Slashdot Mirror

But does that analogy also apply to intellectual property, like software?

Yes.

I could go into all of the reasons why its "yes", but it seems a lot simpler to link you to the definition for a "work for hire":
http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrig...

Show me where is says race can't be used to determine reasonable suspicion. I glanced and didn't see it.

http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-2/

Are you unable or unwilling to do a simple Google search?

In 1994, more than half of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.

I'd love for you to post the source article for that. I searched and found this:

In 1994, more than half of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.

Did you cherry-pick your numbers just to support your own biases?

Or clothing. Or loitering ( ... other unfounded assumptions ... )

The law states that the officer can only do this in conjunction with a legal stop, detention, or arrest. So FIRST the person in question has to break the law, or be suspected of doing so, in which case they have to show ID anyway. Clothing has ZERO to do with it, until AZ brings is the Fashion police to deal with law, order and colors that match.

I think you are missing something... what happens at work isn't decided by policy, it's defined by Title 17 S201 of the law:

(b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

A very important requirement is the work has to have been prepared for them, meaning on their behalf, and intended to be used by them.

And, btw, there is no payment required. Otherwise unpaid interns and volunteers would keep their copyrights, etc. when they do work that is *uncommissioned and unpaid* for any entity (commercial or otherwise).

Well, there is no such thing as an 'unpaid intern'.. the practice of hiring someone but not paying is not legal under the labor laws.

Volunteers might or might not be considered employees for purposes of the copyright act, it depends on the circumstances, CCNV v. Reid 1989. The volunteer is an employee if the organization has the right to control the manner and the means by which the work is created.

Otherwise, the question of the status of copyright work created by volunteers is unsettled, and would be up to the courts to reach a decision.

Work done by a student does not fit in here. Because (a) It is not prepared for the purpose of use by the university, and (b) The student is not an employee, since the university doesn't have a right to determine the conditions time/place under which they created the work, and (c) the student is not an employee legally.

And again, they'll simply come back with the statement of "don't like it, go to school elsewhere, your enrollment in the school is agreement to the policy to transfer the work to the school", and it'll _likely_ be upheld in court.

See, it doesn't matter what the school's policy is, there is no automatic transfer of copyright. This also goes back to Title 17 201 (e):

(e) Involuntary Transfer. — When an individual author's ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, has not previously been transferred voluntarily by that individual author, no action by any governmental body or other official or organization purporting to seize, expropriate, transfer, or exercise rights of ownership with respect to the copyright, or any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, shall be given effect

The college/university may be relying on students not being able to fight it in court, but that doesn't change what is happening now.

If the student does not bother to fight it, then the university wins by default, temporarily, but it's like that with any illegal activity. Eventually someone will stand up for their rights.

Maybe you should read the law? I've seen a whole ton of FUD from racist groups like La Raza out there, and none of it is based on any reading of the law itself.

The law makes specific provision to allow officers the leeway to not worry about immigration in the case of witnesses, etc: "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. "

Secondly, it establishes quite clearly what the police are looking for:

A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

Your quote: "...but you speak with an accent...":
Law text: A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

The law is pretty clear: the trigger for "lawful contact" is the occurrence of something meeting Terry Stop standards. What the police are looking for is what they are legally allowed to ask for anyways at such a stop.

Now if you have problems with a specific section of the law, please point the section out? I've provided the text of the law for you, fully linked above.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act. $500-$1500 per junk fax (assuming you can find and afford to sue the sender)

More.

company: "He is domain squatting"
guy: "They asked me for a price on the domain, this is entrapment. I have proof of them asking me for the domain price before I issued my price to them"
judge: "I find in favor of the defendant (the guy)"

Where have you been living? For a mere $1,200, a company can file for arbitration and stands a good chance of the arbitrator finding in favor of them.

(more likely)
company: "He is domain squatting"
guy: "They asked me for a price on the domain, this is entrapment. I have proof of them asking me for the domain price before I issued my price to them"
ICANN abritrator: You named a price, therefore you're willing to sell it, and you have no website, therefore you're a squatter. Plus, they have a trademark and you don't. Here you go, [company].

(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content. [spoofed packets anyone?]

(C) the service provider does not interfere with the ability of technology associated with the material to return to the person described in paragraph (1)(A) [interfering with bit torrent anyone?]...

Ok, so they are talking about the "Sponsered Links" section. Well, it's in a beige background, different from the rest of the results. It does say "sponsered links", but granted, that is off to the right of the results.

