Slashdot Mirror

The question is whether or not you can copyright a legal document such as the EULA.

I realize this is a little off-topic, but I felt it necessary to try to showcase a little better who the man behind the article is.

Not many of you may really know who Boucher is, heck, I admit that I would be unable to write even a small biography on the man without a lot of hard work. However, this guy is perhaps one of the few folk in Congress who really understands and cares about what the Internet is and what it can become.

While most politicians can be seen as either paying lip service about Internet freedoms or attacking outright the freedoms guaranteed to us, Boucher has proven time and time again that there politicians out there who, for the most part, look out for us.

Now, I'm not in his district and I couldn't vote for him even if I wanted to. He's never seen a dime of my money and I have never even so much have written an email or letter to him. Hell, I'm not even a Democrat. However, this man is perhaps one of the few people whom we need to encourage to continue to fight for our rights. Likewise, we need to begin encouraging our own representatives to follow his lead.

It may sound like I'm bullshitting you about this and that I have some ulterior motive. I don't. I'll let his record speak for itself,

http://www.house.gov/boucher/internet.htm

Anyway, I don't post on Slashdot anymore unless I really have something to say. All I'm trying to say now is, "take a look at this guy, see what he's about, what he's done and decide for yourself."

As a closing thought as to what kind of vision this guy has, he was the one back in 1992 that allowed the NSF (National Science Foundation) network to carry non-educational or scientific traffic... i.e., commodity Internet traffic. This effectively made the Internet what it is today. Al Gore and others may claim they invented the Internet. Boucher makes no such claim, but could largely be credited with the one that made it legal to become what it is today.

Anywho, I'll get off the podium now... but when someone does something right by me I want to make sure everyone who has an interest knows so. This guy is the real deal. Support him and tell your representatives to support him. He is truly "our man on the inside".

The USA-PATRIOT act specifically requires the Attorney General or President to declare someone an enemy combatant. One of the restrictions is that the person must not be a US citizen.

The 1942 case involved persons who worked for an enemy that congress had declared war on. Congress has not declared war on Al Queda.

To deny the civil rights of a certain class of people amounts to a Bill of Attainder. The constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder.

All the protections in the constitution are worthless if they can be eroded with a simple accusation. Even if one supports military tribunals for enemies of the state, the state should be required to prove, in open court, that the defendent is indeed an enemy of the state. In the 1942 case, the defendents did not dispute that they took orders from the German High Command.

Should you lose your right to a public jury trial if a member of Al Queda claims that you work for them? What burdon should the state have to meet before taking away someone's right to a public jury trial?

That would be a Bill of Attainder, which would be explicitly illegal under the US constitution.

Never forget that:

• Over 80% of the American public opposed expansion of the H1-B program [ucdavis.edu].
• The H1-B program was expanded by 40% last year, in the middle of a tech recession [imdiversity.com].

Be sure to check out the FAQ at Digital Consumer for plenty of Q & A on the subject.

Also, Rep. Rick Boucher's Copyright Address will probably help you formulate a good argument.

Good Luck!!

The unpopular expansion of the H1-B program has caused massive dislocation in the tech industry with little popular debate.

Over 80% of the American public opposed expansion of the H1-B program. Still, the program was expanded last year, in the middle of a tech recession. White House sources available to this correspondent indicate that there is starting to be considerable dissent among personnel in the Bush administration on whether the expansion of the H1-B program should be continued. Bush has been a strong supporter of the H1-B program(McCain and Gore also supported the H1-B program- Leiberman was unusual in that he was one of four senators that abstained from or opposed the major Senate vote around H1-B expansion).

Read the full text of the Copyright Term Extension Act at the Tech Law Journal.

Does or does not Microsoft have a monopoly?

Yes, they do.

If there are viable alternatives, Microsoft does not have a monopoly.

Your lack of understanding explains why the judge did not seek out your counsel.

Both the statute (CDA's Section 230 provisions) and case law are very strong in the exemptions granted to the operators of a computer service from the duties and liabilities of a traditional publisher. Every direct challenge brought against an online service provider regarding speech contributed by a third-party has been defeated both at trial and in appellate court.

