Slashdot Mirror

You must be new to K Street. Never miss an opportunity to enshrine a monopoly in legislation by finding a way to render your competitors' business practices, even where they're identical to your own, illegal - while simultaneously granting yourself the permission to do the same thing under color of law.

I've therefore amended your second rule as follows:

2. Corporations that have business models that conflict with that of Microsoft must be held to the most stringent privacy standards.

Although the Constitution is no longer relevant, it's still considered bad form to write a Bill of Attainder", so you have to be a little clever about it.

Thus, you'll typically end up with something like this:

• Subsection 477.104.8453: the "All Your Base" clause - the use of hashes to represent hardware configurations ("GUIDs") for the purposes of managing software licensing, software configuration, and the provision of security updates, is a permitted use of personal information that enhances user privacy and shall not be penalized.
• Subsection 8008.13: the "Booble" clause - the use of hashed unique identifiers ("Cookies") that represent individual software configurations for the purposes of providing stateful web browsing, search history, the relevance of clickthroughs for search engines, is an invasion of privacy punishable by having a chair thrown at oneself before being fucking buried, and then fucking killed.

For what it's worth, i think this is called an excerpt. It is perfectly legal. See the decision against FR and how people on FR get around that now.

AN OPEN LETTER FROM JEFF BEZOS ON THE SUBJECT OF PATENTS

I've received several hundred e-mail messages on the subject of our 1-Click ordering patent. Ninety-nine percent of them were polite and helpful. To the other one percent -- thanks for the passion and color!

Before I go on, I'd like to thank Tim O'Reilly. Tim and I have had three long conversations about this issue, and they've been incredibly helpful to me as I've tried to clarify in my mind what is the right thing to do. I had previously known Tim as the publisher of the successful and excellent O'Reilly technical books. He off-handedly proved his narrative and editing skills when he took what was our first rambling hour-long conversation and somehow made sense of it all in a posting on his site. My thinking on the topic of business method and software patents has been strongly influenced by Tim's observations, and especially his ability to ask excellent questions. I also read the first four hundred or so responses to Tim's summary of our conversation -- these too were helpful.

Now, while we've gotten substantially less e-mail on this issue than we have over several other lightning-rod issues in the past, I've spent a lot more time thinking about this one. Why? Because the more I thought about it, the more important I came to realize this issue is. I now believe it's possible that the current rules governing business method and software patents could end up harming all of us -- including Amazon.com and its many shareholders, the folks to whom I have a strong responsibility, not only ethical, but legal and fiduciary as well.

Despite the call from many thoughtful folks for us to give up our patents unilaterally, I don't believe it would be right for us to do so. This is my belief even though the vast majority of our competitive advantage will continue to come not from patents, but from raising the bar on things like service, price, and selection -- and we will continue to raise that bar. We will also continue to be careful in how we use our patents. Unlike with trademark law, where you must continuously enforce your trademark or risk losing it, patent law allows you to enforce a patent on a case-by-case basis, only when there are important business reasons for doing so.

I also strongly doubt whether our giving up our patents would really, in the end, provide much of a stepping stone to solving the bigger problem.

But I do think we can help. As a company with some high-profile software patents, we're in a credible position to call for meaningful (perhaps even radical) patent reform. In fact, we may be uniquely positioned to do this.

Much (much, much, much) remains to be worked out, but here's an outline of what I have in mind:

1. That the patent laws should recognize that business method and software patents are fundamentally different than other kinds of patents.

2. That business method and software patents should have a much shorter lifespan than the current 17 years -- I would propose 3 to 5 years. This isn't like drug companies, which need long patent windows because of clinical testing, or like complicated physical processes, where you might have to tool up and build factories. Especially in the age of the Internet, a good software innovation can catch a lot of wind in 3 or 5 years.

3. That when the law changes, this new lifespan should take effect retroactively so that we don't have to wait 17 years for the current patents to enter the public domain.

4. That for business method and software patents there be a short (maybe 1 month?) public comment period before the patent number is issued. This would give the Internet community the opportunity to provide prior art references to the patent examiners at a time when it could really help. (Thanks to my friend Brewster Kahle for this suggestion.)

To this end, I've alrea

Here is an interesting tidbit. In its day, that film was considered communist propaganda for making a common man the hero and a banker the villian. Now, the entertainment industry would have us believe that the public domain is a communist plot, and that "intellectual property" (pure vapor) is worth more than tangible things. Well, it's not!

In the near future people might literally ask, "Public domain? What's that?" and only historians will be able to explain the concept. It will be as extinct as the Dodo Bird.

Here's the settlement for patent infringement, as DEC was going out of business: http://www.techlawjournal.com/atr/80427intc.htm There was a heap of pending litigation over theft of technology before and up to this time. Keep in mind, that by 1998, it was already over. Intel had crushed DEC.

You *respect* their business tactics?

Jesus. Words fail me.

Do some reading, please.

