Slashdot Mirror

I propose to write an email, fax or call to EFF first to ask them if they are willing to help the lady + create a found where we can donate. If the EFF is associated with the project, the people will probably be more willing to contribute. I'll be the first the give something. I have already started to write my letter.

Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA

Phone: +1 415 436 9333
Fax: +1 415 436 9993

information@eff.org
EFF Contact

If you use MythTV, an ATI card will not work. I'll go so far as to say that an ATI AIW card isn't reccomended for any Linux-based PVR work. The coders blame ATI, and ATI says "What? We released Linux drivers!". It's a lot of finger pointing, and in the end is just frustrating to any AIW owner, such as m'self.

The Hauppage on the other hand, is the most reccomended PVR card I've seen - Both on the Linux end and the Windows end of things. It has a built in mpeg decoder/encoder, which allows the systems CPU to focus on things other than converting video for playback.

I recently came across the Hauppage 350 for $160 and am seriously considering one, however as we move into the HDTV age, I'm wondering if an HDTV-capable solution might be a better option.

(Yes, I realize there's PC-based HDTV options, but the Mac link was handy)

Also, nothing in the DMCA explicitly damages fair use. The only time that fair use is mentioned in it is when the bill specifically notes that the copyright protection circumvention provision specifically DO NOT limit a person's fair use rights. Of course, there are ways that it indirectly affects fair use rights, but only in causing barriers to be able to exercise those rights (such as having to circumvent copyright protection to make a backup of a DVD).

Finally, 17 U.S.C. 1008 has nothing to do with fair use rights anyways. That section places an explicit limit on what type of actions can be brought against a user. While people argued that the right to make such copies were within their "fair use" rights before the passage of the Audio Home Recording Act, this bill made it such that copyrights did not provide an action against such copying specifically. The bill did not, as it could have, made home recording within the fair use rights deliniated in 17 U.S.C. 107.

I have written and told them I DO NOT WANT my donation being used for this case, as I don't believe "freedom of the press" should be used as a "get out of jail free" card. There should be proof of "public interest" first.

You don't have to, the EFF has already done it for you. Just ... needs more users.

Or you could use Tor, which was more or less made for occasions like this.

Why not just use tor for anonymous internet use (browsing, sshing etc.). It's free and doesn't place full trust in a single node.

Bit surprised nobody has mentioned Tor.[0] Tor is a way for individuals, groups to source and share information but avoid some of the pitfalls. Tor is a useful tool for making your data (somewhat more) anonymous. Tor allows users to better hide the source or destination of their activities on-line. Tor unlike conventional encryption focuses on the header component of TCP packets so it makes it harder to determine the source or destination of your packets and ultimately your data. You can read more about how it works [1] and the Tor Protocol Specification here [2] and how it works here [3]. Tor should be another essential tool in your security kit.

Reference
[0] Tor, EFF Overview: http://tor.eff.org/overview.html
[1] Tor, How it works: http://tor.eff.org/howitworks.html
[2] Tor Protocol Specification: http://tor.eff.org/cvs/tor/doc/tor-spec.txt
[3] Tor: How it Works: http://tor.eff.org/howitworks.html

Bit surprised nobody has mentioned Tor.[0] Tor is a way for individuals, groups to source and share information but avoid some of the pitfalls. Tor is a useful tool for making your data (somewhat more) anonymous. Tor allows users to better hide the source or destination of their activities on-line. Tor unlike conventional encryption focuses on the header component of TCP packets so it makes it harder to determine the source or destination of your packets and ultimately your data. You can read more about how it works [1] and the Tor Protocol Specification here [2] and how it works here [3]. Tor should be another essential tool in your security kit.

Reference
[0] Tor, EFF Overview: http://tor.eff.org/overview.html
[1] Tor, How it works: http://tor.eff.org/howitworks.html
[2] Tor Protocol Specification: http://tor.eff.org/cvs/tor/doc/tor-spec.txt
[3] Tor: How it Works: http://tor.eff.org/howitworks.html

Bit surprised nobody has mentioned Tor.[0] Tor is a way for individuals, groups to source and share information but avoid some of the pitfalls. Tor is a useful tool for making your data (somewhat more) anonymous. Tor allows users to better hide the source or destination of their activities on-line. Tor unlike conventional encryption focuses on the header component of TCP packets so it makes it harder to determine the source or destination of your packets and ultimately your data. You can read more about how it works [1] and the Tor Protocol Specification here [2] and how it works here [3]. Tor should be another essential tool in your security kit.

