clinton (and Janet Reno) hadn't pushed so hard to pass the infamous "CALEA" legislation. CALEA is what put in place the technological infrastructure to allow easy wiretapping (even paying telecommunication companies hundreds of millions to install it). As predicted by EFF and other groups, it would only be a matter of time before this new capability would be abused. See http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/.

The US is very different, in theory every book is free, just that libraries that stock the wrong ones get no funding.

• habeas corpus
• torture
• Fourth amendment
• free speech in peaceable assemblies
• freedom of the press
• widespread corruption

Then she can file bankruptcy - all of that is protected.

"Debts arising from copyright infringement judgments are generally dischargeable
in personal bankruptcy proceedings unless the creditor (i.e., the copyright owner) can
prove that the judgment constitutes a debt for a "willful and malicious injury" within the
meaning of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6). Moreover, because the legal standards for "willful and
malicious injury" differ from those governing "willful infringement" under the Copyright
Act, even a willful infringement judgment may be dischargeable in bankruptcy"

See : http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAA_v_ThePeople/P2P_bktcy_memo.pdf for the complete argument.

Link

Jury Instruction #15: The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners' exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.

For policy level (i.e., political) activities, check out the EFF or the FSF. These are likely to be tax deductible.

For actual cases, you'll need to send a check to the lawyer. See Ray's blog for many of the cases and other related information. The Lindor case is relatively important, and there's a link there for paypal donations. These are likely not tax deductible, but probably have more impact.

Regards,
Art

http://tor.eff.org/

I am by law entitled to make one (1) backup copy of a DVD or a CD.

Which law? The US copyright office says you're only allowed to make back up copies of computer programs.

At least the DVD one is impossible legally in the US, but allowed by Copyright.

As I said, CDs and DVDs are physical objects which you may use in any way that is not prohibited by law. Circumventing CSS is prohibited by law (the DMCA).

What about medium shifting? I thought that was legal too.

Depends on who you ask. If you ask the EFF, yes. If you ask the RIAA (as in the present article), no. Ultimately it will be decided by a judge.

How about listening to the same Red Hot Chili Peppers CD in my living room while my wife is in the room?

You are not making any copies, distributing any copies, or performing it publicly so you're not infringing on any of the copyright owners exclusive rights. You're not circumventing any copyright protection so it's not against the DMCA. Your living room is not a public place, so you're not violating anyones performance rights.

AT&T sucks

The ACLU won the first round of this legal challenge in August 2006, when U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the NSA program violates the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in her ACLU v. NSA decision. "It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control," Taylor wrote in the decision, "particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html

"AT&T has been named a defendant in a class action lawsuit that claims the telecommunications company illegally cooperated with the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping program.

A Los Angeles Times article dated Dec. 26 quoted an unnamed source as saying the NSA has a "direct hookup" into an AT&T database that stores information about all domestic phone calls, including how long they lasted.

http://news.com.com/AT38T+sued+over+NSA+spy+program/2100-1028_3-6033501.html

"Have you turned over information or opened up your networks to the NSA without being compelled by law?"

Company Response
Adelphia Communications Declined comment
AOL Time Warner No [1]
AT&T Declined comment
BellSouth Communications No
Cable & Wireless* No response
Cablevision Systems No
CenturyTel No
Charter Communications No [1]
Cingular Wireless No [2]
Citizens Communications No response
Cogent Communications* No [1]
Comcast No
Cox Communications No
EarthLink No
Global Crossing* Inconclusive
Google Declined comment
Level 3* No response
Microsoft No [3]
NTT Communications* Inconclusive [4]
Qwest Communications No [2]
SAVVIS Communications* No response
Sprint Nextel No [2]
T-Mobile USA No [2]
United Online No response
Verizon Communications Inconclusive [5]
XO Communications* No [1]
Yahoo Declined comment

* = Not a company contacted by Rep. John Conyers.
[1] The answer did not explicitly address NSA but said that compliance happens only if required by law.
[2] Provided by a source with knowledge of what this company is telling Conyers. In the case of Sprint Nextel, the source was familiar with Nextel's operations.
[3] As part of an answer to a closely related question for a different survey.
[4] The response was "NTT Communications respects the privacy rights of our customers and complies fully with law enforcement requests as permitted and required by law."
[5] The response was "Verizon complies with applicable laws and does not comment on law enforcement or national security matters."

http://news.com.com/Some+companies+helped+the+NSA%2C+but+which/2100-1028_3-6035305.html

Additional info from the EFF

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/faq.php

Check out Lexmark v. Static Control, http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Lexmark_v_Static_Control/20030108_lexmark_v_static_control_components.pdf for an example of someone permanently losing their copyright for copyright abuse. As for the language being "unambiguous", that's for the court to decide.

The Democrats are rushing this through because they were shocked by the reaction to their passing the Protect America Act last session -- everyone slammed them for giving new surveillance powers to the White House, and so they're scrabbling to fix matters with a new bill.

But they're making the same mistake again. They think no-one cares about immunity. They think it's just a business-as-usual deal.

Please call Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and let them know that you're angry at the idea of giving retroactive immunity to the telcos, and by extension, participating in a cover-up of the warrantless wiretapping project. It's not that they're wedded to this idea, it's that they don't think their base or independents care about telco immunity.

Call Rep. Nancy Pelosi -- 202-225-4965
Call Sen. Harry Reid -- 202-224-3542

If you want more facts and arguments, EFF has them here.

