Slashdot Mirror

First some crap clients allow easy tunneling of torrents through tor network (http://tor.eff.org/), nearly choking it, and now this.

Okay.

This is all legal under current copyright law.

I will grant that only Sony is explictly enforcing there licenses. However in my prior post above, the unnamed music executive said it was true for all music.

http://www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-6376177.html

And in a deep-dive into the Sony end-user license agreement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found some astonishing fine print. For example, if you lose the original CD or it's stolen, you lose the right to any digital copies you've made. You can't keep your music on computers at work. You must delete your songs if you move out of the country or if you file for bankruptcy. The list goes on and on.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Columnists/Mil lar_John/2005/12/02/1333437-sun.html
According to an analysis conducted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a non-profit organization that describes itself as "working to protect your digital rights," the Sony fine print contains astonishing wording. An example is the requirement that if you lose the original CD or if the CD is stolen, you lose the right to any digital copies you may have made.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004145.php

      1. If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home. That's because the EULA says that your rights to any copies terminate as soon as you no longer possess the original CD.

      2. You can't keep your music on any computers at work. The EULA only gives you the right to put copies on a "personal home computer system owned by you."

      3. If you move out of the country, you have to delete all your music. The EULA specifically forbids "export" outside the country where you reside.

      4. You must install any and all updates, or else lose the music on your computer. The EULA immediately terminates if you fail to install any update. No more holding out on those hobble-ware downgrades masquerading as updates.

      5. Sony-BMG can install and use backdoors in the copy protection software or media player to "enforce their rights" against you, at any time, without notice. And Sony-BMG disclaims any liability if this "self help" crashes your computer, exposes you to security risks, or any other harm.

      6. The EULA says Sony-BMG will never be liable to you for more than $5.00. That's right, no matter what happens, you can't even get back what you paid for the CD.

      7. If you file for bankruptcy, you have to delete all the music on your computer. Seriously.

      8. You have no right to transfer the music on your computer, even along with the original CD.

      9. Forget about using the music as a soundtrack for your latest family photo slideshow, or mash-ups, or sampling. The EULA forbids changing, altering, or make derivative works from the music on your computer.

On a unrelated note, can someone direct me to a forum or mailing list where I can talk about TOR development?

Since date and time information isn't included in TCP/IP packets, this kind of attack won't work for all services. Assuming that the "hidden servers" in question are HTTP servers, there is a rather simple workaround: simply disable sending the "Date" header. This can probably be accomplished with mod_headers in Apache, but I've never tried using it myself. Oddly enough, the server would still be standards compliant. Obviously, servers that leak the current time by some other means would still be vulnerable.

A simpler, less precise attack of this nature would simply be to continuously ping the suspected server via both Tor and the public internet. If they (reproducibly) fail at the same time (and we could launch a denial-of-service attack to make it fail), they're probably the same machine. Attacks of this nature might even be able to confirm if a hidden server is on the same network as another computer.... But any of these attacks require someone to suspect you of running the server in the first place—and if they do, you probably have bigger problems to worry about.

The bottom line is, as Tor's manual clearly indicates, having a hidden server machine accessible from both Tor and the internet is a bad thing. Operators of hidden services should use a dedicated machine and block all incoming traffic (on all TCP and UDP ports) that is not via Tor.

Allow me to provide a few cites to text that I believe support what I've said:
DMCA circa 1998

Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying(2) of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.

This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.

2 "Copying" is used in this context as a short-hand for the exercise of any of the exclusive rights of an author under section 106 of the Copyright Act. Consequently, a technological measure that prevents unauthorized distribution or public performance of a work would fall in this second category

and later on in the same document

Savings clauses

Section 1201 contains two general savings clauses. First, section 1201(c)(1) states that nothing in section 1201 affects rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use. Second, section 1201(c)(2) states that nothing in section 1201 enlarges or diminishes vicarious or contributory copyright infringement.

...and last but not least - the copyright law itself as it defines "fair use" just so we're clear:

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

So to me it's fairly clear that the DMCA allows circumvention for cases of fair use. The catch is the interpretation of "fair use". The EFF (among others) consider a personal backup copy fair use. Of course, that's not always the case.

To add more confusion to the mess, the RIAA itself said in the MGM vs. Grokster case

Don Verrilli said to the Supreme Court last year:

"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their websi

Allow me to provide a few cites to text that I believe support what I've said:
DMCA circa 1998

Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying(2) of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.

