Slashdot Mirror

For an explanation you may find helpful, take a look at:
http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.lev.tatteredcoverrec.h tml

When you buy a book, you don't expect to have a law enforcement agent searching through the store's records at some later date to see what books you have purchased. Such an action offends America's sense of privacy. It smacks of a police state.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Note a "DMCA complaint" isn't at all restricted to only addressing the infamous anti-circumvention provision.

The Blizard letter states (emphasis added)

The aforementioned site either hosts or distributes software which illegally modifies and/or alters Blizzard Entertainment copyrighted software or or bypasses anti-circumvention technology, thereby infringing upon Blizzard Entertainment copyrights.

That is. Blizzard technically claimed in their letter that Bnetd violated EITHER traditional copyright OR new anti-circumvention, but didn't actually say which one it was.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Take a look at this report about Gator at http://www.thiefware.com/info/data.gator.shtml

People are still complaining that Gator is getting installed on their computers with little advanced warning and in many instances, people do not know that Gator is being installed until the next time they turn on their computer. The user should always have the option to click on a download link but instead Gator partner sites use the automatic ActiveX download/installation program.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Arguing DeCSS as a fourth amendment case is like arguing against cryptography restrictions as a second amendment case (i.e., if crypto is a munition, we have the right to bear arms, so the right to use cryptography). It's something which sounds cool in a web-posting. But the courts aren't Slashdot posters, and they will take that argument down to (-1, Troll) as fast as an editor with infinite moderation points (which, in this case, they are).

The courts reason that they're protecting the property rights of the copyright owners, and only the speech aspect even gave them pause. Read the decision:
(emphasis added)

In considering the scope of First Amendment protection for a decryption program like DeCSS, we must recognize that the essential purpose of encryption code is to prevent unauthorized access. Owners of all property rights are entitled to prohibit access to their property by unauthorized persons. Homeowners can install locks on the doors of their houses. Custodians of valuables can place them in safes. Stores can attach to products security devices that will activate alarms if the products are taken away without purchase. These and similar security devices can be circumvented. Burglars can use skeleton keys to open door locks. Thieves can obtain the combinations to safes. Product security devices can be neutralized.

...

At first glance, one might think that Congress has as much authority to regulate the distribution of computer code to decrypt DVD movies as it has to regulate distribution of skeleton keys, combinations to safes, or devices to neutralize store product security devices. However, despite the evident legitimacy of protection against unauthorized access to DVD movies, just like any other property, regulation of decryption code like DeCSS is challenged in this case because DeCSS differs from a skeleton key in one important respect: it not only is capable of performing the function of unlocking the encrypted DVD movie, it also is a form of communication, albeit written in a language not understood by the general public.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

High sounding language, but the intent of such escape clauses is to allow Congress to normalize laws to reflect changes in the rest of the world.

Don't mix up the issues of retroactivity (extending copyrights on already-existing works), and limited times (length of the copyright). Retroactivity isn't slam-dunk un-Constitutional. I don't like it any more than you do, but we have to deal with what the Appeals Court has ruled. In fact, they would use your "normalize laws" argument directly against you to justify the time extensions! (again, emphasis added)

Judge Sentelle concludes otherwise only because he sees a categorical distinction between extending the term of a subsisting copyright and extending that of a prospective copyright. This distinction is not to be found in the Constitution itself, however. The dissent identifies nothing in text or in history that suggests that a term of years for a copyright is not a "limited Time" if it may later be extended for another "limited Time." Instead, the dissent suggests that the Congress -- or rather, many successive Congresses -- might in effect confer a perpetual copyright by stringing together an unlimited number of "limited Times," although that clearly is not the situation before us. The temporal thrust of the CTEA is a good deal more modest: The Act matches United States copyrights to the terms of copyrights granted by the European Union, see Council Directive 93/98, art. 7, 1993 O.J. (L 290) 9; in an era of multinational publishers and instantaneous electronic transmission, harmonization in this regard has obvious practical benefits for the exploitation of copyrights. This is a powerful indication that the CTEA is a "necessary and proper" measure to meet contemporary circumstances rather than a step on the way to making copy rights perpetual; the force of that evidence is hardly diminished because, as the dissent correctly points out, the EU is not bound by the Copyright Clause of our Constitutionn. As for the dissent's objection that extending a subsisting copyright does nothing to "promote Progress," we think that implies a rather crabbed view of progress: Preserving access to works that would otherwise disappear -- not enter the public domain but disappear -- "promotes Progress" as surely as does stimulating the creation of new works.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

I think the best argument they have going for them is that extending the copyright of already created works cannot possibly meet the constitutional requirement that copyright law "promote the progress of science and useful arts".

I'm not a lawyer. But, careful, that argument has actually lost (by 2-1) in the Appeals Decision
(emphasis added)

Such guidance as the Supreme Court has given further confirms us in this view of the matter. The Court has made plain that the same Clause permits the Congress to amplify the terms of an existing patent. As early as 1843 it established that the status of a particular invention and its protections must depend on the law as it stood at the emanation of the patent, together with such changes as have been since made; for though they may be retrospective in their operation, that is not a sound objection to their validity; the powers of Congress to legislate upon the subject of patents is plenary by the terms of the Constitution, and as there are no restraints on its exercise, there can be no limitation of their right to modify them at their pleasure, so that they do not take away the rights of property in existing patents.

McClurg v. Kingsland, 42 U.S. 202, 206.

Within the realm of copyright, the Court has to the present era been similarly deferential to the judgment of the Congress. "As the text of the Constitution makes plain, it is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly that should be granted to authors or to inventors in order to give the appropriate public access to their work product;" that "task involves a difficult balance between [competing interests]" as reflected in the frequent modifications of the relevant statutes. ...

