Slashdot Mirror

Groklaw you uncultured heathen! And the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has a pretty decent website Here that covers many aspects of the RIAA cases. It's not *quite* as well organized and coherent as Groklaw is, but it's a darn good place to start. Honestly precious few are going to have PJ's kind of dedication to a cause *and* sufficient legal background to research and make sense of court filings for the layman.

(1) Remove color cartridge from printer

(2) Purchase sheaf of non-fluorescent paper -- probably any enviro paper will do

(3) Stop and release that I rarely print anything, and even more rarely print something that matters

(4) Return to watching Americans get beat at the French Open

How long until this is used instead of yellow ink to track printouts back to the printer they came from?

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_10.php#00406 3

Xerox (and the rest) have been hiding identifying marks in *our* printouts for ages now. It's a good job there's nothing to fear from our democratically elected governments who fight evil and oppression around the world.

So, due to privacy concerns, the EU dislikes Google storing data on its users, but forces ISPs to retain data for two years? Under the catch-all excuse of 'terrorism' no less.

In the US on the other hand privacy laws generally cover government actions while the business sector remains largely unregulated. Is it perhaps time to follow the European example and extend privacy laws to include corporations?

They could follow each others example: the EU could introduce laws to stop government snooping, whilst the US introduces laws to stop corporate snooping. Personally I find the EU government snooping worse than Google, at least Google is a product choice, government laws can't be worked around. Although the purchase of Double-click does make Google's tracking somewhat difficult to avoid when surfing around.

Failing that, just use Scroogle and/or Tor and/or an ad-blocker. :)

For what it's worth, the EFF book "Cracking DES: Secrets of Encryption Research, Wiretap Politics & Chip Design/How Federal Agencies Subvert Privacy" discusses this in detail. It is an excellent read and includes the FPGA source code in OCR-A with checksums on each line so that they can bypass the US export restrictions on encryption.

For those not in the know: the memo.

But the DMCA has other ideas:

http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/

I just don't see how asking for gender or orientation invalidates anything and somehow makes them responsible for whatever gets posted by the members of the forum. It seems like a wrong decision to me and should be pursued further.

Certainly, they should follow the news where those who care talk about such issues and others do analysis for such things.

How can your aunt Tilly and cousin Joe Bob trust ANY software at all? They probably didn't build it.

If you aren't yet a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, now would be a real good time to start. http://www.eff.org/

Microsoft should now list exactly which patents it is referring to . . .

At worst, the Linux team can then rewrite the offending code so that it no longer infringes.

I think Microsoft has similarly overbroad patents and is thinking of them when it threatens Linux.

Microsoft should now list exactly which patents it is referring to . . .

At worst, the Linux team can then rewrite the offending code so that it no longer infringes.

I think Microsoft has similarly overbroad patents and is thinking of them when it threatens Linux.

How about something like http://www.eff.org/patent/ but for *every* patent owned by Microsoft.

If the value of a company is based in part on the amount of interlectual property it owns, or thinks it owns then having large numbers of them declared invalid even if unrelated to directly to Linux etc. would hurt them.

A: No. The petition proposes CALEA coverage of only broadband Internet access service and broadband telephony service. Other Internet-based services, including those classified as "information services" such as email and visits to websites, would not be covered.

"Nevermind the fact that monitoring all broadband internet access is sufficient to include any services that might be accessed over that broadband service (like email, visits to websites, etc). Oh, and you should conveniently forget that web sites and email services also make use of broadband internet connections to provide their services, so monitoring can/will happen at either end."

A: No. The petition contends that CALEA should apply to certain broadband services but does not address the issue of what technical capabilities those broadband providers should deliver to law enforcement. CALEA already permits those service providers to fashion their own technical standards as they see fit. If law enforcement considers an industry technical standard deficient, it can seek to change the standard only by filing a special "deficiency" petition before the Commission. It is the FCC, not law enforcement, that decides whether any capabilities should be added to the standard. The FCC may refuse to order a change in a standard on many different grounds. For example, a capability may be rejected because it is too costly. Therefore CALEA already contains protections for industry against paying undue compliance costs.