This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.

2 "Copying" is used in this context as a short-hand for the exercise of any of the exclusive rights of an author under section 106 of the Copyright Act. Consequently, a technological measure that prevents unauthorized distribution or public performance of a work would fall in this second category

and later on in the same document

Savings clauses

Section 1201 contains two general savings clauses. First, section 1201(c)(1) states that nothing in section 1201 affects rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use. Second, section 1201(c)(2) states that nothing in section 1201 enlarges or diminishes vicarious or contributory copyright infringement.

...and last but not least - the copyright law itself as it defines "fair use" just so we're clear:

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

So to me it's fairly clear that the DMCA allows circumvention for cases of fair use. The catch is the interpretation of "fair use". The EFF (among others) consider a personal backup copy fair use. Of course, that's not always the case.

To add more confusion to the mess, the RIAA itself said in the MGM vs. Grokster case

Don Verrilli said to the Supreme Court last year:

"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their websi

The DMCA prohibits the sale or distribution of technology that would enable either the unauthorized access to a work or the unauthorized copying of a work. However, only the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work is prohibited.

The distinction is a neat bit of sleight of hand employed to ostensibly preserve fair use. The theory is that since copying a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, the DMCA does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological counter measure that prevents copying. However, the trafficking in tools to accomplish this is prohibited, so you have to be a hacker to enjoy fair use in the Digital Age.

As far as unauthorized access to a work is concerned, the argument is that since fair use is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited. This raises many thorny issues, not the least of which is that in the real world, you generally need access to a work in order copy the work.

[Defendants] contend that subsection 1201(c)(1), which provides that nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title can be read to allow the circumvention of encryption technology protecting copyrighted material when the material will be put to fair uses exempt from copyright liability. We disagree that subsection 1201(c)(1) permits such a reading. Instead, it simply clarifies that the DMCA targets the circumvention of digital walls guarding copyrighted material (and trafficking in circumvention tools), but does not concern itself with the use of those materials after circumvention has occurred. Subsection 1201 (c)(1) ensures that the DMCA is not read to prohibit the fair use of information just because that information was obtained in a manner made illegal by the DMCA.

compared to legal video sales. The largest target continues to be adult oriented content and TV shows,

Pirated TV shows, eh? Anyone surprised? It's the content provider's fault, and its their problem. No sympathy here. The reason it's pirated so much is that there's no viable alternative. VERY few shows, except a few tokens available on iTunes (The Office, etc), can't be bought legally until the season finishes and the DVD comes out. If it comes out. Months later.
So let's say the DVDs come out. Most shows are $40 a season!! The few episodes available for download cost a whopping $1.99. So however I buy it, chances are, I'm looking at $2 per episode, for something I'm probably only going to watch once. What a ripoff! I mean, I really like Lost, but once you find out what happens in the end, there really isn't much value in rewatching it (IMO). Therefore, it's not quite comparable in value to me purchasing one of my favorite movies on DVD that I'll likely watch over and over again. Sure I could rent it, but that's kind of a pain in the ass. And that doesn't even address technical issues.
I buy my favorite music online, I can buy it in a format that doesn't suck. With mp3, it Plays for Sure (tm) on my iPod, or God forbid off-brand mp3 player. Let's say I decide to buck up for a DVD of one of my favorite TV Shows. Now I have to deal with DVD player region crap. Can I just put it on my PSP/iPod Video, etc? Apparently not. That seems to be illegal under the DMCA. Well, maybe if I pay extra money for it at the time of purchase. Sounds like a crappy deal to me.

So let's recap. I'm a (relatively) honest consumer looking to watch my favorite show because I missed it on TV. It's overpriced, I have to wait as long as months to get it, it's overpriced, I'm probably only going to watch it once, it's overpriced, it comes in a crappy format, and I can't copy it (legally), and I can't put it on my mobile device. Piracy to the rescue! Any questions?

You know, after the small episode with Sklyarov & DMCA
No Russian hacker in his right mind is going to deal with American company in the place under US jurisdiction.

But seriously. No way to hide IP addresses from the server.

Just use an anonymous proxy like tor.

The Linksys router Schuster used at his home and its MAC address proved that he was accessing the CWWIS wireless network.

Sounds like the MAC address was tied to his name somewhere and this was the evidence the FBI used to obtain the warrant. After that, everything was revealed by the contents of his computer.

