Slashdot Mirror
CyberPatrol Update - Mattel Wins?
Slak writes "According to ZDNet, Eddy L.O. Jansson of Sweden and Matthew Skala of Canada have settled with Microsystems when they "agreed Monday to abide by permanent injunctions preventing them from distributing their software, which allows users to bypass the filters. They also agreed to turn over rights to their software to Microsystems." The ACLU lawyer was shocked. I'm shocked. Why would they settle? As I understood things, there were serious questions of jurisdiction. If I were the conspiracy sort, my mind would be racing. "
Although the agreement the two students signed with Mattel included the rights to their essay, the esssay itself ends with the following sentence:
"You are allowed to mirror this document and the related files anywhere you see fit."
That grant of rights cannot be revoked retroactively. (And there is also the bit about "released under GPL" in the source code.)
So Mattel may own the copyright, but that doesn't invalidate other grants of rights that were made before the copyright was transferred to Mattel. It therefore appears that anyone who had a mirror up prior to the settlement can continue to host their mirror -- at least until Mattel comes knocking on their door. Then they get to face the same hard choices the original authors did.
Nope: Bennett is one of the non-parties represented by the ACLU, because he operates a mirror site. He did not write the cphack software, although he was in touch with the people who wrote it; all of the work is their own. Bennett is just a supporter of their cause (or one might say that they are just supporters of his cause, or that they are just a bunch of people who happen to agree).
Judges are usually quite good at interpreting things as meant, especially in civil law.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
wtf? that doesn't make any sense. All the DOT has to do is condemn the property. As the state isn't involved in the lease, and it's not a sale (it would be a forced taking) it should go through just fine.
The owner of the property would still get compensated (and could go to court to increase the compensation, if desired), and the lube shop _might_ be able to get something too, though this is doubtful.
Still, the DOT might have just considered it more trouble than it was worth, though I find this unlikely.
btw, ianal.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Mattel now owns all rights to the program, which means they are legally entitled to withdraw its GPL status.
waitasec.. if the software was originally GPL'd, even if Mattel decides to relicense it doesn't the original software still have GPL and can then go from there?
Or are you saying that the code was illegally licensed (the authors had no right to license it)?
I'm interested to see what people in free countries are going to do with the source, though then again I don't use any proxy but junkbuster...
Your Working Boy,
It appears that it was the person (Rombuu)to whom he replied in reasonable tone who was moderated as flamebait.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
"Creating a truly open marketplace for electronic services"
Sounds hilarious enough to me!
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Now I understand why unsigned stuff is labeled "Anonymous Coward".
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
After your first couple of successes, or maybe even before, don't forget that all-important Initial Public Offering!
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
"...attorney Irwin Schwartz introduced part of a slashdot posting,,,"
So, can the poster sue Schwartz for copyright violation : )
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
IHMO, this is the worst possible outcome to this case:
Basically, it looks like Mattel slam-dunked this one. Crap...
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
They probably settled for a couple of reasons, regardless what they officially claim.
1) They didn't want to deal with a court case over it.
This is sad because Mattel's actions are now verified as correct by this settlement. In future court cases of this kind Mattel's court case can be used as an example. Using previous court cases as historical examples is the kind of thing that has protected emulators for so long. If I was in the same position though, I might have put my tail between my legs and waddled too. Freedom? Yeah, right.
2) They're making a subtle moral statement.
Consider how ridiculous the situation is. Mattel makes an ass of itself. Mattel requires the privacy of individuals invaded. Mattel asks for the source code to no longer be distributed and to be destroyed, shattering freedom of speech.
ACLU steps up to offer protection to both these individuals in a case that can't be lost if you take into account previous cases of this sort and the insidious actions from Mattel. Both settle for a dollar, and give up on a ideals they were so eager to defend.
What's wrong with this picture?
I think this is a lesson.
People stand up for freedom, and when they don't, no one stands up.
There is a side lesson to be taken into consideration here. Do not do Canada or Sweden a favor by visiting, and if you do don't bring money. And, if you're already a citizen, get out as soon as possible.
"God prevent we should ever be twenty years without a revolution." -- Thomas Jefferson
Sure, did he do that, or did he agree to give BACK the million kroner?
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
"I don't really consider one dollar to be much of a payoff, do you?" The way many contracts are drawn, the wording "...one dollar and other valuable consideration..." is quite common. This is absolutely the norm in Oil and Gas leases. It's done because the amount that was negotiated can be considered separately from the property or whatever the contract is about. If you bought an oil lease for a couple million, the title would probably say one dollar. Tax implications, and privacy concerns prevail. It may be a matter of public record that a piece of property was transferred, but only the taxman and the accountant need to know how much was spent.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
UCITA is not yet in effect in Virginia. It was passed and signed, though.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
That the Church of Scientology operates throughout the world does not alter the fact that it was american senators that threatened the swedish government into compliance with CoS' demands. The swedish government even openly stated that it was political threats from the USA that made the break against the swedish constitution.