Reference
[0] Tor, EFF Overview: http://tor.eff.org/overview.html
[1] Tor, How it works: http://tor.eff.org/howitworks.html
[2] Tor Protocol Specification: http://tor.eff.org/cvs/tor/doc/tor-spec.txt
[3] Tor: How it Works: http://tor.eff.org/howitworks.html

Bit surprised nobody has mentioned Tor.[0] Tor is a way for individuals, groups to source and share information but avoid some of the pitfalls. Tor is a useful tool for making your data (somewhat more) anonymous. Tor allows users to better hide the source or destination of their activities on-line. Tor unlike conventional encryption focuses on the header component of TCP packets so it makes it harder to determine the source or destination of your packets and ultimately your data. You can read more about how it works [1] and the Tor Protocol Specification here [2] and how it works here [3]. Tor should be another essential tool in your security kit.

Reference
[0] Tor, EFF Overview: http://tor.eff.org/overview.html
[1] Tor, How it works: http://tor.eff.org/howitworks.html
[2] Tor Protocol Specification: http://tor.eff.org/cvs/tor/doc/tor-spec.txt
[3] Tor: How it Works: http://tor.eff.org/howitworks.html

it's always amazing how people who have absolutely no knowledge of the problem at hand come up with silver bullet solutions that contribute nothing but only attest to their ignorance.

Oh, well that's a fine how-do-you-do.

The problem of the patent system today is too many obvious patents, too many patents where there was prior art. Requiring prototypes does absolutely nothing to avoid those, NOTHING!

But the problem mentioned, IN THIS STORY Mr. Capslock, concerns Sony's patenting something that doesn't even exist, or may never exist. That may be a subset of a larger patent problem (which I don't consider to be merely obvious patents, but includes business method patents, software patents, and other things too), but it's still a problem, and one that prototypes would solve. (Of course, bringing a business method prototype to the patent office would be impossible, and a software prototype is a virtual construct anyway, but those'd be plusses in my book.) Further, it is an especially egregious example -- I don't see how anyone could justify this patent as anything except an attempt to restrain the progress of technology for anyone but Sony, who hasn't even progressed to that level yet. "Theoretical patents," phooey! What's to stop science fiction writers from patenting whatever things they cook up in their heads?

As for my "ignorance," well I will not profess to my own knowledge, but I do know better to flame someone unnecessarily, especially just for only moaning that prototypes would have caught this situation.

An application seeking to patent a concept that the applicant has no clear idea how to implement will always be very broad and it is very likely to be shot down because broadness is something even an inexperienced patent examiner can usually spot.

The key words here are "very likely." That's not a 100% chance. It'll still give serious pause to anyone attempting to create a real invention in this area. The great majority of patents are never stricken down, including some real doozies, and once the patent is granted the burden of proof is on the challenger, meaning *someone* has to pay money to get it overturned, whether that be a big company or the EFF, with the ever-present danger of failure. That's some bad mojo.

More often than not, very broad patents, if they are granted, are considered unenforcible.

Like one-click shopping, hyperlinks, internationalizing domain names, pop-up windows, targeted banner ads and browser frames? Oy! Just the chance that this patent could survive is dangerous. It should never have been granted in the first place, but eh, there are lots of patents like that. These days I tend to think more ill of patents, *any* patents, than good, but I don't think I'd be kvetching if Sony at least had actually invented the damn thing.

Well, that's the question, isn't it? You state this like it is obvious, but it isn't obvious. Reverse engineering for interoperability is protected under US copyright law AND the DMCA. In fact, there is at least one court case pending right now to determine this very issue. Read more about it here. Very interesting stuff.

Anyway, given that

1. The OSDL had the license
2. the employee was NOT employed by OSDL to do the reverse engineering and
3. reverse engineering is protected under copyright law

http://www.eff.org/support/

It is easier for a zergling to pass through the needle of an eye than for a rich man to enter heaven!

While we're on this topic, here're the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Legal and Technical Policy Suggestions for Data Logging

Best Practices for Online Service Providers:
http://www.eff.org/osp/

In order to understand 17 USC 107, you have to read the interpretations given by the Supreme Court in the Sony-Betamax case. Basically, it comes down to interpreting 107 in light of the four factors laid out by Congress:

(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.

In the dissent, Justice Blackmun points out that Congress did not make an explicit exemption for private use, when they easily could have. p 474. He claims that the majority ignored "the potential market for or the value of the copyrighted work." p 484. He claims that VCRs take control away from the copyright holder, so time-shifting can't be fair use. p 486.