Or here

For those of you like me

a bill of attainder is

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

I think we can thank the music industry for this lengthy extension of time to the copyright law in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Don't you imagine that this was really to cover and protect the recording works of the 60's such at the Beetles, Rolling Stones, etc? The original founders had intended that at some time copyright works would become part of the public domain for public good. Unfortunately, they didn't spell out a specific time so now we just get infinite extensions. This is only good for the corporations and bad for society as a whole.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/eldritch/pl10 5-298.htm

According to 18USC1030, one of the the criminal codes that shadowcrew was prosecuted under, the U.S. Secret Service has jurisdiction for inevstigating computer fraud. Here is a copy of the law.

Wrong on both counts. A bill of attainder is a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. No such thing existed here. And the act that Congress passed simply created a new jurisdiction for the federal courts, something it explicitly has the power to do under Article III, Section 1.

If Congress feels that it is in their constituents' interests to pass legislation repealing the existing right-to-die laws, then it is their right to do so. Passing legislation to change the law for just one particular case, on the other hand, is improper and unconstitutional. A basic value of our legal system is that justice should be blind -- the law should be applied consistently to everyone. Allowing Congress intervene in the courts on a case-by-case basis makes a mockery of that value.

If you want to buy music without paying licensing, get into classical music. It is just about the only music in the public domain, and that will probably never change. Copyright terms will only be extended again next time Steamboat Willie is in danger of lapsing into the public domain as it was in 1998.

You have to be shitting me. Do you really believe the US Government would spend money because it was getting TOO MUCH information?

The truth is, you can probably download a packet sniffer off Sourceforge that's more powerful than the dread Carnivore. And that's probably what the FBI's doing now.

No, the FBI now demands what they want from ISP's who collect and sort all the information for marketing purposes. Thanks to the Patriot ACT they no longer need court orders. It's now easier than ever to get wiretaps and snoop on US Citizens. There ARE more than ever and it's getting worse.

If my Government wants to respect my privacy, they can stop their own and other's snooping. What happened to the principle of an inviolable post? My communications, snail, phone, email and others should be private, damn it. I resent my government spending my money to tap into it and I resent the collection of such information by fools who think it's worth money. Such efforts, like ticket sorting are a waste of everyone's time and money. When it's collected, it's done at your cost and you only pay it only when there's no reasonable alternative to the service you need and the cost can be pushed onto you. That, or you're dealing with the wrong people.

Huh? Citations, please. I can find no evidence this bill was Shanghai'd through any part of Congress - especially when the leading proponents of many of the H1-b legislation were Democrats (Kennedy and Feinstein!). The closest I can find is HR4328, which was an Omnibus spending bill that had a revision of the H1-B code amended to it. That revision was a result of compromise between Democrats and Republicans, and all it really did was raise the yearly cap to 115,000. While your points may be valid, it may be a little much to ascribe the failings of the H1 program to a Vast Government Conspiracy. :)

I have read it- and I've got MANY complaints ranging from not contributing to the green card limit to rates of pay allowed and regulations about job postings.

You do realise that there are many classes of Green Card, right? The largest portion of cards go to relatives of US Citizens, followed by those who marry an American, followed by the Diversity Lottery. *Then* you get the 'skilled worker' green cards - a distant fourth of total cards granted each year. And I note that the first 3 categories don't care what your skills are (if any) or what language you speak. And while H1-B visas are not counted against the number of green cards issued, there *are* annual limits to the number of skilled worker green cards that can be issued.

Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun Public Library, ruling in 1998 against filtering internet access in public libraries, on First Amendment grounds. Urofosky v. Allen, ruling against a state statute barring state employees from surfing for porn at work, overuled on appeal. Leonie Brinkema Biography

Justice Brinkman has played a critical role in securing a fair trial for Zacarias Moussaoui. Zacarias Moussaoui Case She does not strike me as a woman who can be easily bought or intimidated.

I don't see how this applies to your email. The google cache is caching public data, whereas your email is private. Naturally Google has the technical ability to cache your private email (since it's on their servers) but I'm not sure they'd be on solid legal ground.

Well of course, your email is private (although that's debatable), and Google isn't supposed to index any of it. But all the same, I don't like the concentration of easily cross-referenceable data into the hands of one company, as good as it appears to be, for various good reasons.

When I mail a letter to a friend, at some point it is stored in a bin in the post office and is not actually being moved from my apartment to my friend's.

... In the present case, the difficulty is compounded by the fact that the ECPA was written prior to the advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web. As a result, the existing statutory framework is ill-suited to address modern forms of communication like Konop's secure website."

• Illegal price fixing (RIAA)?

• They were found guilty and supposedly paid the price they deserved. The open debate about the severity of the fine is irrelevant.

And shortly thereafter, they had the law changed to legalize price fixing for online music distribution.

• The record industry already has an antitrust exemption that allows record companies to jointly negotiate royalty rates for digital distribution. Late last year, the music industry convinced Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to insert language into the EnFORCE Act (Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003) that would extend that exemption to "physical product configurations" such as CDs. That bill is still in committee.

Surprise! There's a name I'm always hearing good news about: Orrin Hatch. You know, the DMCA's author. The 'nuke your hardware with a file sharing virus' guy. The infamous software pirate himself?