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

See the chart of:

The Growth Rate of the Public Domain

This chart is a visual representation of amici's understanding of the decline of the growth of public domain as a result of repeated copyright term extensions.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

LDAP is definitely something you should investigate.

It is extremely cross-platform compatible

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

I do a lot of cutting-and-pastings. Saves typing.

Again, I keep stressing, we are not in the same position. I worry a lot about getting sued. I respond many times to Sims-smears. Yes, I say the same things over and over, because I'm asked the same things over and over.

I did not do almost all of what Sims accuses me of doing. I deny it today. I denied it yesterday. If asked, I will deny it tomorrow.

It is a cruel thing to then turn around and claim the repeated false accusations are somehow proof of truth.

On-topic: This is not just a flame war. It has serious implications for my anticensorware work, related to issues such as CIPA. All the things I planned were derailed by Michael Sims' attack.

New sig for today: My proposal to Slashdot for CIPA article

Readers might be interested in my essay posted at another site:

Censorware - changing the debate from "filtering" (Technology)
By Seth Finkelstein
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/25/8925/06088

"As already mentioned in another story a Federal censorware law is now being challenged in court. For the past months, I've been focusing on trying to change some of the ways people think about censorware. Censorware is not a "filter", it's a blinder-box."

New sig for today: My proposal to Slashdot for CIPA article

Sims is making it up.

I've never spammed Slashdot, or sent "hundreds of letters", or similar.

The way you know who is telling the truth is simple logic. If he had anything, anything, serious on me, he'd be making maximum use of it. When you break it down, the only thing he has, is much calling me names, and that other people have called me names.

The reason for the lie is that he has learned as a journalist, there is no cost to fabrication. Since he can throw mud with no downside, he does so. Whatever sticks to me is to his benefit. If he can shift the debate away from What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org), to my sanity (i.e., lack thereof), he wins. Because that makes the topic about accusation and denial, and truth-is-in-the-middle, rather than his ongoing destruction and malicious actions.

Michael Sims pulled this latest stunt just before the CIPA trial started. My mind boggles. He's GOATSE'D censorware.org! If someone tries to get to a censorware.org report from an old link, instead, they get his rant. It's amazing.

This is ON-TOPIC. He derailed my planned anticensorware work to coincide with the CIPA trial, by his actions. He's goatse'ing people looking for material from censorware.org, motivated by the CIPA trial. It's absolutely shameful.

Much CIPA discussion seems to assume that it only applies to "children". That's not true at all. Per http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/cipatext.htm:

``(C) CERTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ADULTS.--A certification under this paragraph is a certification that the library--
``(i) is enforcing a policy of Internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are- (... legal stuff)

See also my essay Censorware ("Filtering"): It's not just for kids anymore which discusses this topic in detail.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Much CIPA discussion seems to assume that it only applies to "children". That's not true at all. Per http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/cipatext.htm:

``(C) CERTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ADULTS.--A certification under this paragraph is a certification that the library--
``(i) is enforcing a policy of Internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are- (... legal stuff)

See also my essay Censorware ("Filtering"): It's not just for kids anymore which discusses this topic in detail.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

[Fair Moderators: Before anybody mods this as a troll, PLEASE read about the programmers who were sued for anti-censorware work, http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/cpbfaq.html, and put in perspective considering the legal risks I face for my anticensorware investigations!]

For the amusement value, take a look at the following proposal I recently sent to Slashdot. I wrote this more for my sense of humor than expecting them to take me up on it. No reply, which wasn't a surprise. I should note, loyalty oath, it's their utter and complete right not to reply.

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:46:09 -0500
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf[at-sign]sethf.com>
To: malda
Cc: [Three lawyers and two Slashdot editors]
Subject: Proposed Feature - Censorware description, along with testing code

Per: http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed500
> I want to write an editorial. What should I do? >
> Before you get carried away, mail me a synopsis of your idea (put the
> text 'Proposed Feature' in the subject). That way I can tell you if it
> is something we would consider posting before you bother to write the
> whole thing.

With the upcoming CIPA trial about government-mandated censorware, I'd like to write something about censorware. I think I'm eminently qualified, as I won an EFF 2001 Pioneer Award for my anticensorware work http://sethf.com/pioneer/ , and was the key figure behind exposing what censorware actually blacklists.

I'm particularly interested in pursuing something related to releasing code. One of the things I've discovered is that N2H2's [rest of the paragraph redacted]

I've been hesitant to release this code, since I worry I'll be sued, and would face a lot of bad publicity. In fact, your infamous editor, Michael Sims, just breached confidentiality on Censorware Project legal material and posted a detailed legally sensitive internal message from Censorware Project attorney James Tyre, listing specific past decryptions I've done. All the details of which programs and what I did, in the words of Censorware Project's own lawyer. If you care, it's at http://censorware.org/censorware.org_tyre_revelati on.txt

Anyway, my inspiration is that if you have an editor who does these vengeful actions, my best bet is paradoxically to go straight to the lion's den and *offer you* the story, so it becomes in part your legal problem to publish the actual code. This way any legal threats are both your problem and mine, rather than having situations such as one of your editors releasing damaging legal material about me just as one of the biggest censorware-related trials is about to get underway.

Let me know if you're interested in something along these lines. Of course, I'd be happy to write a standard editorial about my experiences fighting censorware, censorware internals, winning an EFF Pioneer Award for my work, commentary on the technical accuracy of the trial, or so on, whatever might be appealing. But I think it's very productive and unique to do something code-related.

