Slashdot Mirror

This, like many things you post about, has nothing to do with censorware.

That is incorrect. The original question concerned. Librarian of Congress exemptions. I am quite familiar with that topic, having played a role in establishing one of the only two DMCA exemptions granted. Those two exemptions were for obsoleteness and for censorware. I then quoted part of the actual text of the exemption to demonstrate how narrow was the exemption granted. I suppose I could have quoted the text for the obsoleteness exemption, but given a choice, why not use the relevant topic dear to my heart?

So you are mistaken, it was written in direct and accurate response to the original poster's question.

Of course, I talk about censorware a great deal. I've done much of the pioneering work on that topic. And if I may say so, I'm expert about it and familiar with the relevant legal issues surrounding it. And these legal issues strongly connect with the DMCA, per above.

I usually don't reply to personal attacks in these threads. But since you're not a troll, and it is arguably on-topic, I'll make an exception here.

Regarding going up against the DMCA myself, well, just how eager would you be to take legal risk in my place, given that Michael Sims has done actions such as What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) ? That's an extremely serious question. This isn't a game. It's not a silly flame-war. Note what this story is about - 2600 has lost at every LEGAL level, been outright flamed by the judge in the original case decision, and DeCSS cases have even had comments from Slashdot postings used against them. The smears you mention, have been against me. If I take too much legal risk, as sure as the other side has lawyers, it's all going to be in their court evidence. So I feel heavily constrained as to what I can do to fight the DMCA, in large part because I have to worry about a Slashdot editor who has already shown he's extremely willing to abuse power for revenge.

Maybe I'll get modded down for this, but it's late, and I'm tired. It's not a nice topic. But going to jail over the DMCA is far worse. And I didn't take any vow of silence about Michael Sims.

This, like many things you post about, has nothing to do with censorware.

That is incorrect. The original question concerned. Librarian of Congress exemptions. I am quite familiar with that topic, having played a role in establishing one of the only two DMCA exemptions granted. Those two exemptions were for obsoleteness and for censorware. I then quoted part of the actual text of the exemption to demonstrate how narrow was the exemption granted. I suppose I could have quoted the text for the obsoleteness exemption, but given a choice, why not use the relevant topic dear to my heart?

So you are mistaken, it was written in direct and accurate response to the original poster's question.

Of course, I talk about censorware a great deal. I've done much of the pioneering work on that topic. And if I may say so, I'm expert about it and familiar with the relevant legal issues surrounding it. And these legal issues strongly connect with the DMCA, per above.

I usually don't reply to personal attacks in these threads. But since you're not a troll, and it is arguably on-topic, I'll make an exception here.

Regarding going up against the DMCA myself, well, just how eager would you be to take legal risk in my place, given that Michael Sims has done actions such as What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) ? That's an extremely serious question. This isn't a game. It's not a silly flame-war. Note what this story is about - 2600 has lost at every LEGAL level, been outright flamed by the judge in the original case decision, and DeCSS cases have even had comments from Slashdot postings used against them. The smears you mention, have been against me. If I take too much legal risk, as sure as the other side has lawyers, it's all going to be in their court evidence. So I feel heavily constrained as to what I can do to fight the DMCA, in large part because I have to worry about a Slashdot editor who has already shown he's extremely willing to abuse power for revenge.

Maybe I'll get modded down for this, but it's late, and I'm tired. It's not a nice topic. But going to jail over the DMCA is far worse. And I didn't take any vow of silence about Michael Sims.

This, like many things you post about, has nothing to do with censorware.

That is incorrect. The original question concerned. Librarian of Congress exemptions. I am quite familiar with that topic, having played a role in establishing one of the only two DMCA exemptions granted. Those two exemptions were for obsoleteness and for censorware. I then quoted part of the actual text of the exemption to demonstrate how narrow was the exemption granted. I suppose I could have quoted the text for the obsoleteness exemption, but given a choice, why not use the relevant topic dear to my heart?

So you are mistaken, it was written in direct and accurate response to the original poster's question.

Of course, I talk about censorware a great deal. I've done much of the pioneering work on that topic. And if I may say so, I'm expert about it and familiar with the relevant legal issues surrounding it. And these legal issues strongly connect with the DMCA, per above.