Both above and beside. And the phrase "sponsored links" is in a small, light, unobtrusive font with the phrase itself being somewhat ambiguous. "Advertising links" and using the same font would've been less ambiguous. And they're using the same font for paid links that they using for the unpaid links. Funny that.

The reality is that for the average google user the things that google have done to distinguish paid advertising is not adequate. Surveys have been done (e.g. only 38% can tell) and the majority of users don't know the difference. That's fraudulent advertising and the ACCC is right to prosecute. The FTC's take on it is interesting.

We, as expert users, know the difference but if the average user doesn't then it needs to be fixed, both by educating users and by forcing Google and other search companies not to engage in deceptive business practices.

Fraud is profitable and advertisers are frequently trying to fraudulently mislead consumers. It's up to government and the law to stop as much of it as they can.

---

"Advertising supported" just means you're paying twice over, once in time to watch/avoid the ad and twice in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad.

What is the law on junk faxing?

The TCPA, and actually it's $500-$1500 per fax. Yes, you collect through small claims, but most of the time it's a default judgment (the defendant never shows up), so it's mostly a matter of filing paperwork. You'll also probably need a collection agency to make them pay up (if they're still in business -- junk faxers are typically boiler-room operations) and they'll take a cut too, so again it's more paperwork.

http://www.keytlaw.com/faxes/junkfaxlaw.htm is full of useful info. Your state might have additional laws (CA certainly does).

Employer-Employee Relationship Under Agency Law

If a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the copyright code's definition of a work made for hire applies. To help determine who is an employee, the Supreme Court in CCNV v. Reid identified certain factors that characterize an "employer-employee" relationship as defined by agency law:

1. Control by the employer over the work (e.g., the employer may determine how the work is done, has the work done at the employer's location, and provides equipment or other means to create work)
   
2. Control by employer over the employee (e.g., the employer controls the employee's schedule in creating work, has the right to have the employee perform other assignments, determines the method of payment, and/or has the right to hire the employee's assistants)
   
3. Status and conduct of employer (e.g., the employer is in business to produce such works, provides the employee with benefits, and/or withholds tax from the employee's payment)
   

These factors are not exhaustive. The court left unclear which of these factors must be present to establish the employment relationship under the work for hire definition, but held that supervision or control over creation of the work alone is not controlling.

All or most of these factors characterize a regular, salaried employment relationship, and it is clear that a work created within the scope of such employment is a work made for hire (unless the parties involved agree otherwise).

Examples of works for hire created in an employment relationship are:

1. A software program created within the scope of his or her duties by a staff programmer for Creative Computer Corporation
   
2. ...
   

--Works Made for Hire Under the Copyright Act

According to this, pre-1978 works had their copyright extended to 95 years from the date the copyright was first secured. This was done via the 'Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act". Why would works copyrighted in the 1950's or 1960's be expiring in the next decade?

Some information on the law and what to do can be found here http://www.keytlaw.com/faxes/tcpa.htm The maximum legal damage is $500 per copy of a junk fax.

47 U.S.C. Section 227. Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment
(a) Definitions. As used in this section -
(2) The term ''telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment which has the capacity
(A) to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or
(B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper. ...
(4) The term ''unsolicited advertisement'' means any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission. ...
(3) Private Right of Action. A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of that State -
(A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation,
(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or
(C) both such actions.
If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.

It's commercial speech that is forced upon us... Forced in the sense that the speaker is asking you to pay for the infrastructure and the resources required for them to speak.

I have no issues at all with free speech. However, I do have an issue with someone's speech not being free (as in beer) for the recipient. This is why Junk Faxes are illegal.

This is really no different than the widely-ignored anti-fax laws.

The laws on the books state prohibit a company sending faxes to someone who explicitly tells you not to.

It's worse than that. It's against the law if they don't have a business relationship. If explicitely told not to, the damages are triple.

Yet we get deluged with hundreds of spam faxes a week. Over and over and over from the same companies. Many with blocked or deliberately falsified caller ID.

Law enforcement doesn't stop junk faxers,

HUH? From what I've read of the Junk Fax law, law enforcement has nothing to do with it. It was my understanding you can take a junk faxer to court, point out the law to the Judge and get $500 PER UNSOLICITED FAX (BEFORE you tell them to stop), or even $1,500 PER FAX if you (can prove you) had already told them to stop. This gives you a judgement against them - if they don't pay, you can get their wages garnished and have similar things done to get the money out of them. It sure seems worth it to me.