If you purchase a network card online with a credit card it's possible that the FBI can trace the MAC address of that card back to you, providing the seller keeps records. If you're a linux user you can change your MAC address with,

ifconfig ethX hw ether xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx

As long as you don't pass traceable information (like logging onto a traceable email account) and you use an anonymous proxy like tor as extra protection, it's pretty difficult to trace you. It's possible, of course, to locate you physically by triangulating your radio signals but this requires a bit more effort.

The above is provided for educational purposes only. I do not advocate breaking the law.

Can you site a case, or an actual law that prohibits forwarding of emails?

Though I have only found one http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#00501 7article that is directly on point (after a quick google search). The article specifically mentions a 2006 reversal by the California Supreme Court, (original case Barrett v. Rosenthal http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Barrett_v_Rosenthal /ruling.pdf) which upholds that blogs, websites, listservs, etc. are protected under the Communications Decency Act (CDA 1996) Section 230. This section explicitly states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Other relevant portions of the article:

"The issue raised in Barrett v. Rosenthal was whether Section 230's protection applies to individuals who frequently use the internet to pass on information obtained elsewhere, whether by forwarding an email written by someone else or, as was the case in Barrett, posting an email from someone else to a newsgroup."

The CDA basically covers anyone from being sued, prosecuted {in my non-legal opinion) for posting forwarding emails from other sources. It is unclear from the article, and I don't have time to reread the CDA at the moment, if this also covers emails that include the 'privacy' footer. However, email is a public method of passing data around, there isn't any expectation of privacy in this form of communication. Finding and ferreting out a private email, either from a mail server, or while it is traveling through a network, isn't a very tough thing to do. You just have to know where to look.

Can you site a case, or an actual law that prohibits forwarding of emails?

Though I have only found one http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#00501 7article that is directly on point (after a quick google search). The article specifically mentions a 2006 reversal by the California Supreme Court, (original case Barrett v. Rosenthal http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Barrett_v_Rosenthal /ruling.pdf) which upholds that blogs, websites, listservs, etc. are protected under the Communications Decency Act (CDA 1996) Section 230. This section explicitly states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Other relevant portions of the article:

"The issue raised in Barrett v. Rosenthal was whether Section 230's protection applies to individuals who frequently use the internet to pass on information obtained elsewhere, whether by forwarding an email written by someone else or, as was the case in Barrett, posting an email from someone else to a newsgroup."

The CDA basically covers anyone from being sued, prosecuted {in my non-legal opinion) for posting forwarding emails from other sources. It is unclear from the article, and I don't have time to reread the CDA at the moment, if this also covers emails that include the 'privacy' footer. However, email is a public method of passing data around, there isn't any expectation of privacy in this form of communication. Finding and ferreting out a private email, either from a mail server, or while it is traveling through a network, isn't a very tough thing to do. You just have to know where to look.

This is very old news.

More importantly, it's a good reason to avoid all e-mail hosting services like gmail, Yahoo! Mail, etc., until this is resolved.

Of course they WANT you to buy their stuff. The issue is the warning box for debugging and administration- even Autodesk wouldn't turn off functionality for non-genuine files.

...and here are some more softwares and guides related to privacy, pseudo/ano-nymity and security:

tor.eff.orgonion routing anonymizer
www.i2p.netsecure/anonymous interactive network
freenetproject.orgsecure/anonymous distributed file system
www.turtle4privacy.orgf2f peer network
gnunet.orgsecure p2p infrastructure
www.cspace.insecure p2p infrastructure
www.openswan.orgVPN with opportunistic encryption
silcnet.orgsecure internet live chat
ihu.sourceforge.netp2p VoIP with crypto

wiki.noreply.orgHow to give anonymous talks
azureus.sourceforge.netazureus over p2p
cryptnet.netguerrilla software development how to

Tor *IS* a peer-to-peer proxying system, that makes it extremely difficult to trace traffic back to a source. The anonymizing is its primary purpose, although it achieves that by implementing a network of p2p nodes. Like the article said, its ability to circumvent censoring firewalls is a secondary feature, more of a side effect (see this FAQ entry).

Also, AFAIK, Skype does not actually route the voip traffic over proxies.

Well, this same law firm, Green Welling LLC, was involved in suing Sony BMG over DRM issues.

This will just allow pedophiles to conduct their activities with even less traceability.

Yes, we have to think of the children.

Please, do not mention Tor anywhere you think pedophiles might be reading.