"Law enforcement (that would be us) can and will install whatever monitoring hardware and software is necessary to perform the monitoring in question, and if it can't it will get the standards changed to force the ISP into making it easy for us. And since we and the FCC are both part of the executive branch, such changes will be easy and fast."

A: No. Law enforcement asked the FCC to give the proposed rulemaking expedited treatment. Such treatment is often requested and granted when urgent matters are brought to the FCC's attention. Some FCC rulemaking proceedings can take years to complete. Law enforcement believes expedited treatment is warranted in this case based on evidence that terrorists, criminals, and/or spies are already exploiting the networks of broadband communication providers to evade lawful electronic surveillance.

"We'll get the FCC to rubberstamp our requests. Sort of like the FISA court, only better."

A: No. Law enforcement does not seek the power to dictate how the Internet should be engineered or even to decide how broadband communications networks should be engineered. As explained above, CALEA already allocates those decisions to industry and any resulting capability disputes between industry and law enforcement are decided by the FCC. Moreover, the level of surveillance is not an issue raised in the petition, is not within the scope of CALEA, and is not decided by law enforcement. Based on a statute known as "Title III," before a law enforcement agent or officer is permitted to engage in lawful electronic surveillance, he or she must seek an appropriate court order from a judge or magistrate. Only if a judicial order is issued can the lawful surveillance take place, and the level of surveillance is prescribed by the order.

"Well, we don't seek the power to dictate how the Internet should be engineered just yet. Not unless we need it or if it'll make our lives easier (and yours harder). And as you know, we in law enforcement would never engage in 'unlawful' surveillance. No sir! Not us. We are the law, so how could we?"

A: No. The petition notes that CALEA contains a definition of "telecommunications carrier" that is different from and broader than the definition of that term in the Communications Act, which governs most FCC actions. The petit

At that point, video services could investigate for themselves,

What makes you think they start now? Heck, it took a user rebellion for Digg to grow a pair and refuse to take down a fraking number.

...let the copyright holder investigate / whatever.

Right. And we can trust the copyright holder to diligently consider the fair use value of things like a parody campaign against the Colbert Report. They're just going to fingerprint everything and have a robot send out notices, just like they've always done. Your 'fair use' will have to be backed up by lawyers, or it ain't going to happen.

I've actually thought about submitting an article on this, but now I feel like I ought to say something ASAP. I recently worked on a new service: https://messages.xchangey.com. The service anonymously stores messages that are encrypted on the client end using javascript, then sent over https. It's easier than getting all of your friends to use PGP, it's free (ad-supported), and requires no setup. Works fine with Tor. You just need a pre-shared key (passphrase) that you and the recipient know.
Hope this can be helpful. We actually intended this mostly for China, but looks like the USA is getting ever closer to needing it just as much.

In a similar case Landmark Education a group alleged by some to be a "cult" linked to scientology tried to invoke the DMCA to supress a negative video documentary filmed by france 3 tv - trip to the land of the new gurus. This was the most recent of a long series of mostly unsuccessful attempts by the group to suppress by means of legal activity negative critism of their activities.

EFF successfully blocked the case (details of the case here) but google video and youtube proceeded regardless to suppressed the video which can still be viewed online via bittorent and various mirror sites.

In other news - the register reports that the indian government has moved this week to patent and directory of yoga positions in order to stop others patenting the poses. This follows an attempt by US-based yoga instructor Bikram Choudhury who insists that "his" sequence of 26 poses can only be taught by graduates of his training school who have paid him a fee.

Here's the EFF link: http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_05.php#00524 4

And here is EFF press release and filings: (I'm disappointed these were not linked in summary.)
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_05.php#00524 4
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sapient_v_geller/

And here is EFF press release and filings: (I'm disappointed these were not linked in summary.)
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_05.php#00524 4
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sapient_v_geller/

Link

The DMCA prohibits distributing "any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof ... primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work." The key is presumably a component or a part of a device to circumvent AACS encryption.

