underwhelm.org · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Please consider the fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-13 05:24 · Score: 0 · on Warcraft III Gone Gold

http://www.underwhelm.org/freedima/073001.html

Makes you wonder how many they were expecting

Looks about 30-40 people in this one

Interest in your petty piracy wars is low among the general public.

Re:Please consider the fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-13 05:24 · Score: 0 · on Warcraft III Gone Gold

http://www.underwhelm.org/freedima/073001.html

Makes you wonder how many they were expecting

Looks about 30-40 people in this one

Interest in your petty piracy wars is low among the general public.

We do. by underwhelm · 2001-09-25 03:32 · Score: 2 · on Slashdot in Politics?

Our group has put a bit of work behind a lecture series we hope will bring intellectual property to the public debate... but we just don't have the money to advertise it sufficiently.

If only there were a clearinghouse, where technodonors could read about and choose to support the technoactivists they like... I hoped Slashdot would help us reach supporters to help fund our efforts, it seems like the most likely candidate at this stage in the game. Alas, they won't post stories about "local" events.

Minnesotans for Fair Copyright Lecture Series by underwhelm · 2001-09-25 03:15 · Score: 2 · on Slashdot in Politics?

Our group, organized in response to the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov, is trying to do this.

We have organized a lecture series to take place over the coming months, but need help advertising it to the public.

Speakers include Dan Burk of the University of Minnesota's Law School, John Logie of the University of Minnesota's Department of Rhetoric and Bruce Schneier of Counterpane Internet Security, author of Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World

Read about our efforts at underwhelm.org.

Re:Functional != unprotected by underwhelm · 2001-06-02 15:18 · Score: 1 · on Duct Tape

What if I write bridge software that will accept as input the text of the physics book, and outputs a decrypted DVD? And if the software in all other instances was a screen saver?

Suppose I wrote a shell script that took Jack Valenti speaking the CSS_Descramble code, piped it into a text-to-speech converter, compiled it and used it? Which would you ban?

'rm -rf /' has only one purpose, and oh! sometimes it can be used to break the law! That's some potent functional speech right there! BAN IT!

Calling functional speech a device is a rhetorical trick, it is not genuine. The only reason the word "device" is being used is because it is what can banned from trafficking by 1201.

The MPAA would call DeCSS a "frosty lager" if they thought it would help the courts close their eyes to what they were really banning. They've alreay called it biological warfare and a crowbar. Calling this post "fecal matter" doesn't make it any less speech or any less protected by the first amendment, just like calling a brutal murder "speech" doesn't make it any less an action.

I've heard that before by underwhelm · 2001-05-11 00:40 · Score: 5 · on Gracenote Sues Roxio Over Switch to Free Song Database

That's the same argument my former ISP used to justify discontinuing my service when they got a letter from the MPAA and "discovered" that I was running my own webserver.

They said I was violating their terms of service, but see if you can find anything prohibiting or even mentioning servers for DSL users. The owner called me up at home and insinuated I was trying to "get away with something" by running my own server instead of paying them for hosting. So, with that twisted logic, they decided to bill me for 18 months of web hosting I didn't ask for or recieve. I called a lawyer.

Here's my documentation on the issue, and, needless to say, if you're in MN, avoid this place.

The moral of the story is because this is a capitalist country, it is a crime to avail yourself of a free service if someone is willing to charge you for it.

Jack Valenti already did it by underwhelm · 2001-05-09 23:40 · Score: 2 · on MPAA vs. 2600 Transcript

In a manner of speaking. Listen.

Interpretation and Overinterpretation by underwhelm · 2001-05-08 01:48 · Score: 2 · on The Rise of Steganography

Jack Valenti used steganography to hide the code to CSS_Descramble in his deposition in the Universal v. Corley trial. There's probably some other stuff, like the 7-line perl version and maybe Macbeth.

Hear for yourself.