Web 2.0 gives people the illusion they have power. It's a more effective tool for persuading people they're happy than the TV ever did. Time magazine makes a useful idiot.

Really? What about http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/SJG/ ? I'm sure Steve Jackson might have a word or two to share about armed law enforcement raiding a game company in the U.S.

Just use Tor and get rid of this idiocity all at once.
It is really sick, first they try to convince us that sex = violence and now that drawings = violence.
Idiots.

http://tor.eff.org/

http://tor.eff.org/

What are you, stupid? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to wear clothes you buy? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to eat the food you buy? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to read the books you buy?

No, but there isn't a law that prevents you from wearing clothes without their designer's permission, or from eating food without the consent of its manufacturer. Or reading a book without a contract with its author.

However, most computer programs are designed to require installation. This involves making a copy of the program. Making a copy of a computer program is illegal, unless it comes under one of the standard exemptions from copyright. Loading and executing a program in memory is (in the US) one such exemption. Installing it on your hard disk, however, isn't.

Besides, I dare you to cite one single instance (that wasn't subsequently overturned) of a court enforcing an EULA that wasn't printed on the outside of the box or otherwise presented to the buyer before sale. Because I believe you're a fucking liar.

"For every game at issue in this litigation except for Diablo, the outside packaging of the game
states that use of the game is subject to a EULA, and that use of Blizzard's Battle.net service is subject
to the Battle.net TOU. The terms of the EULAs and TOU themselves do not appear on the outside
[...]
Blizzard asserts that the
EULAs and TOU are enforceable contracts. Defendants assert that the EULAs and TOU are not
contracts because under Missouri law there was no agreement between the parties.9 Defendants argue
that the only agreement between the parties is the offer to sell the software and the defendants'
acceptance by purchase of the software. Also, defendants contend that the terms of the EULAs and
TOU were not presented at the time of purchase. The defendants assert that if a contract exists, it is
unenforceable because it is unconscionable.
[...]
The Court finds that the license agreements are enforceable contracts under both California
and Missouri law. California courts have enforced end user license agreements, which are valid under
California law. See Adobe Sys. Inc. v. One Stop Micro, Inc., 84 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1089-93 (N.D. Cal.
2000) (end user license agreement valid under California law); Hotmail Corp. v. Van$Money Pie,
Inc., No. C-98-20064, 1998 WL 388389, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (applying California law, plaintiff
likely to prevail on breach of contract claim regarding clickwrap agreement).
[...]
Defendants state that the EULAs
and TOU are additional terms which they rejected. Defendants contend that is unfair for them to pay
$49.99 for the games and then be unable to install them or access Battle.net without assenting to the
EULA and TOU.
The Court finds the EULAs and TOU are enforceable under the UCC.
[...]
A sale
consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer. Mo. Rev. Stat. 400.2-106(1) (2000).
When defendants purchased the games, they bought a license to use the software, but did not buy the
software. Defendants' argument parallels the "first sale doctrine," although defendants do not use this
term.
Under the first sale doctrine, "a sale of a lawfully made copy terminates a copyright holder's
authority to interfere with subsequent sales or distribution of that particular copy."
packaging.
[...]
Defendants do not produce sufficient evidence demonstrating that
title and ownership of the games passed to them. Therefore, the Court finds that the first sale doctrine
is inapplicable here."

(Davidson & Associates Inc. et al v Internet Gateway et al; US District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division; No. 4:02-CV-498 CAS - confirmed in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Please explain the juvenile fascination with the ability to make exact copies of your media. What's the point of bringing this up?

You can do lots of things with it that Apple/Microsoft/... don't want to acknowledge and are very motivated to eliminate.

1. First-sale Doctrine
The courts said, "We held that the exclusive statutory right to vend applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work..." Treats the music like software. You own it despite what the mega-corps would have you believe. http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html

2. Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 "fair use privilege"
In stark contrast, the court held that the Rio is entirely consistent with copyright law's fair use privilege that gives consumers the right to make copies of works for their personal use. Once a music file passes through a computer, it is not legally required to impose restrictions on consumer freedoms... http://www.eff.org/cafe/cafe_case_analysis.html

Oops, forgot the link:

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#00503 0

Linkage

From the link:
Earlier this month, EFF's FLAG Project submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to DHS seeking more details about the ATS data-mining program, but the agency has not yet disclosed the requested information.

For EFF's full comments to DHS:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/ats/ats_comments.pdf

For the DHS Federal Register notice announcing ATS:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-9026.htm

No matter how you cut it, downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is a crime.