• Zeran vs America Online. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of defendant, AOL, that defendant was NOT responsible for defamatory statements made via its service by a third party per 230 of the CDA. Subsequent appeal was denied by US Supreme Court.
• Ben Ezra, Weinstein, and Co., Inc. v. America Online Inc. The US District Court in New Mexico held that AOL "clearly qualifies" for Internet service provider immunity under 230 of the CDA. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld this finding.
• Curzon Brown v. San Francisco Community College District Plantiff charged that TeacherReview.com was responsible for defamatory comments made on its web site about a professor at San Francisco City College. In settlement, plantiff abandoned claim and was forced to pay $10,000 to TeacherReview.com for legal fees.

First of all, not all of Congress are money- grubbing worms. And the others are afraid of losing support.

I suggest contacting people like Rick Boucher(info here). He seems to have a clue. Get ahold of his office, and find out who else could help out. Then help them organize resistance to this bill.

It's been said a thousand times, but listen anyway: contact your state's Congress memebers. Write down your comments before hand, making them concise and lucid. Leave the vitriol and belly aching on /. and make your case logically. Don't be threatening, just make it clear that this is important to your vote. Yes, you may get a "we need to protect copyrights...blah...blah" response, but I guarantee that if you got a chain of messages going to them, they will listen. You call. Then, have your spouse, mom, dad, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, whatever, call. And get as many of your friends to do the same as you can.

Creedo

First of all, not all of Congress are money- grubbing worms. And the others are afraid of losing support.

I suggest contacting people like Rick Boucher(info here). He seems to have a clue. Get ahold of his office, and find out who else could help out. Then help them organize resistance to this bill.

It's been said a thousand times, but listen anyway: contact your state's Congress memebers. Write down your comments before hand, making them concise and lucid. Leave the vitriol and belly aching on /. and make your case logically. Don't be threatening, just make it clear that this is important to your vote. Yes, you may get a "we need to protect copyrights...blah...blah" response, but I guarantee that if you got a chain of messages going to them, they will listen. You call. Then, have your spouse, mom, dad, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, whatever, call. And get as many of your friends to do the same as you can.

Creedo

Since when was it a right to receive what ever you want on a freely provided information channel.

A limited public forum is created when the government voluntarily opens a particular forum to the public for expressive activity. See id. at 45. The government can create a limited public forum for all, some, or only a single kind of expressive activity. See, e.g., Kreimer, 958 F.2d at 1259 (finding that the government had made the public library a limited public forum for the expressive activity of "communication of the written word"). Even though it is not required to operate such a forum, once the [begin page 21] government does so it "is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum." Perry, 460 U.S. at 46. Therefore, content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations on the expressive activity or activities allowed are permissible if narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest while leaving open ample alternative channels of communication, see Kreimer, 958 F.2d at 1262. Any content-based restriction, however, must he "narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." ...

This is from Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library, a case involving a public library using censorware on everyone.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. However, I did have something to do with that case :-)

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

Since when was it a right to receive what ever you want on a freely provided information channel.

A limited public forum is created when the government voluntarily opens a particular forum to the public for expressive activity. See id. at 45. The government can create a limited public forum for all, some, or only a single kind of expressive activity. See, e.g., Kreimer, 958 F.2d at 1259 (finding that the government had made the public library a limited public forum for the expressive activity of "communication of the written word"). Even though it is not required to operate such a forum, once the [begin page 21] government does so it "is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum." Perry, 460 U.S. at 46. Therefore, content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations on the expressive activity or activities allowed are permissible if narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest while leaving open ample alternative channels of communication, see Kreimer, 958 F.2d at 1262. Any content-based restriction, however, must he "narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." ...

This is from Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library, a case involving a public library using censorware on everyone.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. However, I did have something to do with that case :-)

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

If the government provides you with free access, does that give them the right to censor it? I couldn't begin to speak to the Australian constitutionality of this, but I've always wondered about the American constitutionality of similar schemes.

As far as has been answered by the courts so far, the result is a resounding NO. This is from Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library, involving a public library using censorware on everyone:

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/loudon/81123o p.htm

"Although defendant is under no obligation to provide Internet access to its patrons, it has chosen to do so and is therefore restricted by the First Amendment in the limitations it is allowed to place on patron access. Defendant has asserted a broad right to censor the expressive activity of the receipt and communication of information through the Internet with a Policy that (1) is not necessary to further any compelling government interest; (2) is not narrowly tailored; (3) restricts the access of adult patrons to protected material just because the material is unfit for minors; (4) provides inadequate standards for restricting access; and (5) provides inadequate procedural safeguards to ensure prompt judicial review. Such a Policy offends the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment and is, therefore, unconstitutional."