VCRs, recording broadcast TV, have the primary purpose of time-shifting. p 423. The 5-4 majority found that time-shifting was fair use, so VCRs are OK. The problem is that the Court didn't consider tape-to-tape copies, or technology whose primary use is copyright infringement. The Grokster decision said that the primary use of the software was infringement. The question for the Supreme Court to resolve is whether software which is dual-use (legitimate and illegitimate) should be legal. The answer will probably involve some fancy line-drawing, creating factors for consideration from policy arguments including: the ratio of legit to illegit use; providing incentives to innovate; protecting the rights of the copyright holders; the rights of people to freely communicate using the Internet; the potential or actual economic harm to copyright owners; the harm to other businesses which rely on P2P software to distribute their wares; and to what extent the Court itself shoud be deciding these issues, in the absence of Congressional action. In other words, it's a big, fuzzy hairball.

The point about Congress shouldn't be overlooked. Answering questions like "how many people bought a CD only after downloading a song" and "how much money is the recording industry really losing over this" are best answered by experts hired by a third party (Congress), not by courts who have limited fact-finding resources, and who can't take such independent action on their own. Courts have to respond to what the lawyers put in front of them, and nothing else. And it's much cheaper for the RIAA to go to Washington and have taxpayer money spent on such studies than for them to fund it themselves. Consider writing your Senators and Representative and asking them to audit the RIAA's books.

In order to understand 17 USC 107, you have to read the interpretations given by the Supreme Court in the Sony-Betamax case. Basically, it comes down to interpreting 107 in light of the four factors laid out by Congress:

(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.

In the dissent, Justice Blackmun points out that Congress did not make an explicit exemption for private use, when they easily could have. p 474. He claims that the majority ignored "the potential market for or the value of the copyrighted work." p 484. He claims that VCRs take control away from the copyright holder, so time-shifting can't be fair use. p 486.

VCRs, recording broadcast TV, have the primary purpose of time-shifting. p 423. The 5-4 majority found that time-shifting was fair use, so VCRs are OK. The problem is that the Court didn't consider tape-to-tape copies, or technology whose primary use is copyright infringement. The Grokster decision said that the primary use of the software was infringement. The question for the Supreme Court to resolve is whether software which is dual-use (legitimate and illegitimate) should be legal. The answer will probably involve some fancy line-drawing, creating factors for consideration from policy arguments including: the ratio of legit to illegit use; providing incentives to innovate; protecting the rights of the copyright holders; the rights of people to freely communicate using the Internet; the potential or actual economic harm to copyright owners; the harm to other businesses which rely on P2P software to distribute their wares; and to what extent the Court itself shoud be deciding these issues, in the absence of Congressional action. In other words, it's a big, fuzzy hairball.

The point about Congress shouldn't be overlooked. Answering questions like "how many people bought a CD only after downloading a song" and "how much money is the recording industry really losing over this" are best answered by experts hired by a third party (Congress), not by courts who have limited fact-finding resources, and who can't take such independent action on their own. Courts have to respond to what the lawyers put in front of them, and nothing else. And it's much cheaper for the RIAA to go to Washington and have taxpayer money spent on such studies than for them to fund it themselves. Consider writing your Senators and Representative and asking them to audit the RIAA's books.

File Transfer Protocol -- the original "P2P" file sharing from the 1980's.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc959.html

As the Internet was used mainly by the military and by universities back then, it was used to allow researchers to share published papers, research data, and software they had written.

That's why MGM v. Grokster is so bogus. P2P file sharing was one of the main purposes of the Internet (it wasn't to surf cnn.com).

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120228,0 0.asp
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster

Which brings me to another pet peeve. I keep seeing news reports on various topics that say things like "Internet and e-mail access". What they really meant to say was "web and e-mail". HTTP is but one of many protocols that run on the Internet. "The Internet" is much bigger than just "the web".

To make that even more clear, prior to the web, when you signed up to the Internet, you would expect "e-mail and UseNet". Now you expect "e-mail and web and maybe UseNet if the ISP is a) nice and b) retro".

It just illustrates that Internet protocols come and go. FTP was a file sharing protocol. Grokster, Kazaa, etc. are just new file sharing protocols.

UseNet itself is actually also based on peer-to-peer technology. UseNet is the globally distributed message board system. groups.google.com archives UseNet posts, but they are just one of thousands of UseNet servers across the globe collaborating to provide the service. UseNet servers talk to each other as "peers" to synchronize their message postings.