Uuuunfortunately for everyone touting that they now have their own, DMCA-protected numbers, those randomly generated keys could not honestly be said to "effectively control access" to anything when the plain text of the encrypted haiku is available to anyone and everyone.

If you are rushing, check out the EFF's page on the Real ID act. They have a summary and a sample letter. Join them while you are there!

I never would do bank transactions on an unsecured network except in extreme cases

Last year, the Indian government banned a few websites (mostly fundamentalist hindu/muslim sites), and at about the same time I read about onion routing and the EFF's Tor software.
I tried using it, and although it was obviously slightly slower than normal web access, it worked just fine -- and no :), I am not a fundamentalist, I was just curious about anonymizing technology :).
I used to live in Thailand, did some of my schooling there, and I know there is a large expatriate population there who might wish to access Youtube for legitimate reasons. They should try out Tor -- here's an overview:

http://tor.eff.org/overview.html.en

That's going to be a difficult argument to make, given that Kazaa's default settings give users no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Doesn't matter how much of a reasonable expectation of privacy the user has. Recording a conversation over a wire is wiretapping. Which is what the RIAA is doing. "User X and address aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd downloaded these packets." IANAL, but I believe it is illegal without a court order.

From the link:

Sec. 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who - (a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

Only way it's allowed is if the courts say you can, or you own the cable.

(ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with - (A) a court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge, or (B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518(7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,

I don't believe the RIAA has a letter from the Attorney General, so that seems like that covers it.

Is the key copyrightable? It doesn't matter. The AACS-LA takedown letter is not claiming that the key is copyrightable, but rather that it is (or is a component of) a circumvention technology. The DMCA does not require that a circumvention technology be, itself, copyrightable to enjoy protection.effect.

The parent post has totally missed the point.

1. It does not differentiate between copyright law and patent law. Copyright law is actually quite good at allowing for the promotion of knowledge, as you cannot copyright an idea - only the exact implementation of one. Patent law, on the other hand, has become very restrictive in regards to the promotion of knowledge, and you CAN patent an idea. (You can patent a tax strategy, for crying out loud.)

The statement was never intended to make such differentiation, because copyright law is indeed broken at a fundamental level. I'll expand on this point below.

2. I don't know enough about 19th century copyright law, but frankly, 20th century copyright law based on the Berne Convention is quite good at what it does, and doesn't really need to be fixed. At best, it needs minor modifications.

Copyright law's capability to identify infringing acts does not give any indication of the law's ability to perform the function that it was designed for, at a reasonable cost to benefit ratio for society.

Copyright is an artificial bounty that society has granted to some of its members, but the cost to society of enforcing that bounty has dramatically increased in recent years.

At some point, society is going to shrug its shoulders and say that the cost of protecting these social policies far outweighs the benefits they bring to us. Many of us are impatient for that time to arrive. We should be spending our time thinking about the future of intellectual property law, not trying to prop up the old regime.

-M

The single biggest reason for this attempted change is the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against AT&T.

While $10,000 per violation-- the fine set in federal law-- isn't all of the damages, it certainly adds up to more than AT&T is worth: it could easily run into 100's of billions of dollars.

The EFF started this lawsuit 15 months ago, and is going up against organizations which have 100 times more lawyers than the EFF does. The EFF is a member supported organization. (What, you think they're getting major corporate donations? From who- Apple Computer? Sony? From big-money foundations? Do those foundations even understand why the technologies and policies the EFF fights for need to be fought for?)

The single biggest reason for this attempted change is the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against AT&T.

While $10,000 per violation-- the fine set in federal law-- isn't all of the damages, it certainly adds up to more than AT&T is worth: it could easily run into 100's of billions of dollars.

The EFF started this lawsuit 15 months ago, and is going up against organizations which have 100 times more lawyers than the EFF does. The EFF is a member supported organization. (What, you think they're getting major corporate donations? From who- Apple Computer? Sony? From big-money foundations? Do those foundations even understand why the technologies and policies the EFF fights for need to be fought for?)

The single biggest reason for this attempted change is the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against AT&T.