Washington State passed a very similar anti-spam law a few years ago, and there was a news item where a recipient in Washington State got an out-of-state spammer to pay up as per the law.

Why don't more people do this to junk faxers?

Googling for junk fax law and a couple clicks brings up these pertinent links:

The Junk Fax Law (portion of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991):
http://www.keytlaw.com/faxes/usc.htm

Example demand letter:
http://www.keytlaw.com/faxes/demandltr.htm

In /. terms:

1. Buy fax machine and dedicated phone line.
2. Add "FAX: [fax phone number] (for C++ code only)" to webpage
3. ...
4. Profit $$$

This is really no different than the widely-ignored anti-fax laws.

The laws on the books state prohibit a company sending faxes to someone who explicitly tells you not to.

It's worse than that. It's against the law if they don't have a business relationship. If explicitely told not to, the damages are triple.

Yet we get deluged with hundreds of spam faxes a week. Over and over and over from the same companies. Many with blocked or deliberately falsified caller ID.

Law enforcement doesn't stop junk faxers,

HUH? From what I've read of the Junk Fax law, law enforcement has nothing to do with it. It was my understanding you can take a junk faxer to court, point out the law to the Judge and get $500 PER UNSOLICITED FAX (BEFORE you tell them to stop), or even $1,500 PER FAX if you (can prove you) had already told them to stop. This gives you a judgement against them - if they don't pay, you can get their wages garnished and have similar things done to get the money out of them. It sure seems worth it to me.

Washington State passed a very similar anti-spam law a few years ago, and there was a news item where a recipient in Washington State got an out-of-state spammer to pay up as per the law.

Why don't more people do this to junk faxers?

Googling for junk fax law and a couple clicks brings up these pertinent links:

The Junk Fax Law (portion of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991):
http://www.keytlaw.com/faxes/usc.htm

Example demand letter:
http://www.keytlaw.com/faxes/demandltr.htm

In /. terms:

1. Buy fax machine and dedicated phone line.
2. Add "FAX: [fax phone number] (for C++ code only)" to webpage
3. ...
4. Profit $$$

As these hapless victims could attest. You sir would be right.

What's the DOJ supposed to do? Sit around and not enforce federal law?

When corporations can buy laws in congress? Yes, I would hope any decent american would resist those laws.

The 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Act and other recent IP acts extend the copyright term to something like 100 years. It's appalling, and serves no purpose other than to allow big corporations to buy and sell our cultural history just like so many other commodities. Our parents generation enjoyed the proper balance between protecting innovators and the public. It's clear that our current leaders have no respect for the value of the public domain.

We're raised on music, movies, and games only to learn that we have to pay a tithe to revisit our childhood. There's no reason we should stand for that. 5-10 years is more than sufficient time to ensure that an investor/artist is compensated. Until congress stops selling out the average american to corporations, there's no reason the average american should respect the acts of congress.

If you are a business, and your fax # is in in the yellow pages, sure.

If you are a home user and (like me) you primarily use the fax to send and receive with a small number of people/business that you have given your number, that's different.

If someone gets hold of my number and starts filling my fax with adverts, I have a recourse:

Junk Fax Law - the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. 227, makes it a violation of federal law for a person to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement (a "junk fax") to a telephone facsimile machine. The Act gives private citizens a right to sue to: (i) enjoin future transmissions, (ii) recover the greater of actual monetary damages or $500 in damages for each junk fax, or (iii) an injunction plus damages. If the court finds that the sender willfully or knowingly violated the Act, the court may increase the award up to three times the amount of damages.

"When p2p networks are outlawed, only outlaws will have p2p networks"

Pretty much,

"The 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Act and other recent IP acts extend the copyright term to something like 100 years. It's appalling, and serves no purpose other than to allow big corporations to buy and sell our cultural history just like so many other commodities. Our parents generation enjoyed the proper balance between protecting innovators and the public. It's clear that our current leaders have no respect for the value of the public domain.

We're raised on music, movies, and games only to learn that we have to pay a tithe to revisit our childhood. There's no reason we should stand for that. 5-10 years is more than sufficient time to ensure that an investor/artist is compensated. Until congress stops selling out the average american to corporations, there's no reason the average american should respect the acts of congress."

Oh please.