Graphical Representation by underwhelm · 2001-02-13 06:56 · Score: 3 · on License to Sit

Here is the same point made in comic form, less the spiky chair.

knock knock. by SomePoorSchmuck · 2000-09-10 11:36 · Score: 1 · on DeCSS Source Mass-Posted to Usenet

Who's there?
Asshole.
Asshole Who?
Asshole my soul to the MPAA.

Are they going to check my systems to make sure that I am running Windows[TM] in order to watch the movie that I bought?

um, they don't have to. that's the whole point of the case -- now the very existence of DeCSS is illegal, regardless of whether you use it or it just sits on your hard drive.
As far as them checking your system, I hope you're not using a school, work, or broadband connection, since all of these make your system contents relatively transparent to the folks running the network.
Even if you're not, when you are identified through your activities/associations as a probable criminal, the po-lease will batter-ram your door down and confiscate your computer.

_/\!/\_
you can have my DeCSS when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

---
the problem with teens is they're looking for certainties.

Op-Ed rhetoric by underwhelm · 2000-06-23 01:26 · Score: 2 · on MPAA President Jack Valenti Clueless At DVD Piracy

This op-ed was reprinted in my local paper (www.startribune.com), so I wrote a response.

Even if it is obvious from his testimony that he did not write this and does not have the knowledge or experience to make the claims he makes, it is of limited usefulness to point out that the words are not his. They are the words of the MPAA, and of the motion picture studios.

I think they see their case against Corley is weakening, and they are moving back to the public manipulation through fearmongering tactic that has worked for them for so long. We'll see if the strib publishes my reply.

Finally... a story where this is *not* offtopic... by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 20:38 · Score: 5 · on Oxford Yanks Student Page Over Spoof DeCSS

and I'm asleep at the keyboard. Doh!

Oh well... here it is.
Add your own, and spread this far and wide:

This announcement brought to you by the DeCSS Polar Bear.

Time for Slashdot to take a stand... by Anonymous Coward · 2000-04-05 03:12 · Score: 4 · on MPAA Files Another Injunction Against 2600

The following is a list of all the mirrors from the 2600 site.

To concatenate: by underwhelm · 2000-04-05 00:49 · Score: 1 · on MPAA Files Another Injunction Against 2600

While 2600 is Slashdotted, I thought I would summarize my understanding of the current situation. This might be helpful if you've been away for a few days, or if all of the recent activity has finally motivated you to participate in some way. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

First, the basic stuff:

The MPAA has been granted injunctions in New York and California to prevent the distribution of the DeCSS source code. In every other state, this activity is legal.

Despite the fact that DeCSS is still legal in 48 states and the rest of the world, the MPAA sends out threatening letters to everyone listed on the 2600 mirror list, and whomever else they can shake an email at, in the hopes of preventing its distribution.

2600 has hired a lawyer with the help of the EFF who has experience defending first amendment rights in front of the Supreme Court and in many states. They are specifically prevented from hosting the data, but have provided a mirror list. The links to this data are on 2600.

And now the extrapolation and fun stuff:

A recent ruling has determined that source code is free speech. Clearly, this applies to HTML, and is likely related to the decision that deep linking was OK'd by another federal judge. This puts 2600 squarely in the right, and now that they have a quality lawyer, I expect this injunction to be denied.

Aside from on 2600, some good advocacy information can be found on OpenDVD.org The best suggestions I have heard for protecting our first amendment rights from the copyright zealots are:

contact local media and eloquently state your case, providing resources like 2600 and OpenDVD for reference;
crafting fliers to distribute peacefully and respectfully near movie theatres or rental outlets, copying them to brightly colored paper and explaining the situation (or use the flyer at 2600, though I'm sure a whole we could fill a whole archive of new and varied leaflets for different audiences);
and mirroring the source code on sites where the code is still legal.

In fact, if anyone wants to share your flier design with me, email it to me and I will host it at my site for anyone to use and distribute. Good luck everyone.

To concatenate: by underwhelm · 2000-04-05 00:49 · Score: 1 · on MPAA Files Another Injunction Against 2600

While 2600 is Slashdotted, I thought I would summarize my understanding of the current situation. This might be helpful if you've been away for a few days, or if all of the recent activity has finally motivated you to participate in some way. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

First, the basic stuff:

The MPAA has been granted injunctions in New York and California to prevent the distribution of the DeCSS source code. In every other state, this activity is legal.

Despite the fact that DeCSS is still legal in 48 states and the rest of the world, the MPAA sends out threatening letters to everyone listed on the 2600 mirror list, and whomever else they can shake an email at, in the hopes of preventing its distribution.

2600 has hired a lawyer with the help of the EFF who has experience defending first amendment rights in front of the Supreme Court and in many states. They are specifically prevented from hosting the data, but have provided a mirror list. The links to this data are on 2600.

And now the extrapolation and fun stuff:

A recent ruling has determined that source code is free speech. Clearly, this applies to HTML, and is likely related to the decision that deep linking was OK'd by another federal judge. This puts 2600 squarely in the right, and now that they have a quality lawyer, I expect this injunction to be denied.

Aside from on 2600, some good advocacy information can be found on OpenDVD.org The best suggestions I have heard for protecting our first amendment rights from the copyright zealots are:

contact local media and eloquently state your case, providing resources like 2600 and OpenDVD for reference;
crafting fliers to distribute peacefully and respectfully near movie theatres or rental outlets, copying them to brightly colored paper and explaining the situation (or use the flyer at 2600, though I'm sure a whole we could fill a whole archive of new and varied leaflets for different audiences);
and mirroring the source code on sites where the code is still legal.

In fact, if anyone wants to share your flier design with me, email it to me and I will host it at my site for anyone to use and distribute. Good luck everyone.

Fair use vs. media shifting by underwhelm · 2000-03-31 02:09 · Score: 1 · on Copyright Comments Redux

Right, unfortunately the specific application of fair use that allows one to transfer media or participate at a different time is not part of that law.

Check out Sony v. Betamax for the time-shifting issue. An interesting quote from this source: "The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Pp. 434-442." Sounds like a certain piece of code I've heard so much about lately.

I would guess that this judgement is what allows for media shifting too, maybe it was used as precedent in another case.

In fact, that whole domain is an excellent reference.

Re:I thought we were protected from this nonsense. by underwhelm · 2000-03-31 01:25 · Score: 1 · on Copyright Comments Redux

I looked and looked last night, after I got my letter, but neither the copyright office nor Thomas (the legislative data warehouse) had any information on that provision.

The right to shift media across time or media is the result of court decisions (and is thus tenuous, subject to other court decisions or law). You would have to ask an IP lawyer to cite cases for you. Pay special attention to the court that issued the ruling. If it was the supreme court, then it is a little more challenging to attack the right than if it was merely a federal court or two setting precedent.

In any case, the DMCA obviously does an end run around this right and needs to be stomped on before it even starts.

Re:Speaking of hoaxes by underwhelm · 2000-03-30 13:30 · Score: 1 · on Hoax-a-go-go!

Here, incidentally, is my response.

My favorite part of their letter was where they mentioned, so briefly, that perhaps the injunction wouldn't apply to me. So I sent them an email about a law that doesn't apply at all, even if I did live in Washington, and is possibly even unconstituitonal itself.

Hell, if I can get their lawyers to spend ten minutes worried about that, I can keep them from sending out another threatening email to another poor civil disobediant.

Speaking of hoaxes by underwhelm · 2000-03-30 11:49 · Score: 1 · on Hoax-a-go-go!

I just got this letter from the MPAA.

This has got to be up there among the greatest of all times. After all, I'm not in the jurisdiction of this injunction, and it is certainly not a legally binding document, yet it is as threatening as they could possibly make it without mentioning your loved ones.

Anyone else get this one?

Slashdot Mirror

Domain: underwhelm.org

Comments · 19