No, you are wrong. It's uploading of copyrighted material which you are not authorized to distribte that is against the law. The RIAA/MPAA are going after the uploaders, not the downloaders.

There's plenty of copyrighted material being shared that's perfectly legal to share.

Here's one solution proposed by the EFF http://www.eff.org/share/collective_lic_wp.php

I have heard that in the Soviet Union, every photocopier was serially numbered and registered.

You mean, unlike several brands of laser printers?

I have heard that in the Soviet Union, every photocopier was serially numbered and registered.

You mean, unlike several brands of laser printers?

Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman admitted that he was fairly certain that one or more of his children had downloaded music illegally, but despite this direct admission of guilt, no lawsuits are pending. Surprised?

Also, like this.

I'm in China. This is how I tapped the cersorship, by having a TOR(http://tor.eff.org/) installed. With this software, I can access all banned sites i know. The software has a few flaws, one is that it lacks of fast proxy servers, which anyone of you unchecked freemen can be; Another is its windows version has a very resource-consuming GUI which is based on QT library.
  So here i hope more people can establish more proxy servers for the software and join to the development of the software. That will make us and everyone else in the world who has been restricted better accessible to the internet.

You may be unaware of this, but no communications outside the US borders are covered by the US rights to privacy. If you make a call outside the US, or into the US, it can be monitored.
See here:
http://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/204.php

Now if both sides of the communication are US citizens, they need FASA approval. If one end is NOT a US citizen, then listening in is fair game.

Now, there are other rights, like not being able to use that information for anything other than National Security. You could, for example, detail killing your wife, and they could not use it to arrest you.

Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to do so.

Of course neither I, nor any other lawyer, would engage a technical expert to challenge facts which are absolutely true.

In a minority of the cases, the defendant is actually someone who engaged in peer to peer file sharing. Those defendants have other defenses, which the lawyers can handle, and which probably would not involve technical advice at all... defenses such as the RIAA's own misconduct, defenses such as the due process implications in the damages theory, etc. As to those defendants, however, it would still be nice to receive financial support for their legal defense, nice to receive support of people writing to their congresspeople to change the laws, etc.

In a majority of the cases, the defendants are innocent of what they are being accused of. In those cases the need for technical help is great.

You seem skeptical of my telling you that MOST defendants are innocent, and challenge my knowledge of all 20,000 cases. Of course I'm not familiar with all 20,000 cases; my conclusion is tentative, and it is anecdotal, based only upon a year and a half of being immersed in this issue, and speaking to people from all over the country every day about it. However, if you have taken the time to familiarize yourself with the flimsiness of the RIAA's so called "investigaton" (and I'm betting you have), you already know that (a) no real pirate would ever be so stupid as to use his own internet access and leave intact metadata identifying the pirated files, (b) the RIAA has no actual evidence of any downloading, (c) the RIAA has no actual evidence of any uploading, and (d) the RIAA knows nothing about the defendant except that he or she paid for an internet access account which the RIAA has linked to the shared files folder. The RIAA admitted on national television, on December 28, 2005, in Cary Sherman's response to my remarks on the CBS Early Morning Show with Harry Smith, that the only thing they know about the person they've sued is that that is the person who paid for the internet access account. So it should come as no surprise to you that the majority of the defendants are innocent. And whether it's a majority or a minority, should be irrelevant. What is relevant is that there are many innocent people being targeted, and they need the help of the tech community.

For discussion of the RIAA's "driftnet" strategy I commend you to the ACLU, EFF, Public Citizen, AALL, and ACLU-OK Brief in Capitol v. Foster, and for a discussion of the RIAA's attempt to expand the copyright law to make mere 'making available' a copyright infringement, and the damaging effect that would have on internet technology, see Brief of US Internet Industry Association and Computer & Communications Industry Association in Elektra v. Barker.

Yeah but can he kick Barney's ass like *my* uncle?

Sigh. Is that old "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" canard still kicking around? A story that gave as its warped reasoning for the idea that "EFF always loses" two cases that EFF didn't actually conduct (Eldred v. Ashcroft and Gilmore v. Gonzales), and one that we actually won: ("They defended two amateur online journos against Apple's ham-fisted effort to silence criticism, and got beat down severely: another bad precedent." - odd, that's not quite what the Appeals Court decided when the California state appeals court upheld our defence, and held that our clients were protected by California's reporter's shield law and the constitutional privilege against disclosure of confidential sources: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/ ).