Sincerely,
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf[at-sign]sethf.com

[I realized after writing the above, that someone might be confused as to: "How come you're complaining about Michael Sims releasing damaging legal material, when the information is on your website's Pioneer section?"So I then immediately added the following clarification]

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 00:03:31 -0500
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf[at-sign]sethf.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Feature - Censorware description, along with testing code

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 11:46:09PM -0500, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> as I won an EFF 2001 Pioneer Award for my anticensorware work
> http://sethf.com/pioneer/

Small note of clarification - I only released all the Pioneer Award nomination material on this page after Michael Sims broke Censorware Project confidentiality, and publicly posted Censorware Project attorney James Tyre's internal message detailing all the decryptions I'd done. At that point, I figured since this information was being publicized in a negative context, I might as well publicize it myself in a positive context. Again, this leads to the idea behind my code/story proposal. better the legal risks be "our" problem than just "my" problem.

Sincerely,
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf[at-sign]sethf.com

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

[Fair Moderators: Before anybody mods this as a troll, PLEASE read about the programmers who were sued for anti-censorware work, http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/cpbfaq.html, and put in perspective considering the legal risks I face for my anticensorware investigations!]

For the amusement value, take a look at the following proposal I recently sent to Slashdot. I wrote this more for my sense of humor than expecting them to take me up on it. No reply, which wasn't a surprise. I should note, loyalty oath, it's their utter and complete right not to reply.

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:46:09 -0500
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf[at-sign]sethf.com>
To: malda
Cc: [Three lawyers and two Slashdot editors]
Subject: Proposed Feature - Censorware description, along with testing code

Per: http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed500
> I want to write an editorial. What should I do? >
> Before you get carried away, mail me a synopsis of your idea (put the
> text 'Proposed Feature' in the subject). That way I can tell you if it
> is something we would consider posting before you bother to write the
> whole thing.

With the upcoming CIPA trial about government-mandated censorware, I'd like to write something about censorware. I think I'm eminently qualified, as I won an EFF 2001 Pioneer Award for my anticensorware work http://sethf.com/pioneer/ , and was the key figure behind exposing what censorware actually blacklists.

I'm particularly interested in pursuing something related to releasing code. One of the things I've discovered is that N2H2's [rest of the paragraph redacted]

I've been hesitant to release this code, since I worry I'll be sued, and would face a lot of bad publicity. In fact, your infamous editor, Michael Sims, just breached confidentiality on Censorware Project legal material and posted a detailed legally sensitive internal message from Censorware Project attorney James Tyre, listing specific past decryptions I've done. All the details of which programs and what I did, in the words of Censorware Project's own lawyer. If you care, it's at http://censorware.org/censorware.org_tyre_revelati on.txt

Anyway, my inspiration is that if you have an editor who does these vengeful actions, my best bet is paradoxically to go straight to the lion's den and *offer you* the story, so it becomes in part your legal problem to publish the actual code. This way any legal threats are both your problem and mine, rather than having situations such as one of your editors releasing damaging legal material about me just as one of the biggest censorware-related trials is about to get underway.

Let me know if you're interested in something along these lines. Of course, I'd be happy to write a standard editorial about my experiences fighting censorware, censorware internals, winning an EFF Pioneer Award for my work, commentary on the technical accuracy of the trial, or so on, whatever might be appealing. But I think it's very productive and unique to do something code-related.

Sincerely,
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf[at-sign]sethf.com

[I realized after writing the above, that someone might be confused as to: "How come you're complaining about Michael Sims releasing damaging legal material, when the information is on your website's Pioneer section?"So I then immediately added the following clarification]

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 00:03:31 -0500
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf[at-sign]sethf.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Feature - Censorware description, along with testing code

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 11:46:09PM -0500, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> as I won an EFF 2001 Pioneer Award for my anticensorware work
> http://sethf.com/pioneer/

Small note of clarification - I only released all the Pioneer Award nomination material on this page after Michael Sims broke Censorware Project confidentiality, and publicly posted Censorware Project attorney James Tyre's internal message detailing all the decryptions I'd done. At that point, I figured since this information was being publicized in a negative context, I might as well publicize it myself in a positive context. Again, this leads to the idea behind my code/story proposal. better the legal risks be "our" problem than just "my" problem.

Sincerely,
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf[at-sign]sethf.com

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

[Fair Moderators: Before anybody mods this as a troll, PLEASE read about the programmers who were sued for anti-censorware work, http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/cpbfaq.html, and put in perspective considering the legal risks I face for my anticensorware investigations!]

For the amusement value, take a look at the following proposal I recently sent to Slashdot. I wrote this more for my sense of humor than expecting them to take me up on it. No reply, which wasn't a surprise. I should note, loyalty oath, it's their utter and complete right not to reply.

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:46:09 -0500
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf[at-sign]sethf.com>
To: malda
Cc: [Three lawyers and two Slashdot editors]
Subject: Proposed Feature - Censorware description, along with testing code

Per: http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed500
> I want to write an editorial. What should I do? >
> Before you get carried away, mail me a synopsis of your idea (put the
> text 'Proposed Feature' in the subject). That way I can tell you if it
> is something we would consider posting before you bother to write the
> whole thing.

With the upcoming CIPA trial about government-mandated censorware, I'd like to write something about censorware. I think I'm eminently qualified, as I won an EFF 2001 Pioneer Award for my anticensorware work http://sethf.com/pioneer/ , and was the key figure behind exposing what censorware actually blacklists.