The whole nature of the Internet was originally "peer-to-peer". But two things have come along to keep that concept out of the minds of most Internet users:

a) Web technology, which is more client-server than peer-to-peer. The popularity of the HTTP protocol has made it seem to most people that the web is the Internet, and thus most people think that to participate on the Internet means you are supposed to "log in" to some "official" computer (e.g. browsing to cnn.com)

b) Dynamic IP. The inventors of the Internet thought that 2 billion IP addresses was enough for the world. Well, we've run out, and so now when you get an Internet account you no longer get your own "static" IP address. Instead, you get a "dynamic" IP address. That makes it impossible to register a domain name (like underreported.com) to your own computer at home. Instead, you have to pay a "hosting provider" to use their computer running on their network that happens to be privileged enough to have static IP addresses. In the old days, everyone's computer handled their own e-mail, their own FTP server, etc. FTP is really only effective with static IP addresses. The rise in popularity of so-called "P2P file-sharing apps" is due in part that they were built to work with dynamic IP addresses (because they advertise themselves on a custom protocol as opposed to relying on the DNS (Domain Name System, where names like underreported.com are recorded along with their static IP addresses)).

I wouldn't worry about it guys, apparently Kojo Anan has been put in charge of the shutdown and the EFF has made a deal to cut him a monthly check for the next few years "not to compete" with the internet. So...keep up those donations!

m

Just use tor and save yourself the trouble of switching proxies over and over. Then you can script it if you want.

http://tor.eff.org/
http://www.socks.permeo.com/Download/SocksCapDownl oad/index.asp

Locate Log Files on Your Systems Many system administrators don't know exactly what logs they have until they have looked into the question. Often, logging was enabled by defaults -- or by previous system administrators -- and so your systems may be keeping logs you never intended. We have created a program called logfinder as a simple means of locating files that might be logs on an existing system. logfinder uses regular expressions to find local files with "log-like" contents; you can customize those expressions if necessary to meet your needs. logfinder requires Python 2 or greater and finds logs in text files on a POSIX-like system. (It might also find some log-like data in binary files if the binary files represent that data in textual form.)

Best Practices for Online Service Providers Online service providers (OSPs) are vital links between their users and the Internet, offering bandwidth, email, web, and other Internet services. Because of their centrality, however, OSPs face legal pressures from all sides: from users, industry, and government. Here we offer information for people who run and use OSPs in order to help them make sound, ethical decisions about how to safeguard private data and preserve freedom of expression online. Legal and Technical Policy Suggestions for Data Logging As an intermediary, the OSP finds itself in a position to collect and store detailed information about its users and their online activities that may be of great interest to third parties. The USA PATRIOT Act also provides the government with expanded powers to request this information. As a result, OSP owners must deal with requests from law enforcement and lawyers to hand over private user information and logs. Yet, compliance with these demands takes away from an OSP's goal of providing users with reliable, secure network services. In this paper, EFF offers some suggestions, both legal and technical, for best practices that balance the needs of OSPs and their users' privacy and civil liberties.

This is yet another reason for web users to routinely use anonymizing overlay networks like Tor. Why depend on the site operator when you can solve the problem on your end?

I really do strongly recommend checking out Tor. Even if you don't plan on using it regularly, running the server process will greatly increase the effectiveness of the network as a whole.

You know, what actually worries me more than the FBI's asking for server logs is the fact that (seemingly) every time something like this happens, a "gag order" is placed on the affected parties. It's a serious breach of the constitutional rights people enjoy; not only the right to free speech is affected, but also things like due process. A state which gathers evidence in secret is well on its way to a state that holds trials in secret, and THAT certainly is something none of us (here on Slashdot, anyway) want, no matter how we may disagree on other matters.

And of course, there is the fact that (like always) there does not even seem to be a good reason to place a gag order, short of "people aren't gonna like this and we want to avoid bad press"; I can see why the FBI wants to err on the (for them) "safe" side, but I think it's a dangerous path to take, for the reasons described above.

Oh well. I guess it just shows again that as a webmaster, you should not keep logs for longer than is absolutely necessary, and that as a user, you should use Tor or a similar tool to anonymise your browsing if you're visiting political websites (I wonder if Slashdot counts as one).

You work for Diebold?

So what does GPL violations have to do with EFF? EFF protects our right to free speach on the internet, it has nothing to do with enforcing copyright licenses. Asking EFF to help out with this case is like asking the ACLU to help out. I donate money to both organizations, and I sure as hell don't any of them putting their resources into enforcing a copyright license since it does NOT affect any of my constitutional rights, consumer rights or personal freedoms.