A couple more notes, for those who like the grubby details. The telcos are pushing for complete retroactive immunity, or alternatively "substitition", by which the government takes the place of the telcos as the defendant in the case. The government has a lot more power to evade the cases by dint of its own in-built immunity to some kinds of prosecution and thus end the cases. A few other groups are suggesting financial caps of penalties, so that the cases could go forward, but if the courts found the telcos guilty, they wouldn't suffer the "crushing liability" they say the cases would cause. (Note that the only way the telcos would *actually* be fined a large amount of money by our case would be if they were guilty of blanket, system-wide surveillance of all their subscribers.)

Thanks.

It's an unfortunate situation where you still have to pay out when you are completely in the right.

So true. I heard the other day where someone on welfare and her 6 year old kid accumilated something like $20k in lawyer costs from an RIAA suit. Some info here. http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/6873.cfm here http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005294.php

I think she is like computer illeterate and whatnot, and the RIAA admitted that "oops, we meant to go after this person, or bad, sorry" and she has accumilated like 10s of thousands of debt to fight this.

Other countries have a better system where if the initiator of a lawsuit was completely wrong, then they have to pay or something like that. I think that is a better system. Because otherwise its advantagous for a lawyer just to blindly sue whenever they feel like it, and they get paid win or lose.

That page was written in 2002. Here is a link to the updated report:

http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

Here is the link.

My serious and optimistic view: Soon we will see computing interoperability and software development flourish and we will look back upon the MS dominant time where they were holding free software innovation and interoperability back as an annoying historic paranthesis.

The next important step in the world of computing now is to Stop software patents! To achieve the similar stimulance to software development as when the movie industry moved to California to avoid the film patents that were holding the film industry back on the east coast.

Support FFII and EFF

I guess noone is seriously interested in OOXML any more, but I collected some arguments about our company's opinions about OOXML recently.

If you are interested in reading people's blogs, here is mine about SCO finally dead! MS next?

Consumers' rights are based on the general idea of "fair use," which isn't a right defined in law. Instead, it's a general defense against claims of copyright infringement. If the recording industry were to sue an individual for copying music from their CDs onto their iPod, they would likely lose because the idea of fair use generally determines that consumers can use their own music in reasonable ways.

Unfortunately, fair use has not been upheld in clear court precedents or in law to the point where it can really be called a right. This leaves things enshrouded in a grey fog where consumers assume that anything they can do with "their music" is fine, while the music industry seeks to find new ways to sell its products.

Let's dissect those two paragraphs. A simple Google search yields the following reference as its first result: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Let me quote the salient points from the U.S. Copyright Office's website:

One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair[...]

So, what have we learned about TFA?

1. The author of TFA claims that fair use is not actually defined in law. This is contradicted by Section 107 of Title 17, U.S. Code. Section 107 even helpfully enumerates examples of fair use.
2. The author of TFA claims that there have been no clear court precedents upholding fair use. In fact, there have been many, too numerous to list here, but I'll simply mention the landmark case of the RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia which established that the RIO, and all subsequent MP3 players, are non-infringing devices used for space shifting. It is because of this legal precedent that we have a market segment for MP3 players at all.
3. The author of TFA totally misses one of the oldest and best-known prior legal precedents establishing the right to time-shift and space-shift, the infamous Betamax case, Sony vs. Universal City Studios
4. The author apparently doesn't know how to do basic fact checking using a resource like Google.

The article was great right up until the section on fair use, and I couldn't really stomach reading the rest of the article because the author clearly didn't bother checking any facts. Whether that's due to laziness or some twisted personal interpretation of U.S. copyright law, I couldn't say. I thought maybe this article was written from a European/British perspective (since fair use is not an established right in the U.K., for example), but no, he's using American spellings and seems to be writing from an American (albeit ignorant) POV. Sad, really.

The info about the dispute between Apple and NBC is interesting, as it explains Apple's comments about needing to charge almos

Here's the rub, much of the original content was issues under CC NC-SA but the site is now licensed GFDL 1.2, which specifically allows commercial usage, but the content is specifically disallowing commercial usage. Changing the license was really bad form, but assuming that any new content added by a contributer under the GFDL would change their previous CC NC-SA licensed property was naive and using the content commercially probably illegal.
  The definiton of commercial is pretty vague at times, probably to keep lawyers in bussiness, but now site seems to be driven primarily by a profit motive, unlike the orgininal where the revenues were intended to offset expenses, so the first site was in a gray area, but the second is probably over the line. The poster should talk to a lawyer, maybe the EFF or legal aid would be interested.

I was curious about how Windows handles resales, so I looked up the XP EULA:

13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user retains no copies of the Software. This transfer must include all of the Software (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA, and, if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity). The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the Software must agree to all the EULA terms.

Looks to me like you have to right to move Windows XP. I haven't read the Vista License; perhaps it's more restrictive?

On another note, I'm curious about the legal argument for using the DMCA against eBay. Is Autodesk claiming that, by allowing their software to be resold, eBay becomes a "contributory infringer?" Clearly the copyrighted work itself was not available from eBay, unlike a video uploaded to YouTube. It sounds like this argument attempts to extend the Grokster decision. I would think eBay's passivity with respect to the potential infringement would exempt them from any copyright liabilities. Regardless of how the First-Sale/EULA issues are resolved, the application of the DMCA to this case seems rather implausible to this NAL.

Almost no one ever files a counter notice. That's the biggest problem we've encountered [with DMCA claims on sites like YouTube]. Most people have no idea that right exists.