I'm particularly interested in pursuing something related to releasing code. One of the things I've discovered is that N2H2's [rest of the paragraph redacted]

I've been hesitant to release this code, since I worry I'll be sued, and would face a lot of bad publicity. In fact, your infamous editor, Michael Sims, just breached confidentiality on Censorware Project legal material and posted a detailed legally sensitive internal message from Censorware Project attorney James Tyre, listing specific past decryptions I've done. All the details of which programs and what I did, in the words of Censorware Project's own lawyer. If you care, it's at http://censorware.org/censorware.org_tyre_revelati on.txt

Anyway, my inspiration is that if you have an editor who does these vengeful actions, my best bet is paradoxically to go straight to the lion's den and *offer you* the story, so it becomes in part your legal problem to publish the actual code. This way any legal threats are both your problem and mine, rather than having situations such as one of your editors releasing damaging legal material about me just as one of the biggest censorware-related trials is about to get underway.

Let me know if you're interested in something along these lines. Of course, I'd be happy to write a standard editorial about my experiences fighting censorware, censorware internals, winning an EFF Pioneer Award for my work, commentary on the technical accuracy of the trial, or so on, whatever might be appealing. But I think it's very productive and unique to do something code-related.

Sincerely,
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf[at-sign]sethf.com

[I realized after writing the above, that someone might be confused as to: "How come you're complaining about Michael Sims releasing damaging legal material, when the information is on your website's Pioneer section?"So I then immediately added the following clarification]

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 00:03:31 -0500
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf[at-sign]sethf.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Feature - Censorware description, along with testing code

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 11:46:09PM -0500, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> as I won an EFF 2001 Pioneer Award for my anticensorware work
> http://sethf.com/pioneer/

Small note of clarification - I only released all the Pioneer Award nomination material on this page after Michael Sims broke Censorware Project confidentiality, and publicly posted Censorware Project attorney James Tyre's internal message detailing all the decryptions I'd done. At that point, I figured since this information was being publicized in a negative context, I might as well publicize it myself in a positive context. Again, this leads to the idea behind my code/story proposal. better the legal risks be "our" problem than just "my" problem.

Sincerely,
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf[at-sign]sethf.com

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

[Fair Moderators: Before anybody mods this as a troll, PLEASE read about the programmers who were sued for anti-censorware work, http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/cpbfaq.html, and put in perspective considering the legal risks I face for my anticensorware investigations!]

For the amusement value, take a look at the following proposal I recently sent to Slashdot. I wrote this more for my sense of humor than expecting them to take me up on it. No reply, which wasn't a surprise. I should note, loyalty oath, it's their utter and complete right not to reply.

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:46:09 -0500
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf[at-sign]sethf.com>
To: malda
Cc: [Three lawyers and two Slashdot editors]
Subject: Proposed Feature - Censorware description, along with testing code

Per: http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed500
> I want to write an editorial. What should I do? >
> Before you get carried away, mail me a synopsis of your idea (put the
> text 'Proposed Feature' in the subject). That way I can tell you if it
> is something we would consider posting before you bother to write the
> whole thing.

With the upcoming CIPA trial about government-mandated censorware, I'd like to write something about censorware. I think I'm eminently qualified, as I won an EFF 2001 Pioneer Award for my anticensorware work http://sethf.com/pioneer/ , and was the key figure behind exposing what censorware actually blacklists.

I'm particularly interested in pursuing something related to releasing code. One of the things I've discovered is that N2H2's [rest of the paragraph redacted]

I've been hesitant to release this code, since I worry I'll be sued, and would face a lot of bad publicity. In fact, your infamous editor, Michael Sims, just breached confidentiality on Censorware Project legal material and posted a detailed legally sensitive internal message from Censorware Project attorney James Tyre, listing specific past decryptions I've done. All the details of which programs and what I did, in the words of Censorware Project's own lawyer. If you care, it's at http://censorware.org/censorware.org_tyre_revelati on.txt

Anyway, my inspiration is that if you have an editor who does these vengeful actions, my best bet is paradoxically to go straight to the lion's den and *offer you* the story, so it becomes in part your legal problem to publish the actual code. This way any legal threats are both your problem and mine, rather than having situations such as one of your editors releasing damaging legal material about me just as one of the biggest censorware-related trials is about to get underway.

Let me know if you're interested in something along these lines. Of course, I'd be happy to write a standard editorial about my experiences fighting censorware, censorware internals, winning an EFF Pioneer Award for my work, commentary on the technical accuracy of the trial, or so on, whatever might be appealing. But I think it's very productive and unique to do something code-related.

Sincerely,
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf[at-sign]sethf.com

[I realized after writing the above, that someone might be confused as to: "How come you're complaining about Michael Sims releasing damaging legal material, when the information is on your website's Pioneer section?"So I then immediately added the following clarification]

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 00:03:31 -0500
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf[at-sign]sethf.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Feature - Censorware description, along with testing code

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 11:46:09PM -0500, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> as I won an EFF 2001 Pioneer Award for my anticensorware work
> http://sethf.com/pioneer/

Small note of clarification - I only released all the Pioneer Award nomination material on this page after Michael Sims broke Censorware Project confidentiality, and publicly posted Censorware Project attorney James Tyre's internal message detailing all the decryptions I'd done. At that point, I figured since this information was being publicized in a negative context, I might as well publicize it myself in a positive context. Again, this leads to the idea behind my code/story proposal. better the legal risks be "our" problem than just "my" problem.

Sincerely,
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf[at-sign]sethf.com

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

It's explained very well in this EFF alert

After 2006, the FCC will require all over-the-air broadcasts to be digitally encoded. Under the pretext of preventing the "Napsterization" of their video signals, the MPAA has convened the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG) of the Copy-Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG). The BPDG's "standards," developed in concert with a group of arm-twisted representatives from major technology vendors, will specify flags controlling the public's ability to store, copy, and share digital TV signals.