While $10,000 per violation-- the fine set in federal law-- isn't all of the damages, it certainly adds up to more than AT&T is worth: it could easily run into 100's of billions of dollars.

The EFF started this lawsuit 15 months ago, and is going up against organizations which have 100 times more lawyers than the EFF does. The EFF is a member supported organization. (What, you think they're getting major corporate donations? From who- Apple Computer? Sony? From big-money foundations? Do those foundations even understand why the technologies and policies the EFF fights for need to be fought for?)

The single biggest reason for this attempted change is the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against AT&T.

While $10,000 per violation-- the fine set in federal law-- isn't all of the damages, it certainly adds up to more than AT&T is worth: it could easily run into 100's of billions of dollars.

The EFF started this lawsuit 15 months ago, and is going up against organizations which have 100 times more lawyers than the EFF does. The EFF is a member supported organization. (What, you think they're getting major corporate donations? From who- Apple Computer? Sony? From big-money foundations? Do those foundations even understand why the technologies and policies the EFF fights for need to be fought for?)

since when has it become illegal to talk about circumventing locking mechanisms

Get a clue please. He was locked up for writing software that breaks copyright protection schemes [DRM] to enable people to use screen readers. He was jailed in the US after giving a talk.

CLUE ON!

Only because it is a natural extension of the time shifting right. What makes broadcast (or cable, including premium cable) so different that the rights deemed fair with them are not deemed fair with anything else?

You might want to read John Paul Stevens decision in Sony v. Universal, specifically footnote 2 which reads, "This case involves only the home recording for home use of television programs broadcast free over the airwaves. No issue is raised concerning cable or pay television, or the sharing or trading of tapes."

The Court ruled that time-shifted viewing of programs on advertiser-supported broadcasting imposes no harm to the rights holders of those programs. Because time shifting enables advertisers to reach additional viewers, broadcasters are thus able to charge more for these larger audiences. Copyright holders should thus be able to capture some of this additional revenue by charging a higher rights fee to the broadcaster. So, in theory, the rights holders benefit financially from time-shifting. Without financial harm to the rights holders, it's tough to argue against a "fair-use" right for the time-shifting viewer.

Pay television was still in its childhood in 1984 when Sony v. Universal was handed down. Stevens excluded pay television because it wasn't so obvious whether the rights holders were harmed by your taping a movie off HBO. Time-shifted viewing of a movie doesn't increase either HBO's revenues or the revenues of the movie's copyright owner, but it does offer a potential for harm if you share that movie cassette with someone else. In practice, of course, the studios never asked that the pay-TV part of the decision be reconsidered. Once the Court ruled that video recorders could be sold legally in the US, the case was lost.

Like all fair-use cases, there is no guaranteed "time-shifting right." Fair-use is a right that must be balanced against the rights of the copyright owner. In this case Stevens decided that the studios failed to show sufficient harm to restrict the public's right to time-shift advertiser-supported broadcast programming.

As an aside, this case also raised what Stevens then called a "novel" legal argument, namely that Sony's decision to market VCRs as devices designed to record televised copyrighted works itself constituted an act of "contributory infringement" which required the devices to be banned. While the Court ruled against the studios in 1984, they took the opposite view in the Grokster case a few years back. There the Court ruled that Grokster had engaged in contributory infringement by providing and encouraging the use of its software to exchange copyrighted works, and that the use of this sofware directly benefitted Grokster since it drove people to visit Grokster's advertiser-supported website.

The recent Sony debochle is here: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005208.php

The latest is that Sony has "fixed" the problem discs and will replace them if you ask.

As for GooTube, Viacom recently announced new policies and a commitment to fair use. Here is what the EFF had to say: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005213.php

The recent Sony debochle is here: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005208.php

The latest is that Sony has "fixed" the problem discs and will replace them if you ask.

As for GooTube, Viacom recently announced new policies and a commitment to fair use. Here is what the EFF had to say: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005213.php

If you live in VA, you might have already done your part depending on how you voted! VA has some awesomely strict anti-spam laws which even make it illegal to route spam through VA, even if the spammer and recipient don't reside anywhere in VA. Do a search for "Virginia Computer Crimes Act", or just click here for VA Codes and Laws. As always, the EFF is a good place to look around too.