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

If the government provides you with free access, does that give them the right to censor it? I couldn't begin to speak to the Australian constitutionality of this, but I've always wondered about the American constitutionality of similar schemes.

As far as has been answered by the courts so far, the result is a resounding NO. This is from Mainstream Loudoun v. Loudoun County Library, involving a public library using censorware on everyone:

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/loudon/81123o p.htm

"Although defendant is under no obligation to provide Internet access to its patrons, it has chosen to do so and is therefore restricted by the First Amendment in the limitations it is allowed to place on patron access. Defendant has asserted a broad right to censor the expressive activity of the receipt and communication of information through the Internet with a Policy that (1) is not necessary to further any compelling government interest; (2) is not narrowly tailored; (3) restricts the access of adult patrons to protected material just because the material is unfit for minors; (4) provides inadequate standards for restricting access; and (5) provides inadequate procedural safeguards to ensure prompt judicial review. Such a Policy offends the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment and is, therefore, unconstitutional."

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

Something similar occured in 1998. Based on precedent, shouldn't this new request be handled rather quickly?

title>TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 328, December 14, 2001./title>
meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
meta name="ProgId"
content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
meta name="Microsoft Border" content="none">
/head>
I would connent on how bad their page layout is, but looking at the software they had on hand, I'll forgive them.

This is well-settled. No copyright is possible.

The Supreme Court held in Feist that the white pages do not meet the burden of originality, and therefore cannot be protected by Copyright.

Another reservation I have is that because of the free-wheeling discussion here on Slashdot, many people have become accustomed to firing off comments that they may wish to retract later because stated in the heat of discussion. I would suggest a means to prevent that. I'm thinking along the lines of a non-Anonymous, delayed delivery mail system with a chance to retract (perhaps a message - do you REALLY want to send this? after an appropriate delay with a response required before the mail is sent).

The whole point of this is to make it easier for Slashdotters to easily be able to make their voices heard. Spam and flame mail are problems, but Congressional Reps represent flamemailers too.

I have long advocated for those in the technical community to get more involved with legislative activities. I regularly receive email from the Tech Law Journal as a way of keeping tabs on legislative developments.

Lawmakers do not understand technology - especially the social implications of technology. Correspondingly, techies often do not understand the legislative process. Good laws will only result if both groups work together -- techies must educate their Congressional Reps.

I am invoking my +1 posting privilege here for the first time ever because I believe this is IMPORTANT - Michael "Codetalker" Obersnel has a fantastic idea here and my hat is off to Cliff for posting this. I'm really excited about this idea. I hope it goes further.

Cynical, yet real. Look at the passage of the Sonny Bono Act, the one that extended copyright by 20 years, bringing the totals up to 95 years after an author's death!. This was spurred on by Disney, whose copyright on Mickey Mouse was slated to expire in 2004. Now all it takes is a mere act of Congress to extend copyright terms again.

Will Disney will be handing over fistfuls of dough to get terms extended once more? I'd bet the ranch on it.

The 20-year copyright extension you refer to is the Sonny Bono Act. That piece of legislation also effectively extend copyrights infinitely, since now it takes a simple "act of Congress" to amend copyright law. If lawmakers can be bought by big business once, they can certainly be bought again.

Doesn't this fly in the face of the Constitution, where copyrights are set for "Limited Times"? Even though they are technically limited, a work created when I was born in 1969 probably will not be public domain in my granchildren's lives.

Intel only owned the parts of Alpha that it already owned because Intel was already using Alpha technology in its chips efore it owned any of it.

Remember when Intel and DEC settled DEC's infringement suit when Intel bought the Alpha lines? How is that a settlement? Clearly DEC wasn't terribly interested in maintaining the technological independence of the Alpha design.

That same agreement multi-sourced Alpha at Samsung, AMD, and IBM. So there was and is no danger of Intel's monopolizing Alpha.

Compaq then bought all of DEC, and ended up owning whatever was left over.

(Naturally, that sounds like an inefficiency. Compaq can't handle inefficiency. Intel is organized to mediate inefficiency and even find ways to profit from it. They build a fab for one chip partly on the premise that once that chip is done in the market they can use the fab line for less-mainstream products; they've done this for 30 years; some lines are designed knowing that their primary product--this year's desktop chip, for example--will never be enough to pay the mortgage; it's a gutsy and thoroughly pro move).

--Blair

Intel only owned the parts of Alpha that it already owned because Intel was already using Alpha technology in its chips.

Remember that Intel and DEC settled DEC's infringement suit when Intel bought the Alpha lines.

That same agreement multi-sourced Alpha at Samsung, AMD, and IBM. So there was and is no danger of Intel's monopolizing Alpha.

Compaq then bought all of DEC, and ended up owning whatever Intel didn't buy. Naturally, that sounds like an inefficiency. Compaq can't handle inefficiency. Intel is organized to mediate inefficiency and even find ways to profit from it (they build a fab for one chip partly on the premise that once that chip is done in the market they can use the fab line for less-mainstream products; they've done this for 30 years; some lines are designed knowing that their primary product--this year's desktop chip, for example--will never be enough to pay the mortgage; it's a gutsy and thoroughly pro move).

--Blair

The TechLawJournal reference is more extensive than the one cited in the article, giving you access to the opinions and corollary rulings.

All this case should do is remind us that copyright, and intellectual property in general, is a legislative construct, i.e. made up by government institutions to achieve specific ends. To the extent that these ends are not achieved, legislatures change the construction and definition of IP.

For us in the US, Article 1, Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution dictates that the Congress shall have the power to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; "

If we don't like what our legislature's current method for achiving this objective does, then it's up to us to agitate for change.

When we consider that copyright exists to give an economic incentive to publishers to invest in the dissemination of information, it's hard to understand the Veeck v. SBCCI ruling - but it is also true that, if SBCCI invested a great deal in the development of those codes, they should get some kind of economic reward. Did the legislature screw up by incorporating copyrighted materials in legislation without getting rights to that copyright first? Almost certainly! But once again, the onus is on the legislature to dot their i's and cross their t's - and, IMHO, they certainly didn't in this case.

And it'll be up to the citizens of Texas to fix it......

This one was never signed into law. You can read more about it at http://techlawjournal.com/telecom/81022.htm.

Also, the following interesting discussion was posted here:

I opened a piece of Spam mail this morning and got this:

Under Bill s.1618 Title III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress this mail cannot be considered Spam as long as we include contact information and removal instructions for removing you from our mailing list. To be removed from our mailing list, reply with REMOVE in the subject heading and your email address in the body, and include complete address and/or domain to be removed. <<

Have you received an email with one of these statements yet?

Let me see if I can translate it for you.

We are going to send you a ton of email whether you like it or not. Get off our backs. If you don't like it, get yourself off our lists.<<

Does that sound about right?

Well then! I guess I'd better read it. The information contained herein must be of some importance since the information has the A-OK under federal law.

Wait. Federal law?

If I remember my Saturday morning School House Rock episode correctly, for something to become a law, it has to be passed by both the House AND the Senate plus a really important person has to sign it.

It must be a law then, right? The Spammers are using it. They wouldn't lie, would they?

It would seem that enough time has passed for the president to sign the bill into law. It's been two years. We're in the 107th Congress now. I've never heard of a law allowing people to Spam me.

Hey - wait a minute. Maybe there never was a Bill S1618. I mean, it's not a law.

Darn.

There was a bill S1618 back in 1998. It passed by a 99-0 voice vote. It's called the "Anti-Slamming Amendments Act". There was even a House of Representatives equal to it, HR3888. It also passed.

The Senate version of the bill stated that S1618 was, "To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to improve the protection of consumers against `slamming' by telecommunications carriers, and for other purposes."

Hey! Wait a minute.

"Slamming"?

Is the Congress a bunch of really poor spellers...like me?

I thought this was a bill about Spamming.

Well, it is. It's just not the main push of the bill. You don't get to "Spamming" until title three. It's right in there between "Switchless Resellers" and "Miscellaneous Provisions". The Spamming section is an amendment to the amendment. There were actually four versions of bill S1618. The Spamming section didn't show up until the third incarnation. (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov )

But still, it was passed. It was passed containing the Spamming amendment so it's on the books so we all have to receive the Spam emails sent to us by people we don't even know as long as the Spammers follow S1618 Title III outlined below:

TITLE III-SPAMMING

SEC. 301. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TRANSMISSIONS OF UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL.

(a) INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN TRANSMISSIONS- (1) IN GENERAL- A person who transmits an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message shall cause to appear in each such electronic mail message the information specified in paragraph (2). (2) COVERED INFORMATION- The following information shall appear at the beginning of the body of an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message under paragraph (1): (A) The name, physical address, electronic mail address, and telephone number of the person who initiates transmission of the message. (B) The name, physical address, electronic mail address, and telephone number of the person who created the content of the message, if different from the information under subparagraph (A). (C) A statement that further transmissions of unsolicited commercial electronic mail to the recipient by the person who initiates transmission of the message may be stopped at no cost to the recipient by sending a reply to the originating electronic mail address with the word `remove' in the subject line. (b) ROUTING INFORMATION- All Internet routing information contained within or accompanying an electronic mail message described in subsection (a) must be accurate, valid according to the prevailing standards for Internet protocols, and accurately reflect message routing. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE- The requirements in this section shall take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

In other words, include the paragraph that started off this newsletter and offer a viable method to getting your name off of the Spammer's list. Do that, and you can Spam away because technically what you're sending cannot be considered Spam.

This sounds too bad to be true.

Great! Just great! Now I have to allow a ton of Spam to come flying through my front door and I have to read it all because the Spammers have the power of the U.S. Government behind them. It just cheeses me off. I mean...it...

Wait. What's this?

S1618 died in committee?

That means that it's null and void? It's dead? It doesn't have any power?

Oh. The Spammer never bothered to tell me that.

Never mind.

I'll just go delete that piece of mail.

(The death of S1618 in committee: Source: http://techlawjournal.com/telecom/81022.htm )

That's that. Thanks for reading.

Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip

A copy of S.1618 can be read at the following address:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/congress/slamspam/s1 618es.htm

As the notice at the top says, the bill never became law, but it probably doesn't surprise anyone that the morons who try to make money fast with unsolicited commercial mail don't know any better than to copy and paste the canned paragraph you quoted!

More about this bill and why the "This message cannot be considered spam" claim is nonsense can be read at:
http://www.profitjump.com/articles/0705-spam.html

Vice President Al Gore urged Congress on Monday to pass legislation that would require schools and libraries using federal subsidies for Internet access to block inappropriate material from children. "As we connect every school and classroom to the Internet, we must protect our children from the red-light districts of cyberspace," Gore said. http://www.techweb.com/news/story/TWB19980323S0011

And it passed: http://techlawjournal.com/censor/19990624.htm and allowed to stand by the Supreme Court. http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/00/149865.html. So for many rural and urban school districts, they don't have any choice. Censorship is required by law -- either that or back to a single dialup connection. :)

Of course, the school may not receive e-rate funding, in which case, they may be required by other local/state laws to filter access.

Worse, it would make hash of the First Amendment. Even under existing contribution regulations, the IRS is proposing to regulate Web links on pages published by non-profit organizations. McCain-Feingold would open the floodgates to similar abuses against any individual or organization in the country.
/.

• It's not actually an official law until President Clinton signs it.
• The very same day that the president signed COPA into law, the ACLU filed a suit against it (and they've been winning so far).
• CIPA is different from COPA and CDA though, in many ways. One of the main differences is that COPA and CDA were criminal statutes, bound by stricter due-process considerations. CIPA is just an incentive-based "suggestion", similar to the 55mph thing, and so it's not bound by constitutional considerations as much.
• This law has been introduced 9 times over the past two years, all by Republicans.
• The American Library Association strongly opposes such a law.

• A general perception exists that Internet filtering is seriously flawed and in many situations unusable. It is also perceived that schools and libraries don't want filtering. These notions are naive and based largely on problems associated with earlier versions of client-based software that are admittedly crude and ineffective. Though some poor filtering products still exist, filtering has gone through an extensive evolution and is not only good at protecting children but also well-received and in high demand.

It seems to me that the federal government could easily make the argument that censorware is the least restrictive means for stopping students (who are minors) from viewing indecent speech; since the goal they outlined was preserving the rights of adults, the students are probably out of luck. Plus, since schools have special powers over students, there's generally little protection for those who would want to look at various banned materials through school computers.

Libraries, on the other hand, serve a general public (i.e., people over 18) and would probably be subject to a much greater degree of scrutiny. There, any filtering would impinge on adult speech (although it's possible that they would turn it off for 18-and-over). One court has already found that libraries can't use filterware to stop adults from viewing legal material, and it based its decision in part on that clause from the CDA opinion.

The upshot of this is that, unless the courts decide to change their minds, students will just have to use the public libraries more often...

(I wonder, though, whether it might be possible to challenge individual software programs one-by-one rather than go after the law on its face -- after all, it shouldn't be too hard to show that each one blocks perfectly legitimate sites and thus impermissibly restricts speech...)