See also the Copy-Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG) homepage

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

ethereal, I don't like to reply to people about this topic in story threads, because I don't want to give the appearance of trying to hijack discussion. I'll make an exception here, because you're not a troll, and for other reasons.

The simple way you "can tell what the truth is", is that every single other person associated with censorware.org has wanted Michael Sims to stop playing dog-in-the-manger with the censorware.org domain name. And not only has he refused, he's now turned it into a smear-site. Note this does not depend on whether or not you believe I am sane.

It's instructive to look at, e.g. Jonathan Wallace's account, and a public comment by Jamie McCarthy. This isn't objective proof, though, because we all could be ganging-up on Michael Sims (pile-ons have happened, Michael Sims is trying to create one on me).

I categorically deny the accusations of spamming Slashdot and similar. And the way to know the truth of that is simple logic. If he had anything, anything, serious on me, he'd be making maximum use of it. When you break it down, the only thing he has, is much calling me names, and that other people have called me names. In contrast, he still has the censorware.org registration

If you want, we can take this to e-mail.

Y'know, reading the two accounts, it's amazing to see that two almost diametrically-opposed accounts of the same things could be written. These guys must really have it in for each other, and (after reading this) I have no idea who's closer to being in the right. Seth doesn't get any points from me because he doesn't put his .sig in the right spot so that it isn't shown when I have "hide sigs" enabled. But on the other hand, most public opinion seems to be in the anti-Michael category. Is that just because Seth got his story out first, or is it because his account is closer to what really happened?

• http://sethf.com/freespeech/censorware/essays/cens orwareorg.php
• http://www.stalkedbyseth.com/

Decide for yourself, I guess. I'll be damned if I can tell what the truth is.

Primary source information about the lawsuit can be found at:
http://www.aquaria.net/lawsuit.html

And the archive of the infamous mailing list is at:
http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/index.php

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

The rejected jurisdiction argument makes for, ahem, interesting reading:

The Internet belongs to no country alone, but to all countries collectively. It is in a jurisdictional sense like the oceans or the air and space. Because it is an omnipresent shared resource, it is, and must be, by nature extraterritorrial. While transactions occurring solely on the Internet may have an impact on nations and/or their citizens, this fact does not and should not automatically imbue the effected country with jurisdiction over the actions of persons transacting on the Internet. Whether jurisdiction over the actions of persons operating exclusively on the Internet can be asserted is, like all questions regarding the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction, a matter of law and policy.

No comment.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Ponder this, from the article:

We're going to replace them. To have freedom to live as part of a community, to have the freedom to treat other people decently, you must replace your propriety software with free software, software that lets you have those freedoms.

It would be easy to dismiss this comment as hippy-dippy-there-he-goes-again. But consider what we are seeing now, with attempts to control people and programmers via the DMCA and similar ilk.

Isn't he RIGHT?

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

The FTC's own press release is at

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/04/spam.htm

Plenty of further links to PDF's of the FTC's spam actions.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Calling it "brain damage" is not really accurate, but the effect is real. Think of what happened in this way:

Imagine you wear special, expensive, contact lens. You wear them all day, every day, for a long time. Then an airline security guard decides the contact lens might be the next thing in terms of smuggled terrorist weapons (after all, given a bomb hidden in shoes, and plastic explosives, well, better safe than sorry). So security rips the contact lenses out of your eyes (scratching your corneas in doing so), and ruins your lens with their grubby fingers in the process of examining them.

Suddenly, you're back to pre-contact lens vision, with some "damage" (not dramatic in the overall scale of things, but still painful) to your eyes.

Now imagine you can't get easily get new contact lenses, or even replacement glasses, because they're specially-made.

Stripped of the cyborgness, this is the sort of experience we're talking about. It's clear it's not a pleasant one.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

I wrote the following piece for today, which at least I thought was funny. It's currently bouncing around the story queue in Kuro5hin, but it doesn't look like it'll get to post.

Given What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org), I don't think submitting it to Slashdot as an article is even worth the e-mail.

I'll post it here just for reader enjoyment. I think it's better than many of the stories which WERE posted!

______

Spam "protection" - a modest proposal

by Seth Finkelstein
April 1 2002

The problem of Spam, i.e. junk e-mail, has been plaguing the net for years. This article makes a modest proposal for spam "protection", in terms of a novel economic analysis leading to the benefit of all concerned.

In economic terms, let's consider why there's profit in spamming (sending large numbers of unsolicited emails). This is due to the "cost-shifting" nature of the spam process. It takes very little effort to send a large number of e-mails. But e-mail is not free (as in beer). In effect, the spammer shifts the expense of the advertising campaign, from the seller, onto ISPs and users:

1. The ISP must pay (in resources) to distribute the spammer's ads
2. The user must pay (in time) to delete the spammer's ads

So this is, literally, the price of free (as in speech) speech - the ISP and the user must bear the costs of the spammer's ads. Now, a frequent "technological solution" is that, once the ISP has paid to handle the spammer's mail, the user can avoid the further payment of time, by paying cash to another organization, which will perform the task of sorting out the spam. This approach is exemplified by services offered by, for example, Brightmail Inc. or SpamCop Email System

But what does this sorting organization do? Its only task is to try to identify spam from real mail. That is, it is paid to try to identify mail sent from spammers. However, since it is in an adversary relationship to the spammers, the spam-gangs have every reason to try to avoid such identification.