After finding HatchMusic, I think I understand him now. It's not just the lobbyist bribes that motivate him. He must actually think that if he spreads enough KY Jelly on the American public's rectum for the RIAA, they'll give him "money for nothin' and chicks for free".

As a final note, if you find the KY Jelly comment a bit graphic, you'll be glad to know Orrin Hatch handed the pornography industry a blank check recently. What's not to like about the man?

Of cousre, this is just a proposal and still needs the approval of Congress, and according to this article, the FY 1998 budget proposal also did away with fee diversion but apparently didn't passed.

I spent HOURS googling about Veeck a couple weeks ago, and somehow picked bad keywords every time. All of the search results referred to the original case, the three-judge appeal, and/or the certiorari, but never the full court ruling. Damn page rot.

That cuts to the heart of the constitution, when you can't talk or write about the law of the land. It is really pathetic how only one judge would think of the moral issue, that a law was being enforced that he couldn't even read about. All of the other appeals court judges, in their writing for the judgement, cited the reason for being able to copyright law as convenience.

That is pure ignorance.

Mind you that I'm referring to U.S. law which may or may not impact the MPlayer/KISS problem, but didn't a high court recently decide that it is not copyright infringement to copy data from a database built from a compilation of data? That is, you can't just organize a bunch of readily available data and copyright it and prevent anyone else form using the same data.

The reason I ask is that the original Slashdot article stated that a big clue was "the KISS ROM includes the same list, in order, of subtitle formats as MPlayer (including their own format mpsub)". That sounds like it could be construed as a compiled set of data, akin to the case I cited above.

I'm certainly not supporting KISS

It's called "Submarining a patent." Read Title III.

The real problem is how difficult it is to define whether a product has become ubiquitous. For a lesson in how difficult that is, refer to CompuServe's superficially compelling arguments about the dominance of JPEG that allowed them to fool a judge into thinking the resurfacing of the LZ patents was okay. Sometimes a patent really can't be judged in time, and sometimes a company gets into commercialization beforehand knowing fully well that it'll have to stop; see the issue with the chemical that made wacky wall walkers, and Klutz Press.

Linus has showned that the framers of the US copyright law were unusually far sighted people

The framers of US copyright law? The definition was just changed in 1999.

After looking further into the law, I have to conclude that Linus doesn't even know what he's talking about on this issue. The line about financial gain was added in 1999, by the No Electronic Theft Act, and it is meant to determine when copyright infringement becomes a criminal offense. In other words, if you "trade" one copyrighted work for another over the internet, you are guilty of criminal copyright infringement.

As fun as it would be to see these two legal morons battle it out in the courtroom, I'm glad they're going to have lawyers to do it for them, for the sake of the law being upheld.

At the end of it, I'm left wondering what he's really trying to say.

Especially since the line about "other copyrighted works" was added in 1999, by the No Electronic Theft Act. So by Linus's argument, the GPL was Unconstitutional, before 1999.

The definition Linus relies on for "exhange of copyrighted works" is actually from the NET ACT ("No Electronic Theft") and is only used in the law to define criminal infringement, e.g. swapping CDs with no dollars exchanging hands. Context and intent of the law, even portions of it, is very important. With this example, Linus has pretty much shown himself to be a fraud or a tool when it comes to the law.

Please, before you criticize, look up the NET ACT, read it, put the definition in context, and see if you can reasonably conclude that the definition in question is in any way what Linus claims.

Here's a link to get you started:

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/eldritch/pl10 5-147.htm

I wouldn't give the FBI any power at all until they figure out what happened to their 317 laptops and their 450 firearms.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/home/newsbriefs/2003 /07e.asp

the letter is here : http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/pubs/omb072120 03.pdf

Robert

Loss of Control and Backdoors

Read Microsoft Aims for Protection--From Users

What Microsoft people really mean when they talk about security is security for Microsoft from you. NGSCB's main purpose is to make sure users such as yourself aren't pirating Microsoft's or partners' software or any other copyrighted content--even if that means taking over your system remotely and removing or disabling the offending untrusted software. ...

... It boils down to this: In a traditional security scenario, you as a user have control over your system to protect it from outside attackers who are enemies of your system. With Microsoft's vision of the trusted operating system, some system control is handed over to vendors and copyright holders who see you, the system's owner, as the enemy.

NGSCB + RIAA = NSA + KGB + CIA. ( R -> K )

From the Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion. Re: Administration's new encryption policy. Rep. Curt Weldon's statement

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Read all of Curt Weldon's statement.Consider that as of 26 August 2003:, There are currently 22 unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer - many of the serous vulnerabilities Microsoft has not provide a fix to patch the hole in years!

Attestation Monopoly

Microsoft's NGSCB model for DRM content management grants Microsoft effective root digital certificate control over both software and content. It would be a monopoly even stronger than Microsoft's existing desktop dominance. Just as with Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols, the network effect would result in any non-dominate player or vendor facing too great a barrier to provide effective monopoly negating free-market competition.