The DOJ and FTC have been breathing down Intel's neck for more than a decade now, but unlike Microsoft, Intel is bright enough not to stick its neck out far enough to get it chopped off. (Here's a hint to all you aspiring Bill Gateses at home: burn all your emails before the feds bang on your door.)

I had a couple minutes and wanted to see what I could find out about James Rosini, the man who signed the LegalLetter. The only notable thing I found was that he represented AT&T when AOL tried to sue over their supposed trademark of "You've Got Mail." Here's a link: http://techlawjournal.com/cour ts/aolvatt/Default.htm

...following the links from the story, I saw some interesting thoughts in the lawsuit between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vs. some other people, which can be found here. Halfway through all the legalese, I came up with these sparkling gems of wisdom:

Do those who browse the websites infringe plaintiff's copyright?
Blah, blah, blah, copyright stuff, and then:

See MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that when material is transferred to a computer's RAM, copying has occurred; in the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by license, such an act constitutes copyright infringement)
Whoah. So if open Slashdot, and someone posted some DeCSS code, automagically I'm a copyright infringer? But then...

Marobie-FL., Inc. v. National Ass'n Fire Equip. Distrib., 983 F.Supp. 1167, 1179 (N.D.Ill. 1997) (noting that liability for copyright infringement is with the persons who cause the display or distribution of the infringing material onto their computer)
Oooooh. This must mean that if I open up, let's say, the Louvre's webpage, and I open up a page with the Mona Lisa, and since I do not own the Mona Lisa and as far as I know I dont have express permission by license, then I'm a copyright infringer?

Finally, it is in the public's interest to protect the copyright laws and the interests of copyright holders.
And you wonder why people don't like big corporations and their lawyers...

While not an academic journal, TechLawJournal is a news site that focuses on legal developments that will effect the technological community. It is a great resource that is constantly updated.

Nature of the Case. The Mormon church's intellectual property arm seeks to stop critics of the church from publishing online material from the Church Handbook of Instructions, and to stop these critics from providing information about other web sites which publish the Handbook.

... Issues. The Complaint alleges two counts: copyright infringement, and removal of copyright management information. Copyright infringement is a very common claim. However, the copyright management information claim is based on a new provision which was enacted into law in October 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This provision is codified at 17 U.S.C. 1202. It makes removing, altering, or providing false, copyright notices a separate offense.

The Defendants have raised the issue of whether the Handbook is a copyrighted work in their Motion to Dismiss. Defendants have not yet raised the affirmative defense of fair use, but may do so, when they file their answer to the complaint.

However, the most interesting issue in this case is whether, and under what circumstances, contributory infringement can be invoked to prevent a web site from linking to, or provide information about, another web site which is engaged in copyright infringement.

See, for example, LA Times v. Free Republic

Issues. At issue is whether the actions of the Free Republic website in carrying the plaintiffs' copyrighted news stories constitute copyright infringement under Title 17, and whether such actions fall with the fair use defense (17 USC 107). Defendants are not asserting interactive computer service immunity as a defense. (47 USC 230)

Status. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on September 28, 1998. Defendants answered on October 20, 1998. Plaintiffs and defendants filed cross motions for summary judgment on the fair use issue. Judge Morrow issued a tentative opinion on October 8, 1999 that the fair use defense fails. She finalized this opinion on March 31, 2000. Other matters remain for trial, which may be set for around September of 2000.

Billington has not identified the main problem with reading online. Jakob Nielsen has. The problem is that current screens have insufficient resolution and they cause eyestrain. Nielsen estimates that that problem will be solved within 5 years.

Check it out!

God forbid We have them kids thinkin for themselves!

Microsoft did *not* lose an appeal here; the Supreme Court simply refused to hear the case--as it does with 99% of the cases that it is offered.

This generally gives *no* indication as to how the court would rule on the issue.

Well, my inner geek then asks: what is the proportion of cases that the court hears where it does overturn an appeals court ruling? I guess I did know that the 9th circuit is the one most likely to get whacked, so I wonder whether this actually bodes well for the ruling, a copy of which is here.

In other words, if the Supremes thought the 9th was really over-reaching here, might they not have taken the case anyway?

I have no problem with them wanting to offer a home page; if you don't like it, set it to blank and qyb.

My interpretation of "Consumer choice" is open access, like the City of Portland. It bugs me to see the words twisted.