But America is not to blame for everything bad in the world. Definately not. And whatever you think of the methods, they certainly work, and work well.
Except that if they assigned rights to the code to Micorsystems, then you're probably going to be legitimately outside the law by mirroring it.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Sorry, just theorizing, working for a large Multinational, I know how they tend to work.
You say you want a revolution....
if i ran a website that hosted anything, i would probably ignore someone if they asked to see my logs. i think if the website owners have to give up their logs, then it stands that Cyperpatrol should give up their blacklisted sites. it'd at least give us "non-blocked" people something to look at.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
Makes you wonder about the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act retroactively extending copyrights for existing works, doesn't it?
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
At the bottom of cp4break.html is the following copyright notice "(c)2000 Eddy L O Jansson and Matthew Skala. All rights reserved. All trademarks acknowledged."
Does that copyright notice to the whole report/source code/binary package? It's an interesting question.
Even if the license wasn't GPL, everyone who has already downloaded the code (and/or binaries) was granted permission to use it, and transferring the copyright does not allow Mattel to take away that license after the fact.
However, because no license is included in the source code as originally made available, it could be argued in court that no permission to distribute was ever granted. Perhaps this is Mattel's angle.
While I'll agree that American corporations and the US government are unethical in the methods they use, I don't see why you're blaming Americans for the fact that your politicians are being bought out. If Sweden's politicians are corrupt, it's the Swedes' responsibility to get rid of them, isn't it?
If America is so evil, why don't the governments in the rest of the world fight back? Why did so many European countries sign the Wassenaar agreement?
Incidentally, although the (thrice-damned) Church of Scientology started in the USA, it's international in scope, and its operations have been largely based out of England, IIRC.
There was no fight to fight at all. Is this to say that if some court in some other country suddenly has some lawsuit against you, that you have to suddenly address the issue with respect to the civil laws in some other country?
WRT assiging the rights to the program, they didn't have the rights because they had already irrevokably granted those rights to public.
My boycott of Mattel continues!
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Since under GPL, the right to copy goes with the copy, and does not stay with the original author ( in contrast to things like commercial music, movies, software, where it is usually the case that the right to copy does NOT go with the copy), that instance of the right is not held by the authors any more, and therefore cannot be assigned to Mattel. So Mattel has no right to copy that could have been assigned by the author.
What rights Mattel may have as a result of the fact that they held rights in the reverse engineered work (CPHACK being potentially a derived work), would be rights that the authors did not have, so again, Mattel gains no new rights from settling with the authors, although they may have certain rights all along.
The point is, if Mattel pursues mirrors under copyright law, they will have to establish that they hold all the rights to copying, and I don't see how they can possibly do that.
Then there's the murky areas of jurisdiction, and blanket court orders, and hearings, etc. I for one will consider any order to be bogus unless it names me personally, in the original order, and bears the seal of the court as proof of authenticity.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The usual situation with copyrights is that the author generally retains the rights to copying. Those who hold a copy have no right to make more copies (outside of the rights specified by the law that the holder does have, like making a backup). GPL is different. Under GPL, certain rights to make a copy ride with the copy itself. Specifically, the right to make a copy that includes the source code and all the original rights is that certain right (and the rights to make a copy without the source and/or without the original rights, is not, but that's not the issue here). So the right to make a copy of that copy are held by whoever holds that copy. And further, they have no right to make a copy without also granting all these rights with the copy they make. So even new copies made tomorrow have with them all the rights any other copy has. While intended for other purposes, this is the effect of the GPL. BTW, IANAL, but I think I've been around them too much.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Where can I find out what other companies Mattel has a stake in? I'd like my boycott to be as encompassing as possible. Thanks.
Thats what UCITA is for, so you can't use that old license. Its the most horrible legislature I've experienced since opening my eyes to the real world.
-=chiphead
-=-=-=-
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
We are the Illumanti. Resistance is Futile. You have been Assimilated.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Unless the [hypothetical] original license had some sort of clause saying "these terms can be changed at our whim, and you have to watch our website to find out these changes" like most corporate licenses. Although i wonder if these clauses are enforcable (or at least were pre-UCITA...)
However, because no license is included in the source code as originally made available, it could be argued in court that no permission to distribute was ever granted. Perhaps this is Mattel's angle.