And as to the Snoutintroff claim we somehow "persuaded" Ed Felten to withdraw from a talk as a media stunt, it's worth reading what Felten himself had to say about that period. Chilled speech, baseless legal threats, people losing jobs because they stand up for their right to reveal security flaws. That's what EFF fights.

It's worth spending time reading EFF's actual track record - either from our list of victories, or from the Wikipedia list.

(Or hell, just read our press releases from the last week where we were filing an amicus brief to defend constitutional protection for stored email, began a case to investigate and correct some 18,000 missing votes in an apparent e-voting mess-up in a Florida seat that was won by less than 400 votes, and filing an FOIA request to uncover the details of EU passenger records being handed over to the US government. And that's what we did on a Thanksgiving week - with a staff of around 30, and a budget that's a fiftieth of the size of the ACLU, and a twentieth of what the MPAA spend on Washington lobbying alone. And consider becoming a member if you're impressed - you have no idea how much every extra membership helps, nor how much there is left to do.)

Sigh. Is that old "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" canard still kicking around? A story that gave as its warped reasoning for the idea that "EFF always loses" two cases that EFF didn't actually conduct (Eldred v. Ashcroft and Gilmore v. Gonzales), and one that we actually won: ("They defended two amateur online journos against Apple's ham-fisted effort to silence criticism, and got beat down severely: another bad precedent." - odd, that's not quite what the Appeals Court decided when the California state appeals court upheld our defence, and held that our clients were protected by California's reporter's shield law and the constitutional privilege against disclosure of confidential sources: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/ ).

And as to the Snoutintroff claim we somehow "persuaded" Ed Felten to withdraw from a talk as a media stunt, it's worth reading what Felten himself had to say about that period. Chilled speech, baseless legal threats, people losing jobs because they stand up for their right to reveal security flaws. That's what EFF fights.

It's worth spending time reading EFF's actual track record - either from our list of victories, or from the Wikipedia list.

(Or hell, just read our press releases from the last week where we were filing an amicus brief to defend constitutional protection for stored email, began a case to investigate and correct some 18,000 missing votes in an apparent e-voting mess-up in a Florida seat that was won by less than 400 votes, and filing an FOIA request to uncover the details of EU passenger records being handed over to the US government. And that's what we did on a Thanksgiving week - with a staff of around 30, and a budget that's a fiftieth of the size of the ACLU, and a twentieth of what the MPAA spend on Washington lobbying alone. And consider becoming a member if you're impressed - you have no idea how much every extra membership helps, nor how much there is left to do.)

Sigh. Is that old "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" canard still kicking around? A story that gave as its warped reasoning for the idea that "EFF always loses" two cases that EFF didn't actually conduct (Eldred v. Ashcroft and Gilmore v. Gonzales), and one that we actually won: ("They defended two amateur online journos against Apple's ham-fisted effort to silence criticism, and got beat down severely: another bad precedent." - odd, that's not quite what the Appeals Court decided when the California state appeals court upheld our defence, and held that our clients were protected by California's reporter's shield law and the constitutional privilege against disclosure of confidential sources: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/ ).

And as to the Snoutintroff claim we somehow "persuaded" Ed Felten to withdraw from a talk as a media stunt, it's worth reading what Felten himself had to say about that period. Chilled speech, baseless legal threats, people losing jobs because they stand up for their right to reveal security flaws. That's what EFF fights.

It's worth spending time reading EFF's actual track record - either from our list of victories, or from the Wikipedia list.

(Or hell, just read our press releases from the last week where we were filing an amicus brief to defend constitutional protection for stored email, began a case to investigate and correct some 18,000 missing votes in an apparent e-voting mess-up in a Florida seat that was won by less than 400 votes, and filing an FOIA request to uncover the details of EU passenger records being handed over to the US government. And that's what we did on a Thanksgiving week - with a staff of around 30, and a budget that's a fiftieth of the size of the ACLU, and a twentieth of what the MPAA spend on Washington lobbying alone. And consider becoming a member if you're impressed - you have no idea how much every extra membership helps, nor how much there is left to do.)