I usually don't reply to personal attacks in these threads. But since you're not a troll, and it is arguably on-topic, I'll make an exception here.

Regarding going up against the DMCA myself, well, just how eager would you be to take legal risk in my place, given that Michael Sims has done actions such as What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) ? That's an extremely serious question. This isn't a game. It's not a silly flame-war. Note what this story is about - 2600 has lost at every LEGAL level, been outright flamed by the judge in the original case decision, and DeCSS cases have even had comments from Slashdot postings used against them. The smears you mention, have been against me. If I take too much legal risk, as sure as the other side has lawyers, it's all going to be in their court evidence. So I feel heavily constrained as to what I can do to fight the DMCA, in large part because I have to worry about a Slashdot editor who has already shown he's extremely willing to abuse power for revenge.

Maybe I'll get modded down for this, but it's late, and I'm tired. It's not a nice topic. But going to jail over the DMCA is far worse. And I didn't take any vow of silence about Michael Sims.

This, like many things you post about, has nothing to do with censorware.

That is incorrect. The original question concerned. Librarian of Congress exemptions. I am quite familiar with that topic, having played a role in establishing one of the only two DMCA exemptions granted. Those two exemptions were for obsoleteness and for censorware. I then quoted part of the actual text of the exemption to demonstrate how narrow was the exemption granted. I suppose I could have quoted the text for the obsoleteness exemption, but given a choice, why not use the relevant topic dear to my heart?

So you are mistaken, it was written in direct and accurate response to the original poster's question.

Of course, I talk about censorware a great deal. I've done much of the pioneering work on that topic. And if I may say so, I'm expert about it and familiar with the relevant legal issues surrounding it. And these legal issues strongly connect with the DMCA, per above.

I usually don't reply to personal attacks in these threads. But since you're not a troll, and it is arguably on-topic, I'll make an exception here.

Regarding going up against the DMCA myself, well, just how eager would you be to take legal risk in my place, given that Michael Sims has done actions such as What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) ? That's an extremely serious question. This isn't a game. It's not a silly flame-war. Note what this story is about - 2600 has lost at every LEGAL level, been outright flamed by the judge in the original case decision, and DeCSS cases have even had comments from Slashdot postings used against them. The smears you mention, have been against me. If I take too much legal risk, as sure as the other side has lawyers, it's all going to be in their court evidence. So I feel heavily constrained as to what I can do to fight the DMCA, in large part because I have to worry about a Slashdot editor who has already shown he's extremely willing to abuse power for revenge.

Maybe I'll get modded down for this, but it's late, and I'm tired. It's not a nice topic. But going to jail over the DMCA is far worse. And I didn't take any vow of silence about Michael Sims.

Before anyone mods this down as redundant, note the links given in the article above go to the official PDF versions of the Kaplan ruling. That's proper, but the following unofficial hyperlinked version is much easier to read:

http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/NY/trial/op . tml

This is part of Harvard's Openlaw site, which has an excellent OpenDVD section

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

You mean the

"Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works"

Already happened, and it'll be a while before it can be lobbied again. It only applies to doing circumvention, not to technology.

Take a look at the formal text (I'm mentioned twice! :-) ) at

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights and Determination of the Librarian of Congress, 65 FR 64555, October 27, 2000

For example:

A review of the factors listed in 1201(a)(1)(C) supports the creation of this exemption. Although one can speculate that the availability of technological protection measures that deny access to the lists of blocked websites might be of benefit to the proprietors of filtering software, and might even increase the willingness of those proprietors to make the software available for use by the public, no commenters or witnesses came forward to make such an assertion. No information was presented relating to the use of either the filtering software or the lists of blocked websites for nonprofit archival, preservation and educational purposes. Nor was any information presented relating to whether the circumvention of technological measures preventing access to the lists has had an impact on the market for or value of filtering software or the compilations of objectionable websites contained therein. However, a persuasive case was made that the existence of access control measures has had an adverse effect on criticism and comment, and most likely news reporting, and that the prohibition on circumvention of access control measures will have an adverse effect."

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

The "image" battle was a problem way before the appeal level. In the original ruling, the court said:

In the final analysis, the dispute between these parties is simply put if not necessarily simply resolved.

Plaintiffs have invested huge sums over the years in producing motion pictures in reliance upon a legal framework that, through the law of copyright, has ensured that they will have the exclusive right to copy and distribute those motion pictures for economic gain. They contend that the advent of new technology should not alter this long established structure.

Defendants, on the other hand, are adherents of a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located.

Judge Kaplan wasn't exactly shy about his views, no sirreee bob ...

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

This isn't in the NYT or Boston Globe articles, but it's good info from another story on the theft:

Experts urge consumers to check their credit file once a year. Call Experian at (888) 397-3742 for a credit report, and review it for an unauthorized inquiries.

Also, contact the remaining two credit bureaus, Equifax at (800) 685-1111 and Trans Union at (800) 916-8800.

Ford Credit said that it has reinforced the security of their credit inquiry access process to prevent future occurrences.

To contact Ford Credit with questions, call (888) 838-8176 between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. CDT, Monday through Saturday.

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

Just a quick pointer:

There's a good index of various references at

http://cs-www.bu.edu/~dm/pubs/replaytv.html

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

The article states:

For example, the WAP address wap.sex.com can be viewed on cell phones using Verizon Wireless, Nextel Communications and Sprint PCS wireless Internet services. But the same URL entered into a Cingular Wireless device returns the message "your client is not allowed to access the requested object."

Now compare this old business-week article

But in France, Germany, and most of the rest of the Continent, the pickings are still slim. One trouble is that many phone companies are still in the beginning phases of WAP, and they block access to other service providers. This is known in the industry lingo as a ''closed garden.'' And for the time being, that garden has high fences. When I go to Germany with my French Web phone, I can only gain access to the Web through an international call to France, where I get a French weather report. This will change in the next year or two as phone companies adapt their Web services for roaming travelers.

And this USA today article:

Moreover, the speed hike only seemed to make a marginal difference over other wireless Web phones I've tried; I was still viewing text, and you must punch too many menu keys to access particular screens. And whenever I entered the Web address for usatoday.com, I received the following message: "WAP Gateway: Your client is not allowed to access the requested object."

What may have happened is that the sources tried to get to porn sites, didn't work, and then concluded that those sites were being banned in specific. But it could be a general compatibility problem affecting many sites.

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

A key item in the article is:

Not all Web sites are affected, just those that use a standard called Wireless Application Protocol (WAP). Web page makers use WAP to create a slimmed down version of their sites for cell phones.

Please take this into account for testing. So far, looking over the web, I've found no supporting evidence for the story.

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

This is worth pondering, from Justice Stevens' dissent:

In the context of most other media, using community standards to differentiate between permissible and im- permissible speech has two virtues. As mentioned above, community standards originally served as a shield to protect speakers from the least tolerant members of society. By aggregating values at the community level, the Miller test eliminated the outliers at both ends of the spectrum and provided some predictability as to what constitutes obscene speech. But community standards also serve as a shield to protect audience members, by allowing people to self-sort based on their preferences. Those who abhor and those who tolerate sexually explicit speech can seek out like-minded people and settle in communities that share their views on what is acceptable for themselves and their children. This sorting mechanism, however, does not exist in cyberspace; the audience cannot self-segregate. As a result, in the context of the Internet this shield also becomes a sword, because the community that wishes to live without certain material not only rids itself, but the entire Internet of the offending speech.

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

I hate to seem to defend the law, but an objection that is easily answered won't help. If the best you can say is "This is stopping me from selling sex material online by money orders!", that's just not a powerful challenge. The fact remains that credit-cards are the most common way of selling on-line, and credit-cards are a defense under the law. Once someone has signed-up on the commercial sex site, with a valid credit card number, you can show them anything. The court knows that credit cards are not 100.0% reliable. They accept it as imperfect. That proves my point, these laws ironically DO NOT have much affect on the hard-cord sex sites.

From the old, district-court, CDA decision:

Perversely, commercial pornographers would remain relatively unaffected by the Act, since we learned that most of them already use credit card or adult verification anyway. Commercial pornographers normally provide a few free pictures to entice a user into proceeding further into the Web site. To proceed beyond these teasers, users must provide a credit card number or adult verification number. The CDA will force these businesses to remove the teasers (or cover the most salacious content with cgi scripts), but the core, commercial product of these businesses will remain in place.

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

The real goal, of course, is not to prosecute violations of this law -- it is to create a system that strongly deters creation or distribution of ANY adult content online. By imposing an impossible standard to prevent access by minors, the law effectively closes off access to everyone.

This is often said. But both the CDA and this decision are clear that, paradoxically, outright commercial pornographers have affirmative defenses in the law. It's one of the ironies of this whole debate. Out-and-out professional sex sites are SAFE FROM THE LAW, because they use credit cards. It's the amateurs, the people who give it away to everyone, who are subject to prosecution:

Like the CDA, COPA also provides affirmative defenses to those subject to prosecution under the statute. An individual may qualify for a defense if he, 'in good faith, has restricted access by minors to material that is harmful to minors: (A) by requiring the use of a credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number; (B) by accepting a digital certificate that verifies age; or (C) by any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology.'

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

t's interesting to see how poorly understood the Internet is to the justices.

I don't think the problem is that they didn't understand. I think the problem is that they didn't care:

While JUSTICE KENNEDY and JUSTICE STEVENS question the applicability of this Courtís community standards jurisprudence to the Internet, we do not believe that the medium's "unique characteristics" justify adopting a different approach than that set forth in Hamling and Sable. ... If a publisher chooses to send its material into a particular community, this Courtís jurisprudence teaches that it is the publisherís responsibility to abide by that community's standards. The publisher's burden does not change simply because it decides to distribute its material to every com- munity in the Nation. See Sable, supra, at 125n126. Nor does it change because the publisher may wish to speak only to those in a "community where avant garde culture is the norm," post, at 6 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment), but nonetheless utilizes a medium that transmits its speech from coast to coast. If a publisher wishes for its material to be judged only by the standards of particular communities, then it need only take the simple step of utilizing a medium that enables it to target the release of its material into those communities.

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

The Supreme Court site has the opinion posted

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

All the benefits of the open source would still remain if the lead developers remained anonymous (except maybe for ego purposes)

It is EXTREMELY stressful to be an anonymous developer for legal-risky work. Let me tell you, I know.

As Jon Johansen said, in an old interview about DeCSS:
(emphasis added)

http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-01/lw -01-dvd-interview.html

Jon Johansen: I'm 16 now, I was 15 when it happened ... and the encryption code wasn't in fact written by me, but written by the German member. There seems to be a bit of confusion about that part.

LinuxWorld: The other two people that you had worked with to make the player are remaining anonymous -- is that right?

Jon Johansen: Yes, that is correct.

...

LinuxWorld: Do you know why they want to remain anonymous?

Jon Johansen: They are both a lot older than me, and they are employed. So I guess they just didn't want the publicity, and they were perhaps afraid of getting fired.

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

All the benefits of the open source would still remain if the lead developers remained anonymous (except maybe for ego purposes)

It is EXTREMELY stressful to be an anonymous developer for legal-risky work. Let me tell you, I know.

As Jon Johansen said, in an old interview about DeCSS:
(emphasis added)

http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-01/lw -01-dvd-interview.html

Jon Johansen: I'm 16 now, I was 15 when it happened ... and the encryption code wasn't in fact written by me, but written by the German member. There seems to be a bit of confusion about that part.

LinuxWorld: The other two people that you had worked with to make the player are remaining anonymous -- is that right?

Jon Johansen: Yes, that is correct.

...

LinuxWorld: Do you know why they want to remain anonymous?

Jon Johansen: They are both a lot older than me, and they are employed. So I guess they just didn't want the publicity, and they were perhaps afraid of getting fired.

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

All the benefits of the open source would still remain if the lead developers remained anonymous (except maybe for ego purposes)

It is EXTREMELY stressful to be an anonymous developer for legal-risky work. Let me tell you, I know.

As Jon Johansen said, in an old interview about DeCSS:
(emphasis added)

http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-01/lw -01-dvd-interview.html

Jon Johansen: I'm 16 now, I was 15 when it happened ... and the encryption code wasn't in fact written by me, but written by the German member. There seems to be a bit of confusion about that part.

LinuxWorld: The other two people that you had worked with to make the player are remaining anonymous -- is that right?

Jon Johansen: Yes, that is correct.

...

LinuxWorld: Do you know why they want to remain anonymous?

Jon Johansen: They are both a lot older than me, and they are employed. So I guess they just didn't want the publicity, and they were perhaps afraid of getting fired.

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

If we assume for the moment that they had thought of consulting an attorney when they first embarked on this project, would it have made a difference? I mean, seeing as the DMCA didn't actually exist in '98, how could they have made some plan to defend themselves against prosecution under it.

This is addressed in the last part of the article:
(emphasis added)

Crittenden: We probably should have talked to a lawyer years ago to get an opinion on whether what we were doing was legal or not. I'm not sure how much it would have helped in this case. But it might have gotten us into a conversation with Blizzard much earlier, and perhaps in a less confrontational way.

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

I don't think it would be a smart idea to get too deep into this on Slashdot, but the physics of "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" aren't DC-universe-correct in several places.

For example, it's pretty well established in the DC unverse that humans can receive a blood transfusion from Superman, and they don't die of hemorrhage from super blood cells perforating their arteries and veins.

So every Kryptonian cell is not "super"-harmful.

Also, Superman is not a total idiot, so he'll undoubtedly be watching a pregnant wife very closely for possible complications from a super-fetus (X-ray vision's better than ultra-sound!). And take action at the first sign of a problem. It's not like they don't have an inkling that it's a high-risk pregnancy.

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

Gwen is knocked from a bridge by the evil Green Goblin, but Spider-Man catches her with his webbing an instant before she hits the water. When Spider-Man pulls her up, he discovers to his horror that she is dead.

While Spidey was shocked, Kakalios was not.

The professor estimated Gwen's falling velocity, applied Newton's Second Law of Motion and calculated the G-forces exerted when she went from 95 mph to a standstill in an instant. "It's not surprising her neck broke," Kakalios says.

This story-point has in been fact been subject to much, much debate and discussion by fans.

The consensus seems to be that the sudden stop broke her neck, but that this was more a failed rescue attempt at someone who going to die anyway, than a problem totally unknown to Spidey. That is, he was shocked because he thought he'd been able to save her, and failed. Not that he didn't know that he could fail.

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

Take a look at Cartoon Physics, e.g.:

Cartoon Law I

Any body suspended in space will remain in space until made aware of its situation.

Example

Daffy Duck steps off a cliff, expecting further pastureland. He loiters in midair, soliloquizing flippantly, until he chances to look down. At this point, the familiar principle of 32 feet per second squared takes over.

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

Bandwidth-choked.

Read it off the Google cache

(Note to people accusing me of karma-whoring: The search formatting above is non-obvious)

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

One aspect which seems to be overlooked by commentators: A person generally doesn't do well by sitting back and waiting for recognition to be given to them. People seem to have a role to they assign Stallman. I think roughly the concept is that they think he should be their imagined idea of an absent-minded professor - quirky but harmless, amusing but not grating, and notably self-effacing.

Hard-driving people tend not to be like that!

They promote their causes, their organizations, even themselves.

Because if they don't do it, they tend to get run-over by others who are doing it.

Stallman is the CEO of a foundation. Compare him to other CEO's of foundations, and see how he ranks then. But it's not an easy job.

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

For some more technical coverage of Microsoft's views, take a look at

Microsoft Reveals Anti-Disclosure Plan

(emphasis in original)

Five computer security firms join Microsoft to set an official standard for limiting disclosure of software security holes

By Kevin Poulsen, Nov 9 2001 3:04AM

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--Microsoft and five major computer security companies rounded up the three-day Trusted Computing Forum on Thursday by formally announcing a coalition against full disclosure of computer vulnerability information, ending a week of intense speculation, and immediately sparking controversy.

...

A chief objective of the group is to discourage 'full disclosure,' the common practice of revealing complete details about security holes, even if publication might aide attackers in exploiting them.
'If it becomes hard to release vulnerabilities, that's a good way for Microsoft to get rid of some embarrassment.'
-- Marc Maiffret, eEye Digital Security

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

... posting the story here so people don't have to register is not fair use. How ironic.

Indeed. Especially because all that would be necessary is a non-registration-required link to the article

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

I'd like to point people to some useful references for fair use, copyright, digital issues.

Free speech vs. Copyright:

Freedom Of Speech And Injunctions In Intellectual Property Cases (Mark A. Lemley, Eugene Volokh)

Fair Use in terms of First Amendment:

Universal City Studios, Inc. V. Corley: The Constitutional Underpinnings Of Fair Use Remain An Open Question

General Digital Copyright:

Selected Papers by Pamela Samuelson

These are good background to understand the concepts. Don't believe everything you read on Slashdot (though this sentence is one of the things you should believe :-) ).

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

I think the definitive slogan should be

Fair use doesn't mean that one can hire monks to scribe

I take this from the EFF Supplemental Letter Brief in Corley v. Universal appeal

2. Can Congress Eliminate Fair Use in New Media?

At argument, the Court asked whether "fair use" meant a right to access the work in the technologically most usable form. The short answer is that fair use extends to works in whatever form they are offered to the public.

The longer answer is that, since fair use is the safety valve by which the First Amendment and copyright exist peacefully, if different media permit different levels of individual expression through fair use, then decisions by Congress to impede the most useful means require justification under the First Amendment. A prohibition on using copy machines to make fair use could not be answered - under today's First Amendment law - with the retort that one can hire monks to scribe the relevant passages.

Unfortunately, the courts so far seem to be holding the opposite :-(

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

The jurisdiction issue was ruled on http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/20020327 _dismiss_deny_order.html

On March 4, 2002, the court heard defendant Elcom Ltd.'s motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Having considered the papers submitted by the parties and the arguments made at the hearing on the motion, defendant's motion is denied.

The court need not reach the issue of whether the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has extraterritorial application because the trafficking conduct for which defendants have been charged occurred in the United States. The conduct which underlies the indictment includes Elcomsoft's offering its AEBPR program for sale over the internet, from a computer server physically located in the United States. Purchasers obtained copies of the program in the United States. A copy of the program was sold to a purchaser in California. Payments were directed to, and received by, an entity in the United States.

There is sufficient conduct occurring within the United States for there to be subject matter jurisdiction over this matter on a territorial basis.

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

Am I misunderstanding the question? A Google search for "echo cancellation" software turns up quite a bit.

Notably, a lead such as: http://www.nist.gov/speech/tests/ctr/h5e_97/echoca n.htm

The echo cancelling software (ec_v2.5.tar.gz) that is applied to telephone data, may be obtained from Mississippi State University.

The LDC has provided a perl script (mu_ec.perl) that will take a sphere-headered, 2-channel mu-law waveform file as input, apply the MSU/ISIP echo cancellation software, and produce a sphere-headered, 2-channel mu-law waveform file as output.

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

There's lots of biofeedback-based little projects. There's even biofeedback development SDKs, so that you can roll your own if you're interested. For example, take a look at the (emphasis added):

WaveRider

WaveRider DDE Software Developers' Kit The WaveRider DDE SDK provides a platform for rapid prototype and development of Windows applications in the fields of medicine, biofeedback, Virtual Reality and game development.

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

Take a look at the Product Overview for Windows XP Embedded
(emphasis added)

Windows XP Embedded is the componentized version of the leading desktop operating system, enabling rapid development of the most reliable and full-featured connected devices. Based on the same binaries as Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Embedded enables embedded developers to individually select only the rich features they need for customized, reduced-footprint embedded devices.

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

The MIT Media Lab has had a Affective Computing Research Group for a long time. Check out their home page at:

http://affect.media.mit.edu/AC_affect.html, and description

Affective computing is computing that relates to, arises from, or deliberately influences emotions. Our research focuses on creating personal computational systems endowed with the ability to sense, recognize and understand human emotions, together with the skills to respond in an intelligent, sensitive, and respectful manner toward the user and his/her emotions. We are also interested in the development of computers that aid in communicating human emotions, computers that assist and support people in development of their skills of social-emotional intelligence, and computers that "have" emotional mechanisms, as well as the intelligence and ethics to appropriately manage, express, and otherwise utilize these "emotions." Embracing the latter goal of "giving machines emotions" is perhaps the most controversial, and is based on a variety of scientific findings, which include indications that emotion plays a crucial role in enabling a resource-limited system to adapt intelligently to complex and unpredictable situations.

...

We understand that this research may involve gaining access to the emotional life of a person, including information that may be highly personal, intimate, and private. This work is inherently motivated by respect for human feelings, and therefore must respond with respect to a person's desire for privacy. Our default is to protect a person's privacy throughout our research, as well as in the tools we develop. We appreciate the potentially sensitive nature of our work, and feel strongly that the work we do adheres both to the highest ethical standards and the most fundamental human values. We made an effort to detail this policy.

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

[This joke will only make sense to people following the spam jargon]

The bone of contention is that ...

Would that be a chicken bone?

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

Information about the SPAM-L list can be found at:

http://www.claws-and-paws.com/spam-l/

Search and archives are at:

http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/spam-l.html

But you have to be a subscriber to use the above.

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

Not really a duplicate, but worth mentioning, is the Slashdot article some months ago:

Review: Code of Ethics for Programmers?

I apologize in advance, as it's by Jon Katz.

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

I can see it now:

"This printer is licensed to you, not sold. By printing anything with this printer, you indicate your agreement to use only genuine HI-PRIKED replacement ink cartridges. Any other use invalidates your license. You may terminate this agreement by destroying the printer."

This will be called a breakthrough in ineffectual property.

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

Not a duplicate (for once ...), but a Slashdot article last week
"Industry Standard" Paycuts in IT? makes good companion reading here.

There are graceful and non-graceful ways for a company to handle a lack of cash flow. In the scramble for survival, especially in an economic downturn, many companies are caught off-guard and have to show their shareholders that they are doing something to get the company back on the road to profitability (which seems to be the issue, here). In many of these cases, the group most affected by such changes are the employees. It would be interesting to note how many of you have gone through this before and what you had to do to survive the shortfall.

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

It seems to me an initial problem is that, by definition, the "community website" is only going to be used by people who like to use websites. Now, everyone reading/posting here is obviously part of that group. And hardcore to boot. But I wonder just how large a part it is, of the geographic community. It seems it'll cut-out almost everyone older, busy, or just not interested in playing with tech-toys.

If the community has a lot of younger professionals, maybe it works. But if there are a lot of older retirees, maybe it doesn't.

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

Sing:

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
...
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can

One of the things I've learned in my anticensorware work is that talk is cheap, but lawyers are expensive.

Take a look at The American Open Technology Consortium and GeekPAC

They've posted $600 in pledges so far. This does not look like a hot party.

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

The Material Safety Data Sheet for Caffeine has a lot of good information

Caffeine is toxic to the blood, lungs, nervous system, and mucous membranes. It is a human poison by ingestion and is a slight irritant of the skin and eye. The oral LD50 for caffeine is 127 mg/kg (mouse); the oral TD Lo for man is reported as 13 mg/kg.

Signs/Symptoms of Overexposure:
Exposure to ingested caffeine can cause convulsions, muscle spasms, tremors, poor muscle coordination, vomiting, and blood pressure increase. Continued excessive use in tea or coffee may lead to digestive disturbances, constipation, palpitations, shortness of breath, cardiac disorders, and depressed mental states.

Apparently, you'd have to drink a lot of coffee to get a lethal dose. But it does seem to possible to kill yourself (or approach it) with caffeine pills.

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

According to the article, the frogs do freak out

First, the researchers decided to spray the frogs with an overdose of caffeine.
"It's like they have a heart attack," Matayoshi explained, "from like a hundred cups of coffee."
The scene is not pretty. "They freak out," said Matayoshi, the hunter who is not unsympathetic to his prey.

Frogs on a hundred cups of coffee ... what an image. Lots of little cappuccino cups?

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

Imagine if every slashdot reader contributed $100? Or even $50? And I'm sure that our interest group could get some external support.

Imagine if every slashdot reader contributed $5 a month for a subscription to Slashdot. How well is that working out? (Ok, ok, I know the reply, that's not worth anything, they should pay us, etc. :-) )

Let me know what external support funds you. I could use a few million dollars myself, for my anticensorware related legal risks. Heck, I'd settle for a few hundred thousand dollars.

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

Imagine if every slashdot reader contributed $100? Or even $50? And I'm sure that our interest group could get some external support.

Imagine if every slashdot reader contributed $5 a month for a subscription to Slashdot. How well is that working out? (Ok, ok, I know the reply, that's not worth anything, they should pay us, etc. :-) )

Let me know what external support funds you. I could use a few million dollars myself, for my anticensorware related legal risks. Heck, I'd settle for a few hundred thousand dollars.

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

Imagine if every slashdot reader contributed $100? Or even $50? And I'm sure that our interest group could get some external support.

Imagine if every slashdot reader contributed $5 a month for a subscription to Slashdot. How well is that working out? (Ok, ok, I know the reply, that's not worth anything, they should pay us, etc. :-) )

Let me know what external support funds you. I could use a few million dollars myself, for my anticensorware related legal risks. Heck, I'd settle for a few hundred thousand dollars.

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

... and they get the money from people on slashdot donating, ...

Got $1.5 million?

Money makes the world go round ... or lawyers on the tables pound ...

DVD Copyright Case Grinds Through Courts

"Underwriting the defense of the hacker- oriented magazine has put a strain on the foundation's finances. That is one reason Martin Garbus, the First Amendment lawyer who handled the earlier stages of the case, will no longer represent the magazine. Foundation officials said that even at a discounted rate, Mr. Garbus's bills came to about $1.5 million in 2000, nearly doubling the annual expenditure of the group, which gets about three-quarters of its financing from individual donors."

The magazine's new lead lawyer is Kathleen Sullivan, the dean of Stanford Law School, who volunteered to handle the appeal free.

"It's not a slam on the Garbus firm," said Cindy Cohn, the foundation's legal director. "We just couldn't sustain that kind of an outlay."

Don't take it amiss that your story got rejected. As I mentioned earlier, I couldn't even get support for my Slashdot article code proposal for publishing anti-censorware code (repeat, I don't say Slashdot had to help me out, I'm just pointing out the connections to the issue). This is a very hard and risky area.

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

... and they get the money from people on slashdot donating, ...

Got $1.5 million?

Money makes the world go round ... or lawyers on the tables pound ...

DVD Copyright Case Grinds Through Courts

"Underwriting the defense of the hacker- oriented magazine has put a strain on the foundation's finances. That is one reason Martin Garbus, the First Amendment lawyer who handled the earlier stages of the case, will no longer represent the magazine. Foundation officials said that even at a discounted rate, Mr. Garbus's bills came to about $1.5 million in 2000, nearly doubling the annual expenditure of the group, which gets about three-quarters of its financing from individual donors."

The magazine's new lead lawyer is Kathleen Sullivan, the dean of Stanford Law School, who volunteered to handle the appeal free.

"It's not a slam on the Garbus firm," said Cindy Cohn, the foundation's legal director. "We just couldn't sustain that kind of an outlay."

Don't take it amiss that your story got rejected. As I mentioned earlier, I couldn't even get support for my Slashdot article code proposal for publishing anti-censorware code (repeat, I don't say Slashdot had to help me out, I'm just pointing out the connections to the issue). This is a very hard and risky area.

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

Have another person break the protection. Sue him - take turns appealing it all the way to the Supreme Court

That's called collusive action . The courts frown upon it:

collusive action

n. a lawsuit brought by parties pretending to be adversaries in order to obtain by subterfuge an advisory opinion or precedent-setting decision from the court. If a judge determines the action does not involve a true controversy he/she will dismiss it.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

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

OK, I've mirrored it in auto-converted HTML, at

http://sethf.com/anticensorware/legal/20020503_dmc a_consequences.html

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