I sure hope you're not donating to organization that you do not fully understand their mission statement.

"But he came to the US and is now subject to US law."

"Lets all disregard laws that we disagree with."

The case was Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios. As another poster pointed out, Sony owned the Betamax. They were sued by Universal. http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/

[ Amendment IV ]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Want to read my stuff? Go ahead and crack it - no warrant necessary.

Get the rabbit installed on a machine behind your firewall
==> http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
Faster than freenet
==> http://www.i2p.net/
Encrypt Jabber
==> http://www.vanemery.com/Linux/Jabber/jabberd.html
Onion Routing
==> http://tor.eff.org/
Emerging Network To Reduce Orwellian Potency Yield
==> http://entropy.stop1984.com/
Free Internet telephony
==> http://skype.com/
GNU-ified P2p
==> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnunet/


DO NOT DENY yourself about 2 hours @ InfoAnarchy.org
OMG! ==> http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Pag e
LearnLearnLearnLearn ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography

=================EMAIL ENCRYPTION===============
GPG (Free PGP)
==> http://gnupg.org/
Integrated with Thunderbird
==> http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Mutt can't be beat as a mailreader and integrates GPG wonderfully.
==> http://mutt.blackfish.org.uk/
==> http://www.mutt.org/links.html
==> http://wiki.mutt.org/index.cgi?UserPages

!!! Please do not immediately send newly created keys to the keyservers (as many HOWTOs instruct new users to). They are already overflowing with "test keys" and other people's experiments from over the years THAT HAVE NO EXPIRATION and will never be deleted. These keys are "orphans" and most will never be used. As keyservers sync together, and most keys are never deleted once submitted - GET YOUR KEY SETUP CORRECTLY AND HAVE PRACTICE WITH IT BEFORE SENDING IT OFF TO THE KEYSERVERS!!! Otherwise storage requirements will continue to grow and using these in the future will become more difficult FOR ALL. Please, if you are just starting out with PGP or GPG or GnuPG or anything similar (the last two are in fact the same thing) use manual key distribution to begin (ascii armor your public key with

$ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org

and copy and paste it into an email body or attach it to an email

$ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org > myPubKey.txt

to gain practice with GPG before uploading your key. This way if you need to create another you won't have uploaded your mistakes. Many choices need to be made and it's worth getting things right before "going public" with your new digital ID. Experiment with yourself and a few different email accounts or with some friends first.)

SET AN EXPIRATION OF 2-5 YEARS OR SO AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR PREFERENCES THE WAY YOU LIKE THEM BEFORE SENDING TO A KEYSERVER! Better yet is to HOST YOUR KEY ON YOUR WEBSITE (or try using http://biglumber.com/ instead to host your key and help c

I don't know about the USA, but in England it has long been held that a manufacturer of a kitchen knife cannot be held responsible for a murder carried out using the knife.

I, too, don't know about the USA ... and I've lived here all my life, mate.

The nut of the Betamax case:

In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court ruled that a company was not liable for creating a technology that some customers may use for copyright infringing purposes, so long as the technology is capable of substantial non-infringing uses. In other words, where a technology has many uses, the public cannot be denied the lawful uses just because some (or many or most) may use the product to infringe copyrights.
Source

To my thinking, this means that manufacturers of cute cuddly teddy-bears are not responsible when some crazed maniac uses stuffed animals to perpetrate a murderous asphyxiation spree.

Furthermore: the knife is too goddamned obvious -- any fool can knife a man to death. It takes an innovator to kill with stuffed animals.

-kgj

One reason SCOTUS gave Betamax their blessings was that people at the time weren't trying to build libraries of videos...

Not true. From the BetaMax Shield link:

....the uncontroverted survey evidence established that 69% to 75% of all Betamax owners maintain large libraries of off-the-air recordings and that the vast majority of programs in those libraries are copyrighted motion pictures....

Only 9% of users were making legitimate recordings, but the court ruled that these people should not be denied, despite the majority's unlawful behaviour.

Correct. It's only illegal to stream video on the internet without a license from Acacia Technologies.

First point to remember, diplomacy is a great idea, and it sometimes opens doors you cannot open otherwise. It may be too late now when they are already criminalizing the guy like this, but it may still be worth a try:

At my college, p2p is similarly blocked. But at least nobody kicked me off the net for just trying it. In fact, I was able to do a little [social] networking and find out who sets these policies. I didn't follow up on it, but I was told there is a good chance he would allow me an exception for a legitimate download. Some netlords have heard of Linux, some haven't. YMMV.