There have been some proposals to facilitate identification of spam by legally requiring labels. But that involves government and law. In fact, it's compelled speech! Instead, since the free market is the solution to all problems, the only proper course of action is to provide spammers with an economic incentive to identify themselves. After all, spam identification is the exact product being sold by third parties, so why pay a middle-man? If one is going to pay, for maximum market efficiency, why not pay the source?

In this scheme, the user pays a mailbox "protection fee" to an umbrella group, let's call it the "Spamafia". In return for this "protection", the "Spamafia" provides the user with a simple mailbox checking system which can be run over mail messages. Because this system works in a manner akin to passing items over a net barrier, it might be termed a "racket". So, the "racket" tests each piece of mail. Those mail messages which originate from members of the Spamafia each contain a certification token. In the process of testing the mail, this token is sent back to the Spamafia, and so redeemed to the individual spammer for a small fee, say a penny or so. In return, the user is given assurance that this message is certified as spam, and so can be automatically deleted without fear of losing legitimate mail. In essence, the spammer is given an incentive to also obtain a small amount of money from each smart user by being straightforward, rather than only trying to obtain a larger amount of money by fooling just a few suckers (and annoying everyone else).

The beauty of the system is that everyone has an incentive to participate. The spammers get more money, as the spams can generate income now from both the suckers, and the nonsuckers paying mailbox protection fees. There's no reason to evade spam-detection, in fact the opposite. The more people signed up to the protection racket, the more certification tokens are redeemed. The smart users get to have a workable mailbox, rather than one filled with junk. And they have the "peace of mind" that the mail being deleted is not important. It's the magic of the market at work.

I wrote the following piece for today, which at least I thought was funny. It's currently bouncing around the story queue in Kuro5hin, but it doesn't look like it'll get to post.

Given What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org), I don't think submitting it to Slashdot as an article is even worth the e-mail.

I'll post it here just for reader enjoyment. I think it's better than many of the stories which WERE posted!

______

Spam "protection" - a modest proposal

by Seth Finkelstein
April 1 2002

The problem of Spam, i.e. junk e-mail, has been plaguing the net for years. This article makes a modest proposal for spam "protection", in terms of a novel economic analysis leading to the benefit of all concerned.

In economic terms, let's consider why there's profit in spamming (sending large numbers of unsolicited emails). This is due to the "cost-shifting" nature of the spam process. It takes very little effort to send a large number of e-mails. But e-mail is not free (as in beer). In effect, the spammer shifts the expense of the advertising campaign, from the seller, onto ISPs and users:

1. The ISP must pay (in resources) to distribute the spammer's ads
2. The user must pay (in time) to delete the spammer's ads

So this is, literally, the price of free (as in speech) speech - the ISP and the user must bear the costs of the spammer's ads. Now, a frequent "technological solution" is that, once the ISP has paid to handle the spammer's mail, the user can avoid the further payment of time, by paying cash to another organization, which will perform the task of sorting out the spam. This approach is exemplified by services offered by, for example, Brightmail Inc. or SpamCop Email System

But what does this sorting organization do? Its only task is to try to identify spam from real mail. That is, it is paid to try to identify mail sent from spammers. However, since it is in an adversary relationship to the spammers, the spam-gangs have every reason to try to avoid such identification.

There have been some proposals to facilitate identification of spam by legally requiring labels. But that involves government and law. In fact, it's compelled speech! Instead, since the free market is the solution to all problems, the only proper course of action is to provide spammers with an economic incentive to identify themselves. After all, spam identification is the exact product being sold by third parties, so why pay a middle-man? If one is going to pay, for maximum market efficiency, why not pay the source?

In this scheme, the user pays a mailbox "protection fee" to an umbrella group, let's call it the "Spamafia". In return for this "protection", the "Spamafia" provides the user with a simple mailbox checking system which can be run over mail messages. Because this system works in a manner akin to passing items over a net barrier, it might be termed a "racket". So, the "racket" tests each piece of mail. Those mail messages which originate from members of the Spamafia each contain a certification token. In the process of testing the mail, this token is sent back to the Spamafia, and so redeemed to the individual spammer for a small fee, say a penny or so. In return, the user is given assurance that this message is certified as spam, and so can be automatically deleted without fear of losing legitimate mail. In essence, the spammer is given an incentive to also obtain a small amount of money from each smart user by being straightforward, rather than only trying to obtain a larger amount of money by fooling just a few suckers (and annoying everyone else).

The beauty of the system is that everyone has an incentive to participate. The spammers get more money, as the spams can generate income now from both the suckers, and the nonsuckers paying mailbox protection fees. There's no reason to evade spam-detection, in fact the opposite. The more people signed up to the protection racket, the more certification tokens are redeemed. The smart users get to have a workable mailbox, rather than one filled with junk. And they have the "peace of mind" that the mail being deleted is not important. It's the magic of the market at work.

From the a Perl glossary:

TMTOWTDI
There's More Than One Way To Do It - a major philosophy in the design of Perl. ...

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

I can see Johnny Cochran now:

If he did not click, you must acquit!

Hmm ... isn't this playing the race-condition card?

Anyway, I think it works better as:

"If he didn't click on it, you must acquit!"

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

From the article:

Intel isn't like a tree swaying in the wind?

"I haven't seen much flexibility so far," Stephens replied.

I dunno. It seems to me that Intel is pretty contorted here. They've certainly done a lot of twisting. Maybe even performed with their corporate body, what might be termed, in a very subtle and euphemistic sense, a "yogic posture".

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

The first story was Light Of Other Days

The various "Slow Glass" stories are a series written by Bob Shaw

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

The Reuter article is now in several places, for example,

at Yahoo

and CNET

even USAToday

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

The first lesson for a start-up should be to cut costs whenever possible :-).