Don't act so smug and self-righteous. Congress has been degrading the public's right to access information for far too long. It used to be that you could go to places like the library and rent tapes, casettes, and relatively new novels.

The 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Act and other recent IP acts extend the copyright term to something like 100 years. It's appalling, and serves no purpose other than to allow big corporations to buy and sell our cultural history just like so many other commodities. Our parents generation enjoyed the proper balance between protecting innovators and the public. It's clear that our current leaders have no respect for the value of the public domain.

We're raised on music, movies, and games only to learn that we have to pay a tithe to revisit our childhood. There's no reason we should stand for that. 5-10 years is more than sufficient time to ensure that an investor/artist is compensated. Until congress stops selling out the average american to corporations, there's no reason the average american should respect the acts of congress.

I will then sue them under the The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act for every possible instance of a domain name that is "confusingly similar" to any trademark I hold. This should work out to several thousand combinations per Mark. (i.e. d0main.com, doma1n.com etc...) Damages are between $1,000 and $100,000 per domain name plus attorney fees. Between myself and anyone else doign this Verisign will be Bankrupt in no time.

Just because spamming is not illegal (and it is, under an increasing number of laws) under some conditions does not make it morally or ethically "right." It is still theft by conversion and trespass to chattel. The court system decided that a lonnnng time back in the original case of Cyber Promotions vs. AOL.

Muggers, shoplifters, and other thieves are not going to go away as long as they think they have even the ghost of a chance of making a quick $$.

Spamming is not going to go away as long as spammers think they can make an equally quick $$.

Spamming would stop practically overnight if the entire Internet-using population simply failed to respond to ANY of the offers contained in spam, no matter if they came from a supposedly "legitimate" company (and, in my eyes, no company that sends any form of spam can be considered "legitimate") or some huckster in a double-wide in a trailer park.

The answer, to my eyes, is two-fold, and is simple enough.

(1) Extend the existing anti-junk FAX laws to cover E-mail. In other words, ban spamming outright. Period.

(2) Teach people early and well, especially the earlier generation: NEVER RESPOND to spam, other than to block or filter it.

This may be nothing more than my own paranoia kicking in, but...

Micro$platt has a long and colorful history of buying out (or attempting to buy out) their competition. If said competition refuses a buyout, the usual result is a hostile takeover of some form or another.

I think Billy-boy and 'UncaFester' Ballmer would love to "own" E-mail. However, it's such an open application (SMTP) that the only way they could come up with to "own" it is to come up with their own system of electronic postage.

This business of "ending spam in two years" is nothing more than a smokescreen. Our legislators already had the perfect chance to, if not end spam, and least put a big dent in it by BANNING IT OUTRIGHT. Did they take the chance? Nooooo. Not with their puppet masters in the DMA breathing down their collective necks.

It would have been a no-brainer to extend the junk FAX law to cover E-mail as well. Along those lines, I've often wondered what part of 'No!' it is that telemarketdroids and spammers Just Don't Understand.

Anyway... This is nothing more than Billy-boy's attempt to "own" something that he really can't. I predict the entire effort will end in utter disaster of a public-relations nature.

And the worst part is that I don't think it'll have the slightest effect on the spam problem. Nothing will, until legislators are brave enough to recognize where the private property lines are on the Internet, and subsequently say "No, spamming is NOT legal. Period."

It's not like spammers are just now discovering fax machines. Junk faxes are old enough news that there's already legislation on the books to cover them, in the U.S.

The reason people like fax machines isn't because they don't get junk faxes. It's not because fax machines are easy to use, either (though they are -- but with a little computer literacy, email is too).

You can sum up fax's popularity in one word: Paper.

Think about it.

Although I do understand your arguments, the point that I was trying to make is that the burden of proof is shifted.

Right. And the point I am trying to make is that the burden of proof is not shifted.

If I come up to you and tell you that you have violated a copyright and then not prove that you violated a copyright you would not comply with my demands?

Depends if I was violating your copyright or not. If I wasn't, I wouldn't comply.

But the problem here is that the ISP are only granted a safe harbor if they comply with the takedown notice. If they fail to comply with the notice, then they are liable.

Right, and before the DMCA they were liable regardless of whether or not they took down the content.

This is a constitutional issue.

It may or may not be a constitutional issue, but if so it has nothing to do with the DMCA. The DMCA does not create strict liability. Copyright law does.