IANAL, of course, but i would think that the comment quoted in other posts puts the code under the GPL. Either way, i wouldn't be too surprised to see Mattel try to get it pulled anyway... Wonder how many sites mirroring it will include disclaimers along the lines of "This code was obtained under the Gnu General Public License (GPL), which grants permission to freely redistribute the program and source. Although the copyright has since been assigned to Mattel, there is NO provision for changing the licensing terms of this copy, so it remains under the terms of the GPL. Any copies downloaded from this site will also remain under the GPL as specified by the terms of the GPL." (if for some odd reason anyone WANTS this disclaimer, go ahead and take it)
-----
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
IANAL, but if the law makes any sense....
Anyone who recieved the program licensed under the GPL (if that oft-quoted comment is valid, that's just about everyone) may legally redistribute it, since there is no provision in the GPL to change the licensing terms. Any version Mattel distributes may have a proprietary license, but all those GPLed copies remain GPLed and Mattel can do nothing to change that.
-----
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
> I hope I get this one in meta-moderation.
Sounds like you're trying self-meta-moderation. It will be interesting to see whether it works; you may have started a new slash-custom.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"Mattel, which sells Cyberpatrol, said the toy giant had acquired the copyright to "cphack" from the two cryptoanalysts who published it on their website earlier this month in a settlement agreement signed on March 24. "
It almost seems like Mattel admitted that they didn't have the copyright to the software.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Its always your right to give up.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Oy! I just posted a comment disagreeing with this in a reasonable tone. How can it be flamebait?
I hope I get this one in meta-moderation.
Not that Rombuu's karma couldn't do with coming down a peg or two...
--
E_NOSIG
The UCITA has only been recently passed into law in Virginia, and hasn't, to my knowledge, been made law anyplace else. And even if it becomes a national law, the law can't apply to something retroactively - licenses after the law is passed would be subject to it (and/or benefit from it), but not those that pre-date its passage into law. Of course, even then, it might be argued that a license would have to include a clause indicating that it could be changed later, if it wants to survive a court battle, UCITA or no. So no, in my non-Lawyer opinion, the GPL couldn't be revoked, even if UCITA is passed into law in an appropriate jurisdiction. Applying UCITA retroactively to a pre-existing condition would be unconstitutional.
Naked.
Maybe they realized they were wrong.
'cept they broke no laws...
--
http://cheeser.blog-city.com
The GPL has not been challanged in court, but it has not been without its attempted violations. In those cases the lawyers of the parties involved have chosen not to even attempt to challange the GPL...
Excuse me IANAL but if I understand copyright correctly once a particular verison of something has been released under a particular copyright then the copyright continues to be valid as long as the user abides by the terms the original author had stated. I can use old freeware copies of say Homesite software for web-authoring for example for as long as I like. Just because it was purchased by Allaire doesn't mean copyright on previous verisions ceases. I am sure there are many instances of freeware being bought out and made commercial. I have yet to hear an instance of previous free versions being called illegal warez.
From the ZDNet article:
Microsystems attorney Irwin Schwartz said the settlement proves the case was about copyright violation and not, as the ACLU claimed, free speech.
"This is a case about a couple of guys who violated a copyright. Once we called them on it, they settled within a week," Schwartz said.
Does the deal you made allow them to spin the issue however they want, while you yourself must remain quiet? A tall price.
Yogurt
'K Matt, since I know you read /. now, I have two questions for you.
1) Did you license cp4hack and all associated software under the GPL?
2) If you reply, at the moment you write the reply, has Eddy settled?
If Ed doesn't agree to hand over his copyright, it could create a honking big loophole for those of us running mirrors.
Also, did you hand over the copyright on the essay as well as the programs?
Thanks.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Irrelevant -- Mattel can withdraw the original license. All they have to do is sue in a Virginia court (where UCITA is law); anything that can be downloaded in Virginia would be infringing.
What happens if someone sues Mattel first over this though?
They have allegedly signed a 'contract that for the sum of one dollar they will cease all further distribution of the program & the list of all suppressed websights, consign all rights to said program to Mattel & submit, as foreign national, to an American Court. Has anybody heard of iNSUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION. For the sake of a couple of measely bucks it seems that Mattel may have blown it.
Maybe they will wait a while then say "Oh BTW, Mattel, you only have all rights within the USA, but as you view the USA as being the world that shouldn't be a problem"
Under my understanding of UK law (IANAL), a product offered for sale must be of the quality desired, in other words it must do its job as described. This description does not have to be confined to the formal product description. For example, if you asked a salesman if Cyber Patrol would stop all pornographics sites, and he said yes, or if the impression (e.g via advertising) of greater functionality is given, this is part of the contract.
Actually this applies to both products and services. Also the relevent criteria is "supply" rather than sell, both of thses extend the scope of such laws.
The issue with software is that suppliers like to claim that as what is supplied is a licence then they are exempt from such laws. AFAIK no software supplier has not "wimped out" of having to convince a judge that this is the case.