Second point, again it is too late for this in his case, but ALL students these days need to seriously think about preemptively setting up some security:

1.) Use truecrypt http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/, and keep any questionable materials hidden on a plausibly deniable encrypted partition, in case your computer is suddenly grabbed by school authorities for inspection.

2.) Use tor http://tor.eff.org/ or freenet http://freenet.sourceforge.net/ or whatever, encrypting your pipes so the netlords can't easily know what software you are using. Them blowing smoke about your bandwidth usage is legitimate, but puts you in way less hot water than p2p usage.

3.) Use (or develop) [if your encrypted tunnel doesn't already do this], p2p programs that do everything via port 80 http, since hardly anyone tries to block that. BitComet's UDP NAT-piercing technology is ingenious, but port-blocking firewalls still destroy its usefulness. Somebody needs to adapt the torrent algorithms to not depend on those red-flag port numbers. Heck, if everything was already on port 80, those netlords probably wouldn't have even noticed him--no encryption necessary!

Anyone got pointers to easy-to-install stuff along these lines? Or do we need to work on developing it ourselves?

More of the same, not that I've got any problem with that!

For instance, the Navy's Proteanforge is fantastic on so many levels it's not even funny. Besides being one of the few public Sourceforge deployements outside of sf.net, the code there is just wildly interesting, and has been for several years now.

Not to mention the funding the Navy put into Onion Routing Research and it's very popular implementation.

Open Source will likely have to solve the problems differently than private companies, but the issues aren't a whole lot different.

Has everyone kept up with their EFF donations? :)

Is this a public (state-funded) University? If no, you can take away any rights you want. If yes, the EFF believes that you cannot:

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Academic_edu/CAF/faq /just-a-privilege

q: If a state university calls computer or network access a
"privilege", can they remove an individual's access arbitrarily?

a: In most cases no.


Everything in that directory is quite useful for convincing the powers-that-be that their AUP is stupid. I tried here at UIC and just got ignored (and got some BS reply about how the lawyers think it's ok, blah blah blah).

My solution is to publish controversial material and when my account gets shut down I sue the University. If they don't want to talk about it, maybe a judge does :)

EFF's index of Computers and Academic Freedom - CAF isn't directly an EFF project, but they provide hosting space for it. They've probably dealt with some other schools about similar issues.

You might try getting the EFF in on this.

... and that they've put an awful lot of effort into making it efficient in hardware requiring a minimal number of gates.

Which in my view equates to "easier to brute-force." Am I missing something?

It seems to me that the easier it is to implement in hardware, the more implementations will fit in a single FPGA/ASIC, the smaller/cheaper/faster a hardware-based brute-force attack would be...

Recommendation: stick with AES. We don't need YAWEA (Yet Another Weak Encryption Algorithm)...

You might just want to wait before you load up the minivan...

Some fun snippets for you canuks who are celebrating a little early:

It will also be made clear that private copies of sound recordings cannot be uploaded or further distributed

Oops! No more legal P2P loophole.

Circumvention for the purposes of making private copies of sound recordings will not be permitted, however

Oops! No braking that annoying DRM for purpose of making a backup or otherwise private copy, like to a HD for easier playback.

ISPs can play a significant role to curb infringing activities of subscribers on those networks, however. The bill will also provide that they be required to forward notices of claims of infringement from rights holders to their subscribers (a "notice-and-notice" requirement).

Now if I'm not mistaken you are at least as badly off than us US (that's kind of an amusing phrase) citizens, where some large ISP's are at least fighting generic takedown notices!

Sure everyone, flee to Canada instead of fighting for your rights at home. Fucking cowards.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest, Instead of paying for a home in the No Longer Free North, consider please a donation to the EFF.

btw, I'm a musician too, and I support filesharing. and don't call me moron.

The point is, the rules just changed. Its not interesting what you or I could do with BT or DC++ or whatever. what I'm saying is that the technology allows EVERYONE to do it. and when BT is gone, something will replace it, ad infinitum, forever so that there is going to be a sizeable percentage of people that for the rest of time are going to "steal" your music. either you can reconcile yourself with that and make a living the old fashioned way by gigging, self-promotion (which is gruelling hard work) and actually being talented or you can whine about it. the rest of us will be working to do something about it.

Think of the last 50 years of the record industry as the dotcom boom stretched out over several decades.

Let me state right up front that I am NOT against musicians, movie makers, and other media authors receiving fair compensation for their creative work. Far from it! I have a deep respect for those who have given us such gems as (just two examples) "Monsters, Inc." and "Spirited Away."

With that said: I would not accept any form of DRM as it is currently implemented. The idea of DRM, in its current form, seems to be designed to do two things.

(1) Protect the profits of industries that refuses to change their business models to reflect reality (notably the MPAA and RIAA, which are rapidly becoming four-letter epithets).

(2) Trump consumer fair-use rights that have been around for decades. More specifically, I see the current implementation of DRM as little more than a weapon to try and overturn the Betamax ruling of 1984.

It's clear to me that Hollywood wants us to pay for the privilege of letting them tell us what we can and cannot do with movies and music that we buy. I also find it ironic that the MPAA and RIAA are so quick to accuse others of "piracy" when their own business practices are questionable at best.

Honestly, I think DRM right now is a bad idea. The media industries seem to be treating everyone as potential criminals from the get-go, taking a "Guilty Until We Decide Otherwise" approach.

Something I've noticed about human behavior: Treat people like (copyright) criminals from the start, and that is invariably how they will behave. The U.S. government has been treating the population of the entire country, collectively, like a bunch of rowdy eighth-graders for years. Hollywood hasn't done any better.

In other words: You have to show respect to earn it.

I don't pretend to have all (or even any) of the answers. I do know that any DRM scheme, if it's going to be acceptable to Joe Six-Pack and Jane Soccer-mom, is going to have to operate without disabling their ability to record a TV show or movie off the air, or make backup copies of DVDs that they've already bought.

Two things that I suspect would be a big help. First, better quality control on commercial DVD's! Disney, in particular, seems to have more than their share of defective discs (in terms of sudden freezes or pixellation).

Second, the music industry would do well to cut prices on music CDs by 50% across the board, AND to stop assuming that their sales drops can be blamed entirely on piracy.

The possibility that the dropoffs might be due to the fact that much of what their putting out is utter crap, and that their customers will actually pay for real talent as opposed to homogenized pop, never seems to occur to them.

Keep the peace(es).

So, the music executives have forced DRM on Apple and so they have to provide it in their files.

Please stop perpetuating this myth. Apple have publicly stated that they would continue to use DRM even if the music labels didn't ask them to.

FairPlay is about stifling competition as much or more as it is about protecting copyrights.

http://www.eff.org/radioeff/
I remember the panels on this site to be really informative and interesting. They have failed to update it recently which is depressing but what is there is quite nice. I figure who ever was responsible for making the recordings most likely graduated or stopped being allowed to record the discussions. Disappointing.
Enjoy!

The EFF has been following the DRM issue for quite some time now. See also this 2003 conference on DRM at Berkeley.

The problem is that these issues are of concern to many computer geeks and not most average people. The average voter does not know or care enough about computer software and hardware to give the matter much thought.

One small group that does care passionately is the many of the Linux users who might not be allowed to continue playing the DVDs they purchased any longer on their computers. We are also concerned that Microsoft could use stronger software patent and copyright laws block interoperability with non-Microsoft products and possibly destroy what little remaining competition they have. Unfortunately, most voters do not even know about these issues. In cases like that it is only the entertainment industry lobbyists who get noticed by congress.

I am building my own computer which I will use as a personal video recorder for broadcast high definition high definition televison signals (the HDTV signals received by antenna not cable). It will use the Linux based MythTV software and an HDTV video capture card. After July 1, 2005 the manufacture or sale of the HDTV video capture cards will be banned by the FCC. The Electric Frontier Foundation (EFF)" has been fighting them in court on that issue. Fortunately, it will still be legal to continue using the card that I purchased before the deadline. Over 90 percent of Americans use cable TV or satellite TV instead of what they receive by antenna, so once again, I am a small passionate minority that does not have a lot of politcal clout

I have contributed to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and have written several letters to my elected representaives. I do not watch much TV but am building my own Linux based personal video recorder mostly as a act of protest to what I feel is an unfair restriction of what I can do at home.

I am also a licensed ham radio operator and most hams in this country have been unsuccessfully fighting something else that the FCC has been doing. We strongly oppose the FFC plan to allow the power companies plan to use BPL to send high speed Internet data over unshielded power lines. That would cause large amouts of noise to be radiated from the unsheilded power lines onto the ham radio bands. The ham radio bands might become nearly useless. There are large numbers of angry ham radio operators who are dues paying members of the Amateur Radio Relay League (ARRL). I was one of many ARRL members who made contributions to a special ARRL fund to fight the plan but so far president Bush and the FCC seem to be ignoring us. Apparently, several million angry ham radio operators were not enough to stop a small number of power company lobbyists. It seems to be much the same situatation between computer users and the entertainment industry. On both of these issues, the industry lobbyists frequently seem to have more polical clout than small groups of passionate voters.

The problem is that these issues are of concern to many computer geeks and not most average people. The average voter does not know or care enough about computer software and hardware to give the matter much thought.

One small group that does care passionately is the many of the Linux users who might not be allowed to continue playing the DVDs they purchased any longer on their computers. We are also concerned that Microsoft could use stronger software patent and copyright laws block interoperability with non-Microsoft products and possibly destroy what little remaining competition they have. Unfortunately, most voters do not even know about these issues. In cases like that it is only the entertainment industry lobbyists who get noticed by congress.

I am building my own computer which I will use as a personal video recorder for broadcast high definition high definition televison signals (the HDTV signals received by antenna not cable). It will use the Linux based MythTV software and an HDTV video capture card. After July 1, 2005 the manufacture or sale of the HDTV video capture cards will be banned by the FCC. The Electric Frontier Foundation (EFF)" has been fighting them in court on that issue. Fortunately, it will still be legal to continue using the card that I purchased before the deadline. Over 90 percent of Americans use cable TV or satellite TV instead of what they receive by antenna, so once again, I am a small passionate minority that does not have a lot of politcal clout

I have contributed to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and have written several letters to my elected representaives. I do not watch much TV but am building my own Linux based personal video recorder mostly as a act of protest to what I feel is an unfair restriction of what I can do at home.

I am also a licensed ham radio operator and most hams in this country have been unsuccessfully fighting something else that the FCC has been doing. We strongly oppose the FFC plan to allow the power companies plan to use BPL to send high speed Internet data over unshielded power lines. That would cause large amouts of noise to be radiated from the unsheilded power lines onto the ham radio bands. The ham radio bands might become nearly useless. There are large numbers of angry ham radio operators who are dues paying members of the Amateur Radio Relay League (ARRL). I was one of many ARRL members who made contributions to a special ARRL fund to fight the plan but so far president Bush and the FCC seem to be ignoring us. Apparently, several million angry ham radio operators were not enough to stop a small number of power company lobbyists. It seems to be much the same situatation between computer users and the entertainment industry. On both of these issues, the industry lobbyists frequently seem to have more polical clout than small groups of passionate voters.

Cassette tapes had a fee put on them specifically because people made copies of their music on them and shared them. If I'm not mistaken, this was the compromise between banning cassettes and simply allowing copyright infringement. You can put your music from whatever format onto cassette all you want because you've paid the fee. This is part of why there has been a push to put a similar fee on blank cd's The problem is that while cassettes were rarely used for data, blank cd's are often used for data and makes a similar fee "unfair." The RIAA/MPAA have done a good job brainwashing people into believing they do not have any fair use rights and into believing that any copying in any form is illegal.

http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
Do I have the right to make a copy of my CD for my own personal use?
Yes. The fair use doctrine allows an individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted work for their own personal use. Allowing people to make a copy of copyrighted music for their personal use provides for enhanced consumer convenience through legitimate and lawful copying. It can also enlarge the exploitable market for the rights holders. The fair use privilege's personal use right is what allows an individual to make a backup copy of their computer software as an essential defense against future media failure.

Personal use also permits music fans to make "mix tapes" or compilations of their favorite songs from their own personal music collection or the radio for their own personal enjoyment in a more convenient format, or "format shifting." Another example of acceptable personal use copying of a copyrighted work is "time-shifting," or the recording of a copyrighted program to enjoy at a later and more convenient time.

As new media present new ways for people to enjoy music, the public's fair use rights accompany them into the electronic frontier. Now, music fans have the right and ability to copy their own music collection onto their own computer storage device and create customized play lists for their own personal use and enjoyment of their music.

It is important to note that while consumers have the right to listen to their own music collection for their own personal use, they do not have the right, however, to make their music collections available to others by uploading them onto the Internet for public downloading.

If they want competition, they should eliminate the broadcast flag.

is make darned sure you own no computers yourself and only use public terminals that can't be seized by the Secret Service.

Just remember what they did to a friend of mine - it started the whole Electronic Freedom Foundation when they seized ALL of his computers and returned them in little broken pieces in plastic bags, just because he was creating a game on Hackers.

And don't count on being able to use your checking accounts either - use cash.