Sigh. Is that old "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" canard still kicking around? A story that gave as its warped reasoning for the idea that "EFF always loses" two cases that EFF didn't actually conduct (Eldred v. Ashcroft and Gilmore v. Gonzales), and one that we actually won: ("They defended two amateur online journos against Apple's ham-fisted effort to silence criticism, and got beat down severely: another bad precedent." - odd, that's not quite what the Appeals Court decided when the California state appeals court upheld our defence, and held that our clients were protected by California's reporter's shield law and the constitutional privilege against disclosure of confidential sources: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/ ).

And as to the Snoutintroff claim we somehow "persuaded" Ed Felten to withdraw from a talk as a media stunt, it's worth reading what Felten himself had to say about that period. Chilled speech, baseless legal threats, people losing jobs because they stand up for their right to reveal security flaws. That's what EFF fights.

It's worth spending time reading EFF's actual track record - either from our list of victories, or from the Wikipedia list.

(Or hell, just read our press releases from the last week where we were filing an amicus brief to defend constitutional protection for stored email, began a case to investigate and correct some 18,000 missing votes in an apparent e-voting mess-up in a Florida seat that was won by less than 400 votes, and filing an FOIA request to uncover the details of EU passenger records being handed over to the US government. And that's what we did on a Thanksgiving week - with a staff of around 30, and a budget that's a fiftieth of the size of the ACLU, and a twentieth of what the MPAA spend on Washington lobbying alone. And consider becoming a member if you're impressed - you have no idea how much every extra membership helps, nor how much there is left to do.)

Barney will probably accept the risk of going after other, more likely to be intimidated, sites.

Finally, we would like to remind you that New York State Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-102 [1200.33] and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides for sanctions for litigation undertaken without support in existing law or sufficient evidentiary support.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/10/08/stories/2006100800 021100.htm ("last modified" seems correct)
"I have achieved storage densities of about 2.7 gigabytes per square inch," Mr. Abideen told The Hindu over phone from Kottakkal in Kerala.

And sooner, in September :
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/sep62006/ cyberspace163748200695.asp (but "last modified" is november 26...)
(But has been linked by some blogs the 19 September)
http://www.stingygaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p= 165
( the photo was on imageshack ... http://img319.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rainbowte chzz4.jpg )

I never think to this technology but the better way to discredit it is this kind of re-publication of an imprecise article.
Concepts stay very exiting even if storage place is in the order of the hundred of MB.

About the dot precision, laser printers (Xer.. ?) do some miracles :
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/inde x.php

Could you believe that ?! :)

http://www.hindu.com/2006/10/08/stories/2006100800 021100.htm ("last modified" seems correct)
"I have achieved storage densities of about 2.7 gigabytes per square inch," Mr. Abideen told The Hindu over phone from Kottakkal in Kerala.

And sooner, in September :
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/sep62006/ cyberspace163748200695.asp (but "last modified" is november 26...)
(But has been linked by some blogs the 19 September)
http://www.stingygaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p= 165
( the photo was on imageshack ... http://img319.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rainbowte chzz4.jpg )

I never think to this technology but the better way to discredit it is this kind of re-publication of an imprecise article.
Concepts stay very exiting even if storage place is in the order of the hundred of MB.

About the dot precision, laser printers (Xer.. ?) do some miracles :
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/inde x.php

Could you believe that ?! :)

Namely a bogeyman...a means of scaring the hell out of people to such an extent that they lose both the capacity for logic and any ability to stand up to corrupt individuals who want power over them.

What power, exactly, does RMS want over us?

Microsoft do not pretend to be anything other than what they are.

Do they? Alright then, let's examine some evidence. Specifically, let's see what they're claiming -- and not claiming -- about the "Remote Attestation" feature of "Trusted Computing." From this EFF article on the subject:

Our most fundamental concern is that trusted computing systems are being deliberately designed to support threat models in which the owner of a "trusted" computer is considered a threat. These models are the exception rather than the rule in the history of computer and communications security, and they are not part of the rationales for trusted computing publicly offered by its proponents [which includes Microsoft].

So, Microsoft does not claim that a purpose of "Trusted Computing" is to remove the user's control of his machine. But does that mean that it actually doesn't do so, or does it? The article explains (in great detail) that the answer is "yes, it does remove the user's control." However, the author proposes a solution, too:

A simple measure we call Owner Override could fix the problem by restoring others' inability to know for certain what software you're running -- unless you decide you would be better off if they knew. ... Owner Override works by empowering a computer owner, when physically present at the computer in question, deliberately to choose to generate an attestation which does not reflect the actual state of the software environment -- to present the picture of her choice of her computer's operating system, application software or drivers. ... Broadly, it fixes trusted computing so that it protects the computer owner and authorized users against attacks, without limiting the computer owner's authority to decide precisely which policies should be enforced. It does so without undermining any benefit claimed for the TCG architecture or showcased in Microsoft's public NGSCB demonstration. And it is consistent with TCG's and most vendors' statements about the goals of trusted computing.