Becuase you run an ISP, and Joe posts something that seems that is derogitory to somebody. Jack comes along and claims copyright protection, and issues a take down notice under the DMCA. The ISP then takes down the comments because of DMCA fears. Joe has been censured, and since Joe is a poor guy he doesn't fight it. That is the reason why the take-down notices are a crock.

Have you been reading any of what I've wrote? In the absense of the DMCA, a cease and desist order could be sent, and it would have exactly the same effect.

The problem is that there is no requirement to prove that a copyright has been violated in order to issue a takedown notice -- ISP's will comply just because of the fear.

And by complying, the ISP is the one censuring speech, not the government. By the way, what is it that ISPs fear? They fear a lawsuit. For what? Not for violating the DMCA. The DMCA is not violated by refusing to comply with a takedown notice. Copyright law, not the DMCA, is what is violated, copyright law, not the DMCA, is what the lawsuit would be over, and copyright law, not the DMCA, is what the ISPs fear violating.

In normal court when you file a subpoenia is has to be approved by a judge and as part of a suit or pending court case. The DMCA approves the use of subpoenias and allows them to be used outside a court case.

As I said, the subpoena issue is a different issue, and I agree for the most part that it is a bad part of the DMCA. Maybe even unconstitutional (the ACLU claims it is, anyway).

• Digital Millennium Copyright Act Safe Harbor
  The simplest, cheapest and best way a web site owner may protect against liability for copyright infringement resulting from users' uploaded content is to comply with the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Web site owners who comply with the requirements of the DMCA and who take appropriate action after receiving notice of copyright infringement from a copyright owner, will not be liable for money damages for users' uploaded content.

We talked about the lawsuit here and it's rather similar.

Review: Zurakov filed a class action suit against register.com because he registered a domain and, while he was building it, his domain pointed to a register.com "coming soon" page that had links to services and so on. The argument: they were using his domain to profit.

In Verisign's case, I suppose they could argue that the sites belong to no one, but haven't we seen court precedence against this sort of thing?

The two cases have interesting parallels, IMO.

IANAL. Not FDIC Insured.

(2) The term ''telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment which has the capacity

(A) to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or

(B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper.

(b) Restrictions on Use of Automated Telephone Equipment

(1) Prohibitions. It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States -
(C) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine;

I have not read the DMCA, but it would seem that if the file actually is PacMan, it would violate regular copyright law, not so much the DMCA.

[I]f the service provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity and if the service provider receives a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, the service provider will not be protected by Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

(2) The term ''telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment which has the capacity (emphisis is mine)

(A) to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or

(B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper.

and further more,

(4) The term ''unsolicited advertisement'' means any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.

so the sections

(b) Restrictions on Use of Automated Telephone Equipment

(1) Prohibitions. It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States - ...

(C) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine; ...

(5) Private Right of Action. A person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State bring in an appropriate court of that State (emphysis is mine) -

(A) an action based on a violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation,

(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or

(C) both such actions.

Additionaly

(1) Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States -

(B) to use a computer or other electronic device to send any message via a telephone facsimile machine unless such person clearly marks, in a margin at the top or bottom of each transmitted page of the message or on the first page of the transmission, the date and time it is sent and an identification of the business, other entity, or individual sending the message and the telephone number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.

(f) Actions by States

(1) Authority of States. Whenever the attorney general of a State, or an official or agency designated by a State, has reason to believe that any person has engaged or is engaging in a pattern or practice of telephone calls or other transmissions to residents of that State in violation of this section or the regulations prescribed under this section, the State may bring a civil action on behalf of its residents to enjoin such calls, an action to recover for actual monetary loss or receive $500 in damages for each violation, or both such actions. If the court finds the defendant willfully or
knowingly violated such regulations, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under the preceding sentence.
(8) ''Attorney General'' Defined. As used in this subsection, the term ''attorney general'' means the chief legal officer of a State.

while IANAL, it seems to me that Deputy Communications Minister Andrei Korotkov, A person under US law has recieved an unsolicited advertisement, to his computer which has the capacity to send and recieve faxes via a telephone line so it

Yeah, O'Reilly is a real trooper with these copyrights. Maybe one of these days, the company will start assigning copyrights to the authors instead of hoarding them for itself. Presumably the texts are works for hire.

If a piece of work is classifiable as "work for hire," then the publishing company owns the copyright. See this article and a summary of the relevant law. Recently musicians have found their work falling under an expanded clause.

The current law can be found here. A report on a successfully prosecuted case can be found here. If one reads either, it's easy to see that the current law only applies to fraudulent headers.

Given that the current law only covers fraudulent headers, I doubt that Microsoft is maliciously trying to destroy the current law.

However, last year the senate introduced bill 6568 which extended the old law to require that commercial e-mail contain ADV: as the first 4 characters of the subject line. That bill passed the senate with flying colors. Unfortunately, it got locked up in committee in the house and died.

House bill 5734 is a watered down version of last year's senate bill 6568.

I don't like Microsoft much. That said, the story at the Seattle Times is riddled with half-truths and inaccuracies. For example, it claims that 5734 completely exempts ISPs. The senate summary of the bill says

Interactive computer services may not be held liable for acting as an intermediary between the sender and the recipient of commercial spam sent in violation of the law, or for providing transmission over its computer network or facilities of commercial spam that is sent in violation of the law.

I'd be really interested in knowing whether lobbyists that are partially funded by Microsoft also supported senate bill 6568 from last year. If so, this is definitely unjustified Microsoft bashing. However, if their lobbyists locked it up in the house then we can villify them for weakening a good bill.

Too bad the article doesn't comment on that, and I don't have a way to find out.

Nice of you to say it simply. However, you're wrong. Here's the text of the current LAW. Here's a summary of a successfully prosecuted case. If you read either, you'll see that it only deals with mail that contains fraudulent information about the sender. Unless your definition of spam is "mail that has forged headers", companies are still allowed to spam Washington residents as much as they like. They just have to be honest about who they are.

Of course, my post referred to the original BILL, meaning the original BILL that Microsoft is lobbying to change. I wasn't talking about the original 1998 LAW that was passed. I'm just a bill, I'm just a bill, I live on capital hill...

[The Law] Requires all unsolicited commercial e-mail to include "ADV:" as the first four letters of the Subject. Of course, this is on TOP of the fact that it is illegal, so it does seem a little silly. Now you know why it's not silly - it's not illegal.

So MS is lobbying to eliminate an older law which prohibits it from spamming.

Again, MS is lobbying to make revisions to the senate BILL passed last year, which is not LAW because it didn't pass the House.

Last year the senate passed amendment 6568 to try to address unsolicited commercial e-mail. It was a pretty cool amendment. You can find it here. Sorry, I can't give a direct link. Just type 6568 and select the 2001/2002 bills. Anyhow, according to this article, the bill perished in the House Technology, Telecommunications and Energy Committee.

The replacement amendment, with changes from the House, 5734 can be found here.

My opinion is that you should do a little research, and perhaps even reread the article, before stating your opinion.

Alright, research done. Of course, you didn't do yours...

even if you had an SMTP server running on a dialup line, and routed all your mail directly to your printer

Actually, a mistake - it's not necessary to route the mail to your printer, the simple fact that it can produce a hard-copy is enough.

it's still quite a stretch to say that everyone who sends you an email is knowingly sending to "a telephone facsimile machine"

Read the statute - it doesn't say anything about knowingly sending - just sending..

And knowledge has never been a prerequisite for prosecution in any other case - if you think that it is, try it on the judge next time you're in traffic court.

For the extremely lazy, here are the links from the article.
Full text of law
Simplified version

Read the article. His tenuous argument is that email is similar to a fax, because he uses a dialup fax modem to read his email

No, the argument was that his computer is a "telephone facsimile machine" since it can "... transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper" as required by the statute. Further, the statute prohibits "[using] any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine". The statute does not state that the advertisement must be sent over a telephone line, only that it must be sent to a "telephone facsimile machine".

Ie, the sender used a "computer" to send an "unsolicited advertisement" to his "telephone facsimile machine," which is prohibited section (b)(1)(C) of the statute.

On that note, how many of us use a fax modem any more
I doesnt matter, if your computer has one, then it is a "telephone facsimile machine" as defined by the statute.

Found here...

I don't see why this would be any worse than the Federal Junk Fax Law that prevents random people from taking over your fax machine. In fact, Hooters was sued under this statute and ordered to pay a heck of a lot of money - enough that they won't be sending any more unsolicited faxes.

Looking up "Maurice O'Bannon" in Google, we find that name associated with a major Internet fraud case in Nevada and California involving $37 million of phony credit card charges which resulted in jail time for some of the participants.

Uh oh. Spyware from people involved with credit card fraud is big trouble. This needs to be followed up with law enforcement.