Loss of Fair Use Rights and doctrine of First Sale

Microsoft's NGSCB DRM model also grants content providers far too much restrictive power. For example, in the USA and in most of the world, you are legally allowed to tape broadcast content for later replay ( timeshifting ), gathering evidence for making a complaint, or legitmate research. The DRM model can be used by content providers to circumvent these legal rights. Also if Microsoft or the Codec developer drops support for a format or even a particular digital key, all that content "protected" by that methord or key becomes unreadable.

The DRM model circumvents the Doctrine of First Sale, by side shifting content from being "goods" into a so-called service. When I purchase a DVD, I own that particular physical instance of that DVD and the right to view the content on it. I expect to be able to play that DVD in any DVD player I choose to, including the DVD drive in my Linux system. Also when I have finished viewing that DVD, I expect to be able to pass or even resell that DVD to any party I choose. I might even give that DVD to my local library, and I am legally entitled to do so. As DMCA protected CSS DVDs already limits what you can do with a DVD, Microsoft's plans f

Loss of Control and Backdoors

Read Microsoft Aims for Protection--From Users

What Microsoft people really mean when they talk about security is security for Microsoft from you. NGSCB's main purpose is to make sure users such as yourself aren't pirating Microsoft's or partners' software or any other copyrighted content--even if that means taking over your system remotely and removing or disabling the offending untrusted software. ...

... It boils down to this: In a traditional security scenario, you as a user have control over your system to protect it from outside attackers who are enemies of your system. With Microsoft's vision of the trusted operating system, some system control is handed over to vendors and copyright holders who see you, the system's owner, as the enemy.

NGSCB + RIAA = NSA + KGB + CIA. ( R -> K )

From the Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion. Re: Administration's new encryption policy. Rep. Curt Weldon's statement

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Read all of Curt Weldon's statement.Consider that as of 26 August 2003:, There are currently 22 unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer - many of the serous vulnerabilities Microsoft has not provide a fix to patch the hole in years!

Attestation Monopoly

Microsoft's NGSCB model for DRM content management grants Microsoft effective root digital certificate control over both software and content. It would be a monopoly even stronger than Microsoft's existing desktop dominance. Just as with Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols, the network effect would result in any non-dominate player or vendor facing too great a barrier to provide effective monopoly negating free-market competition.

Loss of Fair Use Rights and doctrine of First Sale

Microsoft's NGSCB DRM model also grants content providers far too much restrictive power. For example, in the USA and in most of the world, you are legally allowed to tape broadcast content for later replay ( timeshifting ), gathering evidence for making a complaint, or legitmate research. The DRM model can be used by content providers to circumvent these legal rights. Also if Microsoft or the Codec developer drops support for a format or even a particular digital key, all that content "protected" by that methord or key becomes unreadable.

The DRM model circumvents the Doctrine of First Sale, by side shifting content from being "goods" into a so-called service. When I purchase a DVD, I own that particular physical instance of that DVD and the right to view the content on it. I expect to be able to play that DVD in any DVD player I choose to, including the DVD drive in my Linux system. Also when I have finished viewing that DVD, I expect to be able to pass or even resell that DVD to any party I choose. I might even give that DVD to my local library, and I am legally entitled to do so. As DMCA protected CSS DVDs already limits what you can do with a DVD, Microsoft's plans f

Better information available at techlaw

Actually, IIRC, that's how Sharman Networks (Kazaa's owner) has avoided the RIAA for so long. They are based in Vanuatu, an island in the South Pacific (as evidenced here and many other places on the web), primarily to avoid the US court system. Now, if they were to start hosting files, your idea is fully realized.

And here is another of Senator Hatch's WWW sins from the days of meta-tag search engine stuffing.

Can we write a law that refers to the Microsoft business entity specifically and prohibits them from "selling" their product at a loss as punishment for prior practices?

In the US, laws cannot be created that apply to specific persons or groups by name.

The section of the Constitution prohibiting this is in the powers of Congress, where it states "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law". (attainder defined)

It's related to division of powers- Congress can state what kinds of activities should be punished, but can't decide who is guilty of them. They can only make a law describing the criteria of the offense, and then wait for the police and courts to find suspects who match the requirements.

Read Microsoft Aims for Protection--From Users

What Microsoft people really mean when they talk about security is security for Microsoft from you. NGSCB's main purpose is to make sure users such as yourself aren't pirating Microsoft's or partners' software or any other copyrighted content--even if that means taking over your system remotely and removing or disabling the offending untrusted software. ...

... It boils down to this: In a traditional security scenario, you as a user have control over your system to protect it from outside attackers who are enemies of your system. With Microsoft's vision of the trusted operating system, some system control is handed over to vendors and copyright holders who see you, the system's owner, as the enemy.

NSA+KGB+CIA = NGSCB.

From the Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion. Re: Administration's new encryption policy. Rep. Curt Weldon's statement

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Attestation Monopoly

Microsoft's NGSCB model for DRM content management grants Microsoft effective root digital certificate control over both software and content. It would be a monopoly even stronger than Microsoft's existing desktop dominance. Just as with Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols, the network effect would result in any non-dominate player or vendor facing too great a barrier to provide effective monopoly negating free-market competition.