Anyway this loophole probably wouldn't work with any software package which provides regular updates, since the update part is clearly a "service".
also of course signing it could have been a really bad idea depending on what NDA they signed (assuming they did)...
probably should all be "I'm Brian! --unauthenticated"
~ppppppppö
either that or just use clever PR and media hysteria to create a culture where hackers/crackers are seen as a serious Threat To Society As We Know It and especially The Children.
Keep those that are necesarry in high paid jobs, but let them know exactly what cardboard box they are going to be sleeping under the moment they cross the line.
Then they save the $100K (nobody's going to dare crack it however easy it is), ppl accept market lead rushed releases (naming no names, it's after midnight and I'm not sitting in a protective circle of salt), and hey everyone's happy. They better be.
(hyperbole I hope)
~ppppppppö
They seem to be making the wrong moves at every stage, and really don't seem to understand how the internet (or its denizens) work. If they'd just accepted it, rewritten their encryption and released a statement saying that they were working on the problem of sites being wrongly censored it would probably all be forgotten by now. Instead they seem to be taking great pleasure in rubbing salt into the wound at every step.. threatning foreign nationals with a US court, trying to get the log files, sending email subpeonas to all the mirrors, and now mysteriously obtaining the copyright to the code and making themselves look damn sinister in the process. Not to mention the fact that they could have dragged the court case out for years, by which time probably very few people would have kept interest, now a lot of people who were pretty pissed off before know that they have no chance of vindication through the courts and they probably aren't going to just say "mustn't grumble" and put it down to experience.
Could it be that Mattel are actually doing this in support of free speach on the internet?? it seems the only possible logic in their actions....
~ppppppppö
I guess another question is: Since this didn't go to court, was any precedent set? As we're all aware, the case was strange for several reasons:
1. Does US Copyright Law apply to foreign nationals not living in the US.
2. Sub peanos (sp?) sent via email. The question: was it served properly?
Cheers,
Slak
I was not aware that charges had been brought against you in your native land. Was it to be a test case for Reverse Engineering?
While I am somewhat disappointed in the turn your case took, I can't say I would have gone the full mile (Green Mile or not). I understand your desire to spend your time on more productive efforts than martyring your time and energy to this battle, though I think you would have won (#include ). My understanding was that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was going to represent you in Mass. Warning stupid question to follow: Would the ACLU (or a sibling organization) have aided your defense in Canada?
Like I said, I would have liked to see this one go to court (and I think the ACLU really wanted it to go to trial), I likely would have made the same choice as you when facing a lengthy period of time interacting with lawyers and the "justice" system.
Cheers,
Slak
Put a fork in its ass, it's done. The Mattel lawyers might be ruthless motherfuckers, but they aren't stupid. They know damn good and well what they are doing. And some of you wonder why people in other countries think we are arrogant and offensive. It's bullshit like this...
Dave
Mattel DID win, in a big way. Now that they own the copyright on the source, it's a slam dunk to get the essay, the source and binaries removed from the 'net. They own it now, and it's doubtful that it will ever see the light of day. You say that the original license gave the right to redistribute, but that doesn't do the mirrors any good now, as you don't own the code, anymore. It would be foolhardy to think that Mattel will allow any of what you assigned them to be published on the net, in any form whatsoever.
Yeah, it is "out there", but with the assignment of the copyright to Mattel/Microsystems, it'll disappear from the mainstream, and any attention that could be focused on the "evils" of censorware and the way the Mattel operates with respect to that, disappeared when you assigned your copyright.
You say that "I've made my point". What point is that? To most folks, this is now just another case of some damn hacker kids stealing someone elses property.
Young man, I'm afraid at this point, you've done more harm than good. Except, of course, for yourself and Mattel. If anything, perhaps you learned that it is much easier to talk about a principle, than to stand up for one.
Dave
The license/copyright only pertains to original use, not the redistribution. Then there is always using Virginia as a UCITA test case.
Game Over........
Dave
I don't know whether the cphack code was GPL'ed, or even ever realeased, but if it wasn't, then all the mirrors really will be illegal now. Most other licenses can be terminated by the copyright holder. Whatever else you might think about CyberPatrol, you have to respect the license-holder's wishes, or you're no better than the pirates out there.
The best thing to do now would be to clean-room reverse-engineer the list decoder again and GPL it (maybe even assign it to the FSF). Then even if you relinquish the copyright, others' rights to the code can never be taken away.
Right...
several Mattel-trademarked items on the cover. Including Barbie's own, special shade of pink.
As mentioned in Slashdot earlier, there was a recent United States Supreme Court decision that a product's color cannot be inherently distinctive. So use away!
Err, I forgot to finish this. Anyway, section 7 is no way prohibits the distribution of the software, provided that you violