Slashdot Mirror

To most of us who work in IT, yes, that seems reasonable and logical. To the 12 men and/or women sitting on a jury, it might not be quite so obvious. Just ask Randall Schwartz(http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Intel_v_Schwartz/)about that.

This attack is not using our network or our software, only abusing our reputation. We sent this release to slashdot and others, days ago:

====
The Tor Project, a US non-profit organisation producing Internet
privacy software, is issuing an urgent warning about a spam email
being circulated as a fake promotion for their software.

The real Tor software provides privacy on the Internet to journalists,
bloggers and human rights activists all over the world. The spam email
promotes the virtues of the software, but then directs people to a
series of fake websites that contain malicious code that will attempt
to take over visiting machines, and the downloaded software is fake
and equally dangerous to run.

The real website is hosted at http://tor.eff.org/ and the Tor
software can be downloaded from there. Users are able to check that
they have received the official version by following the instructions
at: http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/Ver ifyingSignatures

Shava Nerad, Development Director for the Tor Project said, "I am
disgusted that criminals who want to recruit more machines for their
illegal activities should trade on our reputation for providing
privacy on the Internet. Fortunately we already have systems in place
so that people can verify that they are downloading the official
software. But this is a distraction from our work that we could do
without."
====

This stuff makes us sad. But you won't even get a trojanned client, just a trojan. And the page you click through to will try to exploit holes in your browser security, so don't even click through.

Yrs,
Shava Nerad
Development Director
The Tor Project

We sent this notice to slashdot days ago as a story, but it wasn't apparently interesting enough to post then...

====
The Tor Project, a US non-profit organisation producing Internet
privacy software, is issuing an urgent warning about a spam email
being circulated as a fake promotion for their software.

The real Tor software provides privacy on the Internet to journalists,
bloggers and human rights activists all over the world. The spam email
promotes the virtues of the software, but then directs people to a
series of fake websites that contain malicious code that will attempt
to take over visiting machines, and the downloaded software is fake
and equally dangerous to run.

The real website is hosted at http://tor.eff.org/ and the Tor
software can be downloaded from there. Users are able to check that
they have received the official version by following the instructions
at: http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/Ver ifyingSignatures

Shava Nerad, Development Director for the Tor Project said, "I am
disgusted that criminals who want to recruit more machines for their
illegal activities should trade on our reputation for providing
privacy on the Internet. Fortunately we already have systems in place
so that people can verify that they are downloading the official
software. But this is a distraction from our work that we could do
without."
====

This attack does not, as reported elsewhere, download a trojaned version of Tor *or* use our network. All it (ab)uses is our reputation.

Shava Nerad
Development Director, The Tor Project

The Storm worm isn't using Tor.

The spam email in question tells the reader that, if they are running torrents, they should use this Tor thing to cover their tracks. The link points to the trojan. The file in question is about 150K in size, or about 20x smaller than the Windows version of Tor (2-3 MB) on the actual site.

I posted a warning about this very email on a well-known anime site since I suspected some people there might download it in response to the e-mail.

There's also a version that poses as a YouTube video.

Most of these emails have URLs that use IP addresses, not domain names. Between my SpamAssassin rules and Mozilla Thunderbird's built-in anti-malware protections, messages like these are either quarantined or tagged as dangerous. I've not seen an legitimate email from any correspondent that uses URLs with IP addresses in the host part.

I opened the YouTube version in a Windows VM that had Kaspersky installed. It identified an attempted replacement of tcpip.sys and told me it should be quarantined. Unfortunately a ClamAV scan of the file did not detect anything suspicious.

The source article and the current debate being waged by the MPAA are just smoke and mirrors to distract us from the real issue: freedom of personal use.

As Moraelin is saying, copyright law should only apply when I reproduce someone else's work for gain. It should not apply at all when a legally purchased work is used for personal use, even if that personal use differs from what the original manufacturer/distributer thinks it should be. The only reason it does apply now is the ill advised piece of legislation called the DMCA, and even the DMCA doesn't technically limit our personal use, just our ability to remove the copy protection schemes.

The elephant in the room here is that copy protection schemes on CDs, DVDs and software are having little to no impact on piracy, but are limiting the freedom of personal use of law abiding consumers. Why, as a consumer, should I have to re-buy the same music/movies/software in order to use them in different ways, as long as I'm using them for personal use in each case? I'm willing to bet that Apple already has an update lined up for iTunes that would allow ripping of Movies, but they're sitting on it until copyright law changes before they release it to consumers to avoid getting sued for circumventing the already cracked CSS encryption.

See the EFF for a better resource on the DMCA: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA

Another good resource: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
Notice how copyright holders only retain the exclusive right to public performances.

After providing crappy playing matching service for battle.net they sued people for providing an alternate server (bnetd) using the DMCA. While this should have been ruled as bogus, they managed to convince a judge that people running an alternate player matching servers must be a bunch of pirates. See: http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/

the ludicrous idea of an overarching broadband fee

How exactly is that ludicrous? If you paid a 15-20% surcharge on your ISP fee to download anything and everything anytime and the money went to artists on a straight popularity basis (easily monitored at the network level), all kinds of good things would happen.

The devil is in the details. A good system would render record labels and TV networks obsolete so they would fight it. But it's a great solution.

The EFF has suggested something similar, a $5/month Voluntary Collective Licensing Fee. Making it voluntary is fantasy (and I say that as one of a handful of people who actually gave money to FairTunes each time I made an MP3 for friends). Making it a percentage of broadband cost (so someone on DSL pays less than broadband, and dial-up less still) is fairer than the subscription model Rick Rubin proposes in the NYTimes article, and making it compulsory makes DRM irrelevant.

This is like the Lexmark case were they tried to use copyright law to prevent people from making cheap ink cartridges. The result was that the court ruled that Lexmark was engaged in copyright abuse and Lexmark lost all copyright protection on the code in question.

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Lexmark_v_Static_Co ntrol/20030108_lexmark_v_static_control_components .pdf

Not true, AFAIK. First is copyright infringement, second one would be breach of contract.

And without the contract, you're infringing copyrights by distributing the material.

By the way, I never got an EULA with any CD/DVD I own.

Here's the EFF's take: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004145.php
Notice that none of the various legal uses of the CD include DISTRIBUTING the content. That's why it's called a "COPY - RIGHT". (copyright) Licenses give you rights to material you otherwise do not own or have rights to.

By the way, bootleg automatically implies breaking the law ("illicitly sold")

According to Dictionary.com, something, as a recording, made, reproduced, or sold illegally or without authorization (emphasis mine)

Fair Use still applies if I download an MP3 of a song I already have in a CD I bought, right?

Good question. But if the answer is yes, then you wouldn't be "bootlegging" it, thus the point is made either way.

"It's about the RIAA's "campaign of terror" against randomly selected innocent persons; an effort that they call their "nationwide anti-piracy efforts"."

Well you failed your first test. Innocence is ultimately put to the test in a court of law. Presumptions of innocence or guilty don't change that role of the government.

"RIAA has no factual proof of any of their recordings actually changing hands between two people. All they have are "fabricated" screen shots (they've edited them to remove their own IP addresses) of lists of files with unknown content that are allegedly associated with a particular IP address. Then they jump to the flawed conclusions that the files are their copyrighted works, that an IP address is the same as the owner of the allegedly associated account, and that just having the files available is an instance of infringement."

You've rolled a couple things together. First removing one's own IP isn't fabricated.

I'd like to see the proof of the "unknown" aspect.

As for the "association between IP and owner". While there can be disconnects between the two by someone determined to do so. The majority of those who engage in illegal copyright violations don't make the effort to do so.

And last, while having copyrighted files in your possession isn't a violation. SHARING them with the rest of the planet contrary to copyright is illegal.

"None of this is supported by law or precedent (or even fair justice)."

A court of law would look upon each claim separately. Any fault in each claim can break the entire chain.

"In fact, none of their cases from this campaign have even made it to jury trial. "

Why would a jury trial necessarily be in the best interest of the court system? (note: court system, not plaintiffs or defendants).

"What has been established in law and precedent is that by using intellectual property (IP) rights to influence others' behavior beyond the scope of those rights (analogy of monopolistic abuse in antitrust cases) is a misuse of those IP rights."

Ummm. The "scope" ,of laws is to influence behavior. Redress is the other. To defend one's copyright is well within the scope of the law.

"It follows that by using their copyrights as a basis for waging this "campaign of terror" against innocent persons, the RIAA is misusing those copyrights."

Well aside from the loaded rhetoric the courts are the third line of defense from any kind of abuse. (Civic duty, and government are the other two)

"The just remedy for such behavior is to revoke the copyrights. "

No just is leaving the slashcourt out of this whole discussion and let the courts do their job.

"Even if you support the RIAA's efforts, those efforts are having the opposite effect (see EFF report http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa_at_four.pdf/ - warning: PDF). The report even offers a suggestion on how the RIAA can change their business model so that all sides win. So why does the RIAA persist in it's "campaign of terror" if it is not working? Why do they stick with the same flawed, antiquated business model? In my opinion, they are just like "dinosaurs headed for extinction". "

And another slashmeme appears. There's no "antiquated, nor flawed" business model. There is either success or failure, and reality shows that while some numbers may be down, that's not indicative of any model on it's way out.

"So what can we all do? I'd suggest: write to your elected officials to complain about RIAA and their member companies' behavior; contribute to the EFF; if you know anyone targeted by RIAA, support their legal defense; and to the extent possible, boycott the RIAA and their member companies until they change their ways. "

While I agree, that's not what people are doing. They're using illegal means. Whether is for the purposes of change or simple to satisfy their materialistic urges doesn't matter.

I'm surprised to see it appears that no one has mentioned the EFF. They regularly deal with issues such as these.

I'm not sure which way they'd lean on this, but they'd certainly know the answer, and may help out with legal action if there's any to be taken.

I think some of you are missing the point. The "misuse of copyright" defense is not about penalizing the RIAA and their member companies (I'll just collectively refer to them as RIAA) for being greedy bastards (although that would be nice), or about antitrust activities (although that could be argued as well). It's about the RIAA's "campaign of terror" against randomly selected innocent persons; an effort that they call their "nationwide anti-piracy efforts". The EFF has described RIAA's strategy in it's amicus brief (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Capitol_v_Foster/a micus_in_support_of_fees.pdf/ - warning: PDF). RIAA has no factual proof of any of their recordings actually changing hands between two people. All they have are "fabricated" screen shots (they've edited them to remove their own IP addresses) of lists of files with unknown content that are allegedly associated with a particular IP address. Then they jump to the flawed conclusions that the files are their copyrighted works, that an IP address is the same as the owner of the allegedly associated account, and that just having the files available is an instance of infringement. None of this is supported by law or precedent (or even fair justice). In fact, none of their cases from this campaign have even made it to jury trial. What has been established in law and precedent is that by using intellectual property (IP) rights to influence others' behavior beyond the scope of those rights (analogy of monopolistic abuse in antitrust cases) is a misuse of those IP rights. It follows that by using their copyrights as a basis for waging this "campaign of terror" against innocent persons, the RIAA is misusing those copyrights. The just remedy for such behavior is to revoke the copyrights.

Even if you support the RIAA's efforts, those efforts are having the opposite effect (see EFF report http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa_at_four.pdf/ - warning: PDF). The report even offers a suggestion on how the RIAA can change their business model so that all sides win. So why does the RIAA persist in it's "campaign of terror" if it is not working? Why do they stick with the same flawed, antiquated business model? In my opinion, they are just like "dinosaurs headed for extinction".

So what can we all do? I'd suggest: write to your elected officials to complain about RIAA and their member companies' behavior; contribute to the EFF; if you know anyone targeted by RIAA, support their legal defense; and to the extent possible, boycott the RIAA and their member companies until they change their ways.

Regards,
Art (IANAL)

I think some of you are missing the point. The "misuse of copyright" defense is not about penalizing the RIAA and their member companies (I'll just collectively refer to them as RIAA) for being greedy bastards (although that would be nice), or about antitrust activities (although that could be argued as well). It's about the RIAA's "campaign of terror" against randomly selected innocent persons; an effort that they call their "nationwide anti-piracy efforts". The EFF has described RIAA's strategy in it's amicus brief (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Capitol_v_Foster/a micus_in_support_of_fees.pdf/ - warning: PDF). RIAA has no factual proof of any of their recordings actually changing hands between two people. All they have are "fabricated" screen shots (they've edited them to remove their own IP addresses) of lists of files with unknown content that are allegedly associated with a particular IP address. Then they jump to the flawed conclusions that the files are their copyrighted works, that an IP address is the same as the owner of the allegedly associated account, and that just having the files available is an instance of infringement. None of this is supported by law or precedent (or even fair justice). In fact, none of their cases from this campaign have even made it to jury trial. What has been established in law and precedent is that by using intellectual property (IP) rights to influence others' behavior beyond the scope of those rights (analogy of monopolistic abuse in antitrust cases) is a misuse of those IP rights. It follows that by using their copyrights as a basis for waging this "campaign of terror" against innocent persons, the RIAA is misusing those copyrights. The just remedy for such behavior is to revoke the copyrights.

Even if you support the RIAA's efforts, those efforts are having the opposite effect (see EFF report http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa_at_four.pdf/ - warning: PDF). The report even offers a suggestion on how the RIAA can change their business model so that all sides win. So why does the RIAA persist in it's "campaign of terror" if it is not working? Why do they stick with the same flawed, antiquated business model? In my opinion, they are just like "dinosaurs headed for extinction".

So what can we all do? I'd suggest: write to your elected officials to complain about RIAA and their member companies' behavior; contribute to the EFF; if you know anyone targeted by RIAA, support their legal defense; and to the extent possible, boycott the RIAA and their member companies until they change their ways.

Regards,
Art (IANAL)

I may be misunderstanding you, but I think you're confusing two separate programs with similar names. TorrentSpy provides links to torrent files. The GP poster refered to using TOR, an online anonymity tool provided by the EFF. Despite the similar names, the two have no direct relation. You can use TOR to bypass this sort of block and search for torrents, though. Does that make any more sense?

Everyone is forgetting that there is an exemption in the DMCA for wireless phone "unlocking"
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005021.php

The question is, are people doing it for the "sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network" ?
However, if they are selling the unlocking solution, then an argument could be made that its not the sole purpose of the sellers.

Did someone say tor?

Not a sworn statement. Unless it gets put in an affidavit or elicited at deposition (or trial) it's irrelevant. Many public statements have been made, but there's no accounting for the veracity of them unless they're sworn according to the legal standard. The 9th Cir. Court of Appeals specifically said this at the AT&T (EFF) class action hearing on the Govts. motion to dismiss a couple of weeks ago.

Transcript here
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/media.nsf/D654A11D7A675 986882573380083A50C/$file/06-17132.wma?openelement

Video here
http://www.archive.org/details/gov.courts.ca9.20 07.08.16

EFF here.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005408.php

Maybe the GP is talking about something like tor.

On /. there is no such thing as a true "anonymous" post.

how about with:
the cloak
tor

Hi Jamar,

Tor project is one well-established effort for both bypassing the firewall of China and encrypting traffic so that the government can not tell that you are accessing forbidden sites. The project's official home page is at http://tor.eff.org/, however that's probably blocked from China. Therefore, I mirrored some key files on my own site. Please download them for yourself or your friends.

http://homepage.mac.com/cat_plus_plus/tor.html - text of tor documentation (I didn't copy all the images, but it should be usable)
http://homepage.mac.com/cat_plus_plus/tor.exe - Windows installer
http://homepage.mac.com/cat_plus_plus/tor.tar - Linux source
http://homepage.mac.com/cat_plus_plus/tor.dmg - Mac installer.

Let me know if it works for you or if you have further questions. You can reach me at my mac username without underscores at gmail (scrambled to avoid spam). Once you are able to surf anonymously, you might want to get started with the following sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_ China - unbiased history of your country created by contributors from around the world
http://www.cnn.com/ - The most popular news source in US. Biased in it's own way (for example, whitewashing or involvement in Iraq), but still a good source of information.
http://www.sfgate.com/ - Local newspaper in my area which is far more liberal than CNN.

I am sure other slashdot readers can add more suggestions here.

All the relevant rules are here: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r76_04.html

Section 76.630 is the primary one:
"(a) Cable system operators shall not scramble or otherwise encrypt signals carried on the basic service tier."
But your problem might be the next line:
"Requests for waivers of this prohibition must demonstrate either a substantial problem with theft of basic tier service or a strong need to scramble basic signals for other reasons."

...Which doesn't make separate allowances for encrypting the basic tier, just if/because it is broadcast digitally.

and Section 76.1909 might apply: Redistribution control of unencrypted digital terrestrial broadcast content.

"(d) Unmarked content. Where a multichannel video programming distributor retransmits unencrypted digital terrestrial broadcast content that is not marked with the broadcast flag, the multichannel video programming distributor shall not encode such content to restrict its redistribution."

EFF has lots of good info, as usual: http://www.eff.org/IP/pnp/cablewp.php

and the rest, I leave to you and Google.

What's to stop those sites from actually logging the information themselves? For the extra paranoid there is always tor for anonymizing your IP and CustomizeGoogle for anonymizing your cookie.

"Aggressively competing"? It's pretty damned lax competition for privacy that results in most search engines storing complete IP-to-query correlation data for 13-18 months.

I also saw no mention of companies' nonexistent respect for users' privacy once the government comes knocking. Do you really think they're going to demand a warrant, especially now that they'd be threatening their own hides to defy spy agencies gone mad fighting "terror"? And what good is it to you that records of your personal (and non-criminal) behavior are discarded after a year and a half, when the NSA has a back-room tap on the live feed?

No, this is far from aggressive. You'd do better printing out your search queries with your name on them and stapling them to telephone poles around town. At least then the wind, rain, and band announcements would wipe them away within a few days.

For some actual privacy, use something like TOR.

Is Your Printer Spying On You?

Anyone else than me who started thinking of Dmitri Sklyarov after reading this story?

Keep in mind this bill is not passed into law (yet ??). So there is still time to try to stop it!

Ya I know, online petition is not the best way. Write to your representatives if you can.

Emusic.com is a subscription service, so it might not be what you're looking for, but it's worth taking the free trial and having a go (and also getting the free tracks). There isn't much popular music, but my taste is so obscure I import most of my CDs anyway.
(I cancelled the Emusic subscription after a couple of months, I prefer to own the CDs.)

There's a few more listed on http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/guide/ (some subscription, some pay-per-song).

Why not host your own blog on your own server?

Might this be the first step towards legislating mandatory adoption of Trusted Computing as a way of controlling the internet and content, using the tried-and-true "think of the children!" method of bulldozing reasoned opposition by those that prefer their computers do what *they* want, instead of what corporations and the government wants?

For those unfamiliar, here's a link to an EFF page on Trusted Computing.

http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computin g/20031001_tc.php

Here's another link to an excellent piece by Ross Anderson.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

Not trying to be all tinfoil-hat-like, but it seems these days that it's trumped-up issues like this that precede an attempt to limit freedoms and increase control of the population. Awareness of these possibilities is the first and most important step to preventing a world none of us wants to live in.

Cheers!

Strat

To think of a few: 1) All sort of lies, scams, frauds to steal your money like stock scams, 411 scams etc.

2) Post private information like your medical record, stolen sex pics with your wife (or not) etc.

3) Post lies, threats, harassment like threats to kill you, post pictures of your kids with name and address and an invitation for pedos to have a a go etc.

4) Photoshop you into some "interesting" pictures enough to pass basic checks and land you in a world of hurt before it is discovered.

5) Use the anonymity to hack your computer and fill it with all sort of compromising material, clean it up so the hack can't be traced and report you

6) Steal your onlien banking info and move all your funds to an account in Ukraine or whereever, which will be empty in a day and the money never seen again.

There are some pretty heavy issue of personal freedom and personal responsibility at play here. Hard and fast rules in cases of social mores, non-destructive personal freedoms and the protection of personal property tend not to work on global scales. This (the conglomeration of human societies) is such a varied and multifaceted that I understand reactions such as this laundry list can be a very effective tool in convincing others that "more laws", "more control", "more police action", "more vigilance" is "required." The world can be a very scary place, and you might get some stuff taken from you that you didn't want taken away. People might find out things about you that you don't want them to find out. Stuff happens. It's OK. Take a deep breath. Now think about the fact that governments don't unmake laws. Governments don't give up power. In an environment like the internet any and all mechanisms that can be put into place that will override the powers of government and place it back into the hands of the people are good things. People don't wage wars on things, or ideas, or nations, or peoples...governments do. And once you come to be on the wrong side of that government's war, then you will value your options to retain your civil liberties. Services like tor and this Anonymizer product protect all, equally. Both the "good" and the "bad" can reap rewards from systems like these.