Loss of Fair Use Rights and doctrine of First Sale

Microsoft's NGSCB DRM model also grants content providers far too much restrictive power. For example, in the USA and in most of the world, you are legally allowed to tape broadcast content for later replay ( timeshifting ), gathering evidence for making a complaint, or legitmate research. The DRM model can be used by content providers to circumvent these legal rights. Also if Microsoft or the Codec developer drops support for a format or even a particular digital key, all that content "protected" by that methord or key becomes unreadable.

The DRM model circumvents the Doctrine of First Sale, by side shifting content from being "goods" into a so-called service. When I purchase a DVD, I own that particular physical instance of that DVD and the right to view the content on it. I expect to be able to play that DVD in any DVD player I choose to, including the DVD drive in my Linux system. Also when I have finished viewing that DVD, I expect to be able to pass or even resell that DVD to any party I choose. I might even give that DVD to my local library, and I am legally entitled to do so. As DMCA protected CSS DVDs already limits what you can do with a DVD, Microsoft's plans for DRM span well beyond pure downloaded digital content.

Microsoft could even make instances of digital downloaded copies tranferable with the same Fair Use rights that you would expect from physical books or DVDs, but chooses not to.

It's all about control and under Microsoft's current model it's definately not where do you want to go today or tommorrow.

Read Microsoft Aims for Protection--From Users

What Microsoft people really mean when they talk about security is security for Microsoft from you. NGSCB's main purpose is to make sure users such as yourself aren't pirating Microsoft's or partners' software or any other copyrighted content--even if that means taking over your system remotely and removing or disabling the offending untrusted software. ...

... It boils down to this: In a traditional security scenario, you as a user have control over your system to protect it from outside attackers who are enemies of your system. With Microsoft's vision of the trusted operating system, some system control is handed over to vendors and copyright holders who see you, the system's owner, as the enemy.

NSA+KGB+CIA = NGSCB.

From the Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion. Re: Administration's new encryption policy. Rep. Curt Weldon's statement

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Attestation Monopoly

Microsoft's NGSCB model for DRM content management grants Microsoft effective root digital certificate control over both software and content. It would be a monopoly even stronger than Microsoft's existing desktop dominance. Just as with Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols, the network effect would result in any non-dominate player or vendor facing too great a barrier to provide effective monopoly negating free-market competition.

Loss of Fair Use Rights and doctrine of First Sale

Microsoft's NGSCB DRM model also grants content providers far too much restrictive power. For example, in the USA and in most of the world, you are legally allowed to tape broadcast content for later replay ( timeshifting ), gathering evidence for making a complaint, or legitmate research. The DRM model can be used by content providers to circumvent these legal rights. Also if Microsoft or the Codec developer drops support for a format or even a particular digital key, all that content "protected" by that methord or key becomes unreadable.

The DRM model circumvents the Doctrine of First Sale, by side shifting content from being "goods" into a so-called service. When I purchase a DVD, I own that particular physical instance of that DVD and the right to view the content on it. I expect to be able to play that DVD in any DVD player I choose to, including the DVD drive in my Linux system. Also when I have finished viewing that DVD, I expect to be able to pass or even resell that DVD to any party I choose. I might even give that DVD to my local library, and I am legally entitled to do so. As DMCA protected CSS DVDs already limits what you can do with a DVD, Microsoft's plans for DRM span well beyond pure downloaded digital content.

Microsoft could even make instances of digital downloaded copies tranferable with the same Fair Use rights that you would expect from physical books or DVDs, but chooses not to.

It's all about control and under Microsoft's current model it's definately not where do you want to go today or tommorrow.

First read Microsoft Aims for Protection--From Users

What Microsoft people really mean when they talk about security is security for Microsoft from you. NGSCB's main purpose is to make sure users such as yourself aren't pirating Microsoft's or partners' software or any other copyrighted content--even if that means taking over your system remotely and removing or disabling the offending untrusted software. ...

... It boils down to this: In a traditional security scenario, you as a user have control over your system to protect it from outside attackers who are enemies of your system. With Microsoft's vision of the trusted operating system, some system control is handed over to vendors and copyright holders who see you, the system's owner, as the enemy.

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

First read Microsoft Aims for Protection--From Users

What Microsoft people really mean when they talk about security is security for Microsoft from you. NGSCB's main purpose is to make sure users such as yourself aren't pirating Microsoft's or partners' software or any other copyrighted content--even if that means taking over your system remotely and removing or disabling the offending untrusted software. ...

... It boils down to this: In a traditional security scenario, you as a user have control over your system to protect it from outside attackers who are enemies of your system. With Microsoft's vision of the trusted operating system, some system control is handed over to vendors and copyright holders who see you, the system's owner, as the enemy.

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Amicus Curiae

Definition: Latin term meaning "friend of the court". The name for a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case

• A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design ... that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.

• Government enforcement may be inherently more efficient and less-wasteful than private enforcement would be. (Some may laugh at the "government efficiency" oxymoron, but it can happen in some cases)
  
• Because the government version of the laws will be more fair or permissive then what private companies would create.
  

Fair enough. But there's no alternate way to interpret Ex Post Facto -- either you've got it or its repealed. Also, I'd assume the Due Process Clause (in its modern substantive form) would raise some major objections. How the heck do you comply with a law not yet written?

The basic idea was that the Framers vehemently didn't want the legislature supplanting the judiciary by inventing crimes or creating punishments. (There's a Bill of Attainder companion clause addressing punishments.)

Never take anything for granted in constitutional law. But the problem we face in some areas is that the law has allowed us greater freedom than the constitutional strictly requires. That latitude is being pared back, legally if not wisely.

Congressman Curt Weldon's comments

Schwartz: Congressman Weldon, thank you very much for being here. Do you have any questions.

Rep. Curt Weldon: Thank you. Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon. First of all, I apologize for being late. And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.

Pardon me if I seem a little bit confused to our panel, but, I am, and have been, with the change in direction which has occurred. But before I begin, let me say at the outset one of my biggest projects for the past four years has been to build what is becoming the first smart region in America, linking up all of the institutions within a four state region -- Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland -- _____. In fact, over the weekend, I hosted the Minister _____, who is the Minister of Information Technology for Malaysia. As we signed an ____ with them for uplink downlink ties between our hub initiative in the four states, and the new Malaysian super-computing corridor project that they are building in Malaysia. So, I am a strong advocate for the use of information technology.

But my other hat is to chair the Research Committee for National Security. And when Bob introduced his bill three years ago, my door was pounded incessantly by the Defense Secretary and his staff, by the Director of the CIA, and by the head of the NSA, and I would note for the record neither the CIA nor the NSA is here today.

Who is actually speaking for them today, I might add? OK.

NSA and CIA came in, and in a very intense way, lobbied me personally, and I am not a computer expert, nor am I a lawyer, and they asked me to give access to my subcommittee and the full Armed Services Committee to look at the security implications of the change in Bob's legislation. I respect Bob. I think that he is an outstanding member. But I felt that I owed it to my committee, and my responsibility to Congress to listen to what the administration was going to tell me.

We arranged a series of classified hearings and briefings. And, as with any Member of Congress expressing concern about the ability for our forces involved in a hostile environment to be able to respond quickly, ____ back to 1991 in Desert Storm where my understanding is that our commanders in the field had Saddam Hussein's commands before his own command officers had them, because of our ability to intercept and break the codes of Saddam's military. I want to make sure that we have that capability in the future. I responded in a very positive way to the argument that was being made by the CIA, by the NSA, and by DOD. And we took some very tough positions.

In fact, Ron Dellums and I offered the amendment last year that had only one dissenting vote in the House, and this year passed by a vote of 48 to 6.

In the past year none of those briefings have changed. And the people who have come to me as a Member of the National Security Committee, there has been no lessening of their impression of the threat. Yet all of a sudden I am told, and John Hamre, I think, he made the courtesy of calling me in advance, that there was a change.

Now, I agree with the gentleman from the White House, for the administration, that it was coincidence that this happened the day before Vice President Gore went to Silicon Valley. I agree that that was just a coincidence.

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Because that is going to be subjected to future administrations, if it is not written down in a clear policy way. I want to know more about this end use certificate. In fact, sitting on the Cox Committee as I did, I saw the fallacy of our end use certificate that we were supposedly getting for HPCs going into China, which didn't work. So, I would like to know what the policies are. So, I guess what I would say is, I am happy that there seems to be a comming together. In fact, when I first got involved with NSA and DOD and CIS, and why can't you sit down with industry, and work this out. In fact, I called Gerstner, and I said, can't you IBM people, and can't you software people get together and find the middle ground, instead of us having to do legislation.

But I am not convinced that what we are doing here is necessarily logical. And I am not convinced that all of us, in fact, have the same understanding of what it is that you are coming out with in terms of a new policy position. And I guess we won't know that until the terms of the December 15th regulations are spelled out, and then we can debate the fine points, which is part of what Bob's question alluded to today

I don't want to hurt industry. In fact, I have advocated that we give significant new tax breaks to the encryption and software industry in this country to give them more incentive to stay in America and do their work here. But, I am also, as a senior member of the Security Committee, as a Chairman of the Research Committee, to seeing 47 billion dollars a year of our tax money going to Pentagon's IT systems, I want to be absolutely certain that in terms of our ability to deal with intelligence overseas, to be able to have information dominance overseas, to be able to use the kinds of tools that the CIA and the Defense Department needs in adversarial relationships that we are in fact providing that through this new policy.

So, I guess the devil is in the details, the proof is in the pudding, and I am going to withhold my support for what you have done until I have seen the details that you are supposedly going to review for us on December 15.

My question is also why wasn't the head of the NSA and CIA invited to appear? Was that the panel? Or, was that the decision of the administration?

Jerry Berman: [He said he invited the administration to send whoever they wanted.]