Incidentally, to date neither the NGSCB nor TCG has addressed the EFF's concerns. There is no "Owner Override."

So, to recap: Microsoft does not claim "Trusted Computing" removes owners' control, yet it does. Therefore, Microsoft is failing to tell the whole truth. Furthermore, this issue could be fixed, but isn't. Therefore, Microsoft must want it to be this way. So what's the only possible conclusion? Microsoft is deliberately designing "Trusted Computing" to remove computer owners' control, and put it in the hands of whoever controls the keys -- which, incidentally, is Microsoft. This is not what they claim, therefore they are lying. QED.

enshrine Stallman in the position that he has long coveted

What position has he "long coveted?"

Then you will find out whether or not it is any more preferable to have him as your master.

First of all, this is just stupid -- RMS has never been a "master" of anything, and never will be. Second, even if I assumed he was the "master" of something (deciding the content of the GPL, I suppose), that still doesn't give him any control whatsoever over anyone, users or developers. If people like the GPL, they'll use it; if they don't like it, they won't; if they like some parts of it but not others, they'll rewrite and rename it, and use that. RMS has no power over the matter.

In contrast, Microsoft really is the master.

How are you going to review the list if you can't VIEW the sites ON the list? If it's just government officials/telco assigned people doing the reviewing, what good is it?

I may be redundant here, but the EFF article looks great. It is long though, but I just want to post this to encourage you reading it all. It may prevent a couple of misconceptions. (it did for me)

Actually it has. Remember the Betamax case?

from the article:

"Handing down its decision in October 1979, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Sony, stating that taping off air for entertainment or time shifting constituted fair use; that copying an entire program also qualified as fair use; that set manufacturers could profit from the sale of VCRs; and that the plaintiffs did not prove that any of the above practices constituted economic harm to the motion picture industry."

I'm no legal expert but technically speaking, a broadcast constitutes a format. By taping that broadcast, the consumer (or device) is performing a format shift. Fair use, it seems to me, has already been decided. Congress also addressed fair use of audio recordings in 1971. From the EFF Copyright and Fair Use FAQ:

House Report on the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971 H.R. Rep. No. 487, 92d Cong,. 1st Sess. 1-19 (1971) at pages 7-8:

Home Recording

"In approving the creation of a limited copyright in sound recordings it is the intention of the Committee that this limited copyright not grant any broader rights than are accorded to other copyright proprietors under the existing title 17. Specifically, it is not the intention of [Congress] to restrain the home recording, from broadcasts or from tapes or records, of recorded performances, where the home recording is for private use and with no purpose of reproducing or otherwise capitalizing commercially on it. This practice is common and unrestrained today, and record producers and performers would be in no different position from that of the owners of copyright in recorded musical compositions over the past 20 years."

It's all about the money, folks.

I am incorrect about being tbps... but you're also not correct. It would be 500 ports for 1tbps, because each port of a '1000mbps port' actually does 2000mbps, combining total RX and TX. The maximum switching fabric speed of a 40 port gigabit switch would then be 80gbps.

Interestingly, from a pure processing angle, to process 9320675.55 PPS, the corresponding number of packets for 80gbps with 9k frames, a system will need 932 MIPS... well within the range of a low-end Athlon or Pentium III processor. To process 1500mtu frames, though, a much more modern processor, like an AMD XP 2400+ would be required. Less would be required with a TCP Offload Engine (TOE).

Regardless, this isn't even possible over PCIe -- heck, from what I can tell, it isn't even possible over infiniband with any commercially available products. One is either building their own hardware (at which point, they might as well just build a real switch), or building a cluster (at which point, interconnects and cost again become an issue).

References:
How slow is gigabit ethernet?
PCI Express Technology

Sorry if I was curt with you. Parents are not liable for their children's copyright infringement. If you want to do research read MGM v. Grokster. It will spell out for you in great detail what a plaintiff needs to prove to hold X liable for Y's copyright infringement. You won't find anything in there about X being Y's parent. If you want to read further, you might want to look at this essay published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on parental liability.

It also supports the MS Plays for Sure format,