Please, don't give up my freedoms to ease your fears.

Keep in mind that this tax is very similar to the solution proposed by the EFF and differs only in its government-run collection system.

Anonymizer had too many restrictions on which sites you could browse.
We've had better web proxy alternatives with fewer restrictions for years... BlastProxy and ProxyStorm are two web based anonymous proxies that I often use.
Other networks, such as Tor allow users, who are willing to install additional software components, browse anonymously. Although, nothing really beats the convienence of the web proxies!

Anyone relying on a one hop proxy to be anonymous is fooling themselves. You need an anonymity network that doesn't rely on trusting any host and that cannot be blocked without finding out who every host is. What if everyone who used anonymity services also provided such service? Think of how much better the whole system would work if it were p2p! Please install your tor server today.

Well, Peacefire should meet your web based anonymizing needs. If you need more, that's what Tor and JAP are for.

If you guys didnt know, the EFF helped with this case. http://www.eff.org/news/

I'll buy a Tivo Series 3 just as soon as it supports Tivo To Go.

Using an onion router is no sign of computer knowledge. Some pal might have pointed him to The Onion Router, he saw it, went "wow, they can't track me if I got that", and that's it.

Just because someone does something the "average Joe" cannot or does not do, doesn't mean that he knows more than said Joe. He might just have gotten some clue from a pal, without said pal telling him the whole story.

It's simple script-kid style. Yes, some of the malware that circulates is pretty well written, but the people using it are sometimes so dumb that you wonder if they ain't better off serving fries. They're bound to be caught.

Oh thanks for clearing that up for me. I'm so relieved.

You can also send support email to your congressperson from the EFF site if you decide that this bill is worthy of support.

Yeah, but we shouldn't be passing a bill just to pass one. This bill will actually make things worse by explicitly or implicitly allowing many of the problems to remain, while simultaneously removing the ability of the states to make the systems better on their own, and increasing costs all around just for good measure. If they can't do it right, then they should stay the hell away from the issue and at least let the states have a shot at it on their own.

By adding a voter-verifiable paper trail, it addresses by far the most serious problem with DRE voting machines. Using the rationale that we shouldn't pass it because it leaves some problems unsolved is making the perfect the enemy of the good. This is the way many activist communities shoot themselves in the foot. As for limiting the states, as I understand it this doesn't. From the EFF:

The higher standards required by HR 811 would provide the beginning, not the end, of serious election reform. States wishing to, say, ban all electronic voting machines, impose stricter audit requirements, or force vendors to publicly disclose all of their source code will remain free to do so, as they are today. If HR 811 becomes law, however, states would not be permitted to lag behind in many important areas as so many do today.

Some of the objections given at the beginning of the article seem to be worth considering. The straw man debate that follows is just idiotic, however. It might be useful to look at what some actual supporters have to say, supporters like the EFF, Prof. Ed Felten, Ars Technica, the Brennan Center for Justice, People of the American Way, TrueVoteMD, and Prof. Avi Rubin to name a few.

I'm actually starting to feel slightly hopeful for the first for years - this century, in fact! - that the tide of BigBrother-dom is going to get rolled back somewhat. The first cracks in the dam are appearing as the end of the Dubya regime approaches. It's just like Saddam's generals doing deals with the US through back-channels in 2002-3. Except without the bombs and bullets and such, obviously.

The motion to dismiss Geller's bad suit cites "Gregerson v. Vilana", a defamation/copyright lawsuit I'm a party to (I'm the Plaintiff, Gregerson). www.eff.org/legal/cases/sapient_v_geller/sapient_m otiontodismiss.pdf. It's cited as a minor point in the memorandum on page 22, about fair use being an affirmative defense versus a basis for dismissal. My case is described on my page: Gregerson v. Vilana