So if someone wants to read it for their start-up dreams,
they can get it cheaper

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

This passage of the article seems particularly insightful to me:

Open-source can also mean "closed climate," with developers working only to meet their own desires and those of a relatively small and stable base of users and fans. The strength of the movement -- distributed development by volunteer programmers worldwide -- isn't geared toward the sudden appearance of clamoring consumers with questions, complaints and wish lists in hand.

Linux is good, for people who are willing to put in the effort to use its power. The same holds for crypto. But marketing to the masses is not a "geek thing".

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

From the comic Blade origin :

Blade has perhaps the most bizarre origin of all of the vampire hunters in TOD. During his labor, Blade's mother was undergoing complications and her friends summoned a doctor of dubious background. The doctor turned out to be the white-haired vampire known as Deacon Frost. He feasted on Blade's mother right before Blade's birth which resulted in Blade being immune to vampire bites. As a result of Frost's attack, Blade's mother died but not before she gave birth to Blade. Blade was raised by his mother's work associates until he was 9 years old. At age 9, Blade helped save the life of vampire hunter Jamal Afari, a musician who took Blade in and raised him as his son. Afari trained Blade as a vampire hunter as well as a trumpet player until Dracula turned Afari. Blade was forced to kill Afari and swore revenge on Dracula.

I don't know if the movie is faithful to this. But it was a very original idea.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Take a look at the original Blade from the series Tomb of Dracula by writer Marv Wolfman (yes, that really is his name)

Someone should make a movie out of it someday ...

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Isaac Asimov wrote a prescient short story "The Singing Bell", about this effect. The plot hinges on proving that a man has recently been to the moon, by catching him off-guard in catching something as if he was on the moon (i.e. he had adapted to the lunar gravity in terms of ball-catching). Absolutely great science-fiction story.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

I was thinking various ways of ending the phrase

"In lieu of flowers, contributions were send to ...",

or

"The ashes were ..."

But that would be cruel.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Ah, memories ... (I was one of those "MIT thugs")

In spite of the reprehensible tactics of the MIT thugs, mass posting to USENET remains a profitable way to market to the huge majority of people on the Internet who do not share the warped MIT mentality. Every day more and more businesses are mass posting to USENET because it is effective. It is particularly beneficial to small businesses, which our government has an interest in fostering. If Cybersell's connection to the Internet were to be eliminated, the advertising posted to USENET every day would still continue and grow. Our company would also continue on, advising businesses of how to advertise through their own accounts, just as Mr. Boyle did.

The public is becoming increasingly aware and intolerant of academic institutions who support the dissemination of pornography and the commission of computer crimes as exercises in free speech but act sociopathically in response to advertising. This set of values is not reflective of the beliefs of most Americans. In this regard, an investigation of MIT and their flagrant negligence in turning a blind eye to the misuses of their system is long overdue. Meanwhile, Cybersell stands behind all its actions as being both legal and highly successful business pursuits. We continue to encourage others to follow the path we are cutting through this virtual war zone.

Laurence A. Canter
Martha S. Siegel
Cybersell (tm)

Who knew then, what we know now ... especially that remark about a "virtual war zone" ...

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

and Siegel died in 2001

Is this true? I went looking for the obituary, but could not find it. I'd have thought there would be some notice. I wondered if the obituary would have mentioned her as the "co-inventor" of spam (what a thing to be remembered for, in one's life ...)

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Man, I thought I read this article on a Slashdot link a few weeks ago, but I guess I read it somewhere else.

You're probably thinking of this Slashdot article:

Black Holes Disputed

Scarpace writes: "Researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and at the University of South Carolina in Columbia have proposed the existence of "gravastars" which are bubbles of superdense matter. If they are correct, the idea of a black hole with a singularity at the center may be just a fantasy.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Take a look at an essay just posted at another site:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/25/8925/06088
Censorware - changing the debate from "filtering" (Technology)
By Seth Finkelstein

"As already mentioned in another story a Federal censorware law is now being challenged in court. For the past months, I've been focusing on trying to change some of the ways people think about censorware. Censorware is not a "filter", it's a blinder-box."

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Take a look at an essay just posted at another site:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/25/8925/06088
Censorware - changing the debate from "filtering" (Technology)
By Seth Finkelstein

"As already mentioned in another story a Federal censorware law is now being challenged in court. For the past months, I've been focusing on trying to change some of the ways people think about censorware. Censorware is not a "filter", it's a blinder-box."

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Hey, aren't you ...

Forgive me, just another test, are you a script?

(The idea here being that a dumb script will just follow-up this message with the same attack. Of course, a dumb person would do the same. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. But I am curious. For the record, I strongly doubt you're Michael Sims.

I generally don't reply to trolls. But as I said, these are test messages, in an old discussion, and given Michael Sims attacks, I'm interested in testing a few things.

I don't want to make any accusations I'm not certain about. If our situations were reversed, he would certainly unfailingly accuse me of your actions, and basically has. That's the difference between us.

Hey, aren't you ...

Forgive me, just another test, are you a script?

(The idea here being that a dumb script will just follow-up this message with the same attack. Of course, a dumb person would do the same. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. But I am curious. For the record, I strongly doubt you're Michael Sims.

I generally don't reply to trolls. But as I said, these are test messages, in an old discussion, and given Michael Sims attacks, I'm interested in testing a few things.

I don't want to make any accusations I'm not certain about. If our situations were reversed, he would certainly unfailingly accuse me of your actions, and basically has. That's the difference between us.

This post is a little bit of a test to see if someone's being petty with revenge-moderation. I'm posting it five days after the discussion. The revenge-modder may or may not be Michael Sims, I don't accuse him of it (in contrast to his behavior against me). But anyway - thanks for the thought, but no Google bombs. Nothing of that type of thing. If I ever do anything of that sort, it will be used against me to the ultimate degree. Michael Sims is already simply lying that I script-attacked Slashdot. It's a pure smear, but he knows there is no cost to him, and whatever mud sticks to me is the benefit to him. So NO GOOGLE BOMBS. Nothing that would tend to lead people to doubt the honesty of my denials of Michael Sims' smears. I won't even post this as Anonymous Coward, in order to back up my honesty when I say that I don't do anonymous troll-postings about him. I put my name to what I say regarding him and I've never had a problem doing that.

The problem with searching out all the links to censorware.org is that there are a bunch which are in print, in mail messages which are on web-archives, in sites which have webmasters who don't update old material, and so on. So it's a huge job, and can't ever be fully changed. Some of the top linking-sites have been changed, but there's still a big problem from the sources above. Michael Sims has recently become absolutely shameless that he's hijacking those links for his ranting. Sigh. I'll say it again, though I'll certainly guarantee myself a slam down to 'Troll' status if I am in fact being revenge-moderated: It boggles my mind that he can pull such sleaze and still retain a decent public reputation. It's the power of journalism.

This post is a little bit of a test to see if someone's being petty with revenge-moderation. I'm posting it five days after the discussion. The revenge-modder may or may not be Michael Sims, I don't accuse him of it (in contrast to his behavior against me). But anyway - thanks for the thought, but no Google bombs. Nothing of that type of thing. If I ever do anything of that sort, it will be used against me to the ultimate degree. Michael Sims is already simply lying that I script-attacked Slashdot. It's a pure smear, but he knows there is no cost to him, and whatever mud sticks to me is the benefit to him. So NO GOOGLE BOMBS. Nothing that would tend to lead people to doubt the honesty of my denials of Michael Sims' smears. I won't even post this as Anonymous Coward, in order to back up my honesty when I say that I don't do anonymous troll-postings about him. I put my name to what I say regarding him and I've never had a problem doing that.

The problem with searching out all the links to censorware.org is that there are a bunch which are in print, in mail messages which are on web-archives, in sites which have webmasters who don't update old material, and so on. So it's a huge job, and can't ever be fully changed. Some of the top linking-sites have been changed, but there's still a big problem from the sources above. Michael Sims has recently become absolutely shameless that he's hijacking those links for his ranting. Sigh. I'll say it again, though I'll certainly guarantee myself a slam down to 'Troll' status if I am in fact being revenge-moderated: It boggles my mind that he can pull such sleaze and still retain a decent public reputation. It's the power of journalism.

This post is a little bit of a test to see if someone's being petty with revenge-moderation. I'm posting it five days after the discussion. The revenge-modder may or may not be Michael Sims, I don't accuse him of it (in contrast to his behavior against me). But anyway - thanks for the thought, but no Google bombs. Nothing of that type of thing. If I ever do anything of that sort, it will be used against me to the ultimate degree. Michael Sims is already simply lying that I script-attacked Slashdot. It's a pure smear, but he knows there is no cost to him, and whatever mud sticks to me is the benefit to him. So NO GOOGLE BOMBS. Nothing that would tend to lead people to doubt the honesty of my denials of Michael Sims' smears. I won't even post this as Anonymous Coward, in order to back up my honesty when I say that I don't do anonymous troll-postings about him. I put my name to what I say regarding him and I've never had a problem doing that.

The problem with searching out all the links to censorware.org is that there are a bunch which are in print, in mail messages which are on web-archives, in sites which have webmasters who don't update old material, and so on. So it's a huge job, and can't ever be fully changed. Some of the top linking-sites have been changed, but there's still a big problem from the sources above. Michael Sims has recently become absolutely shameless that he's hijacking those links for his ranting. Sigh. I'll say it again, though I'll certainly guarantee myself a slam down to 'Troll' status if I am in fact being revenge-moderated: It boggles my mind that he can pull such sleaze and still retain a decent public reputation. It's the power of journalism.

This post is a little bit of a test to see if someone's being petty with revenge-moderation. I'm posting it five days after the discussion. The revenge-modder may or may not be Michael Sims, I don't accuse him of it (in contrast to his behavior against me). But anyway - thanks for the thought, but no Google bombs. Nothing of that type of thing. If I ever do anything of that sort, it will be used against me to the ultimate degree. Michael Sims is already simply lying that I script-attacked Slashdot. It's a pure smear, but he knows there is no cost to him, and whatever mud sticks to me is the benefit to him. So NO GOOGLE BOMBS. Nothing that would tend to lead people to doubt the honesty of my denials of Michael Sims' smears. I won't even post this as Anonymous Coward, in order to back up my honesty when I say that I don't do anonymous troll-postings about him. I put my name to what I say regarding him and I've never had a problem doing that.

The problem with searching out all the links to censorware.org is that there are a bunch which are in print, in mail messages which are on web-archives, in sites which have webmasters who don't update old material, and so on. So it's a huge job, and can't ever be fully changed. Some of the top linking-sites have been changed, but there's still a big problem from the sources above. Michael Sims has recently become absolutely shameless that he's hijacking those links for his ranting. Sigh. I'll say it again, though I'll certainly guarantee myself a slam down to 'Troll' status if I am in fact being revenge-moderated: It boggles my mind that he can pull such sleaze and still retain a decent public reputation. It's the power of journalism.

http://www.microsoft.com/catalog/default.asp?subid =22

Windows XP Professional delivers the new standard in reliability and performance.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)