Now if VA would just get rid of UCITA... *sigh*

Sorry but I use Tor

SONY rootkit case was settled.

All this shouldn't be too difficult to work around. Google watching my every move? Nope: I use Scroogle! Then there's Tor, it's a bit slow sometimes, but if you don't like it run your own Tor server and help the network speed up. :) There are also all the other ad/cookie blockers mentioned by others here.

The only possibility worrying me is our government overlords demanding people give up the right to use this software in the name of anti-terrorism/anti-paedophilia. Until that time people have a choice whether they're anonymous online, which is good. The people who don't know how to remain anonymous can either read up or pay one of us IT chaps to tell them.

You clearly have not been grasping how "intellectual property" is different from real property (real estate in your example), so I will give you a topline explanation of how they're different. So-called intellectual property refers to a limited period of time granted by the government to a content creator during which they have exclusive distribution rights to profit from an idea. This is in stark contrast to real estate where one legal entity retains control over a defined piece of property which can not be held by any other legal entity while they possess it. Their ownership persists forever unless it is transferred to another entity via some transaction, such as a sale.

Thus, the two are really not similar at all because one resource is limited in nature and your taking of it deprives it from another, whereas something like ROMS is a completely legitimate way of compensating a multitude of artists for their work. So legitimate in fact, that even the U.S. has a similar regime for radio. You will probably ignore all of this anyway, but I figured I should write it for you in the off-chance that you might actually care. For a more in-depth explanation of the abstraction of intellectual property from real property, give this book a read-through.

Are you not familiar with any of the dozens of unsuccessful lawsuits over the years targeting music & lyrics that plaintiffs believed incited violence or suicide?

From here: "Singer Ozzy Osbourne was sued three times by parents who claimed that his "Suicide Solution" made their sons kill themselves, and the heavy metal band, Judas Priest, faced a similar lawsuit in 1990. In all of these cases, the courts rejected the idea that musicians can be held responsible for the acts of unstable individuals."

From here:"Civil lawsuits attempting to link artists to their fans' crimes typically get thrown out at an early stage because of First Amendment protections of artists, according to Doug Mirell, a Los Angeles attorney at Loeb & Loeb, who specializes in constitutional law."

From here:"There's not a legal position that could be taken that would make Slayer responsible for the girls death. Where do you draw the line? You might as well start looking through the library at every book on the shelf."

These are lawsuits in cases where the music is alleged to have contributed to actual incidents - you're talking about a class action lawsuit against lyrics that may possibly influence/have influenced people. It's a lost cause and any lawyer would probably laugh you out of the room for thinking the suit had a chance of success.

And do I need to mention 2 Live Crew? The problem is that pesky First Amendment keeps getting in the way.

Colbert actually had a person from the EFF on the show, which filed a lawsuit against Viacom on behalf of Moveon.org for a "baseless copyright complaint from media giant Viacom." If one watches Colbert and Stewart, they've clearly taken a liking to youtube, enough to mention it in other guest interviews and the casual banter that starts and ends each show.

this sounds like an effort to sidestep the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against AT&T for particitpating in an illegal domestic spying program.

Blizzard is probably trying to enforce some EULA deal where the right to copy the software (by installing and/or running it) is only granted if you "agree" not to reverse-engineer it. I find that legally dubious

There is such a thing as "libel per se."

No argument. No excuses.

What is "Libel Per Se"? When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:

A statement that falsely:
Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity. Bloggers' FAQ - Online Defamation Law

Today, this license allows bands to record (or "cover") another band's song (so long as they've paid the $.08 per copy of the recorded track).

unless there's somebody sniffing along the way while *all* the email on your machine was transferred

er... yes: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ - or at least, they may be. Let's see - they have the capability, the inclination, and no doubt the technical ability...

I have it from the horse's mouth at another ISP that govt men in suits installed their own boxes with a tap on the fat pipe.

The email stored on your home machine may be private, but you can't assume it.