Weldon: My only question is, since, the administration used the CIA, and the NSA, to come to me as a Member of Congress to argue their position for the past two years. I would like to have had the NSA and the CIA here at the table so I could ask them the same questions that I am posing you. And I am not going to be happy until I get that opportunity.

______?: Congressman, we will make that opportunity available to you.

Weldon: I think it should have been done though in a public forum.

______?: Thank you.

Swire: Just one small, in the announcement on the 16th that Deputy Secretary Hamre spoke for Defense and national security, Attorney General Reno spoke for Justice and law enforcement. Secretary Daley for Commerce. I was asked to speak on privacy, as a representation of important goals that we were trying to meld together for this overall policy.

Weldon: I understand that. And John Hamre told me that when he called me a of couple of days before the announcement was going to be made. My point is, that when the administration wanted people to carry their water up on the Hill, they sent the head of the CIA and the head of NSA to see us personally. They did not have John Hamre do it. Although John did part of that. And I think that we should be hearing from the CIA and NSA directly because they are the people I am concerned, in terms of being able to break into systems of foreign adversaries, of both real and potential adversaries. I want to hear from them.

And I think we owe it to the public, as we have had an about face in this policy, and that is what I think that it is. I want to hear what has changed, and whether or not they are satisfied. Once again, I am not an information technology expert. I am not a lawyer. But, I want to hear from them. I want to get them to look me in the eye to tell me they are satisfied, and they are satisfied because what we have done here is consistent with their ability to provide the kind of level of security that we need in the future.

Wells: If I could say Congressman, one of the piece of the rollout was that the national security community will need additional tools. And, we look forward to the Congress to support that with appropriations.

Weldon: And we will do that. We have given, for the past five years, more money for the issue of information dominance in our defense bill, than the administration's request in each year. In fact, both ______ and John Hamre have had full and unequivocal support for all of their needs, as well as the needs of the CIA and the FBI, I mean the CIA and the NSA.

Schwartz: Congressman, I didn't really think we headed off into dull before, but when you said you were going to liven it up, you sure delivered on your promise.

Congressman Curt Weldon's comments

Schwartz: Congressman Weldon, thank you very much for being here. Do you have any questions.

Rep. Curt Weldon: Thank you. Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon. First of all, I apologize for being late. And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.

Pardon me if I seem a little bit confused to our panel, but, I am, and have been, with the change in direction which has occurred. But before I begin, let me say at the outset one of my biggest projects for the past four years has been to build what is becoming the first smart region in America, linking up all of the institutions within a four state region -- Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland -- _____. In fact, over the weekend, I hosted the Minister _____, who is the Minister of Information Technology for Malaysia. As we signed an ____ with them for uplink downlink ties between our hub initiative in the four states, and the new Malaysian super-computing corridor project that they are building in Malaysia. So, I am a strong advocate for the use of information technology.

But my other hat is to chair the Research Committee for National Security. And when Bob introduced his bill three years ago, my door was pounded incessantly by the Defense Secretary and his staff, by the Director of the CIA, and by the head of the NSA, and I would note for the record neither the CIA nor the NSA is here today.

Who is actually speaking for them today, I might add? OK.

NSA and CIA came in, and in a very intense way, lobbied me personally, and I am not a computer expert, nor am I a lawyer, and they asked me to give access to my subcommittee and the full Armed Services Committee to look at the security implications of the change in Bob's legislation. I respect Bob. I think that he is an outstanding member. But I felt that I owed it to my committee, and my responsibility to Congress to listen to what the administration was going to tell me.

We arranged a series of classified hearings and briefings. And, as with any Member of Congress expressing concern about the ability for our forces involved in a hostile environment to be able to respond quickly, ____ back to 1991 in Desert Storm where my understanding is that our commanders in the field had Saddam Hussein's commands before his own command officers had them, because of our ability to intercept and break the codes of Saddam's military. I want to make sure that we have that capability in the future. I responded in a very positive way to the argument that was being made by the CIA, by the NSA, and by DOD. And we took some very tough positions.

In fact, Ron Dellums and I offered the amendment last year that had only one dissenting vote in the House, and this year passed by a vote of 48 to 6.

In the past year none of those briefings have changed. And the people who have come to me as a Member of the National Security Committee, there has been no lessening of their impression of the threat. Yet all of a sudden I am told, and John Hamre, I think, he made the courtesy of calling me in advance, that there was a change.

Now, I agree with the gentleman from the White House, for the administration, that it was coincidence that this happened the day before Vice President Gore went to Silicon Valley. I agree that that was just a coincidence.

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Because that is going to be subjected to future administrations, if it is not written down in a clear policy way. I want to know more about this end use certificate. In fact, sitting on the Cox Committee as I did, I saw the fallacy of our end use certificate that we were supposedly getting for HPCs going into China, which didn't work. So, I would like to know what the policies are. So, I guess what I would say is, I am happy that there seems to be a comming together. In fact, when I first got involved with NSA and DOD and CIS, and why can't you sit down with industry, and work this out. In fact, I called Gerstner, and I said, can't you IBM people, and can't you software people get together and find the middle ground, instead of us having to do legislation.

But I am not convinced that what we are doing here is necessarily logical. And I am not convinced that all of us, in fact, have the same understanding of what it is that you are coming out with in terms of a new policy position. And I guess we won't know that until the terms of the December 15th regulations are spelled out, and then we can debate the fine points, which is part of what Bob's question alluded to today

I don't want to hurt industry. In fact, I have advocated that we give significant new tax breaks to the encryption and software industry in this country to give them more incentive to stay in America and do their work here. But, I am also, as a senior member of the Security Committee, as a Chairman of the Research Committee, to seeing 47 billion dollars a year of our tax money going to Pentagon's IT systems, I want to be absolutely certain that in terms of our ability to deal with intelligence overseas, to be able to have information dominance overseas, to be able to use the kinds of tools that the CIA and the Defense Department needs in adversarial relationships that we are in fact providing that through this new policy.

So, I guess the devil is in the details, the proof is in the pudding, and I am going to withhold my support for what you have done until I have seen the details that you are supposedly going to review for us on December 15.

My question is also why wasn't the head of the NSA and CIA invited to appear? Was that the panel? Or, was that the decision of the administration?

Jerry Berman: [He said he invited the administration to send whoever they wanted.]

Weldon: My only question is, since, the administration used the CIA, and the NSA, to come to me as a Member of Congress to argue their position for the past two years. I would like to have had the NSA and the CIA here at the table so I could ask them the same questions that I am posing you. And I am not going to be happy until I get that opportunity.

______?: Congressman, we will make that opportunity available to you.

Weldon: I think it should have been done though in a public forum.

______?: Thank you.

Swire: Just one small, in the announcement on the 16th that Deputy Secretary Hamre spoke for Defense and national security, Attorney General Reno spoke for Justice and law enforcement. Secretary Daley for Commerce. I was asked to speak on privacy, as a representation of important goals that we were trying to meld together for this overall policy.

Weldon: I understand that. And John Hamre told me that when he called me a of couple of days before the announcement was going to be made. My point is, that when the administration wanted people to carry their water up on the Hill, they sent the head of the CIA and the head of NSA to see us personally. They did not have John Hamre do it. Although John did part of that. And I think that we should be hearing from the CIA and NSA directly because they are the people I am concerned, in terms of being able to break into systems of foreign adversaries, of both real and potential adversaries. I want to hear from them.

And I think we owe it to the public, as we have had an about face in this policy, and that is what I think that it is. I want to hear what has changed, and whether or not they are satisfied. Once again, I am not an information technology expert. I am not a lawyer. But, I want to hear from them. I want to get them to look me in the eye to tell me they are satisfied, and they are satisfied because what we have done here is consistent with their ability to provide the kind of level of security that we need in the future.

Wells: If I could say Congressman, one of the piece of the rollout was that the national security community will need additional tools. And, we look forward to the Congress to support that with appropriations.

Weldon: And we will do that. We have given, for the past five years, more money for the issue of information dominance in our defense bill, than the administration's request in each year. In fact, both ______ and John Hamre have had full and unequivocal support for all of their needs, as well as the needs of the CIA and the FBI, I mean the CIA and the NSA.

Schwartz: Congressman, I didn't really think we headed off into dull before, but when you said you were going to liven it up, you sure delivered on your promise.

It seems that ignorance of the law is an excuse if you can't afford a copy of it to read it.

Being a member of the wonderful state of South Carolina, I hear a little more about Fritz than the average American. For the most part, I view him as just another old representative of our state who has antiquated views and really shouldn't be messing around with technology laws, but I found out that he actually did do some good things a few months ago in that sector. Bill S. 2201 was a compromise between him and two other senators about the "opt-in/opt-out" debate. I was very pleased to see that Fritz supported "opt-in" methods for advertising, but the other two senators were against him, afraid that big business would lose out, I guess. The bill determined, I believe, that "sensitive" information would have to be "opted-in" in order for companies to distribute it or something like that, but non-essential info was "opt-out." The bill also gave us the right to sue companies for leaking our information and to see what information those companies actually have about us. Although it didn't do nearly the stuff that I think most of us would like to see done against spammers and pop-up providers, it was one of the first steps we've seen towards regulating stuff on the Internet. Unfortunately, I see that he's followed that up with a bill as stupid as this one. I'm hoping it doesn't pass, as is nearly everyone else, I think.

ac

Even in the legal sense copyright infringement is treated as a form of theft when the party is subject of criminal prosecution:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong106/copyright/De fault.htm

Q: So whom do you blame?

A: Richard Nixon.

Q: What did he do?

A:I proposed a national computer year back in 1970. I wanted to model it after the IGY [the International Geophysical Year was from July 1957 to December 1958]. I could see that people were not prepared for the influx of computer usage that was sure to come. I thought that if we all put our minds to it and planned ahead a little bit, maybe it would be easier. Year 2000 was just one of the issues we would have addressed.

President Nixon was very suspicious of computers, though, and wouldn't sign off on it. Without his proclamation we couldn't do it. I think he'll go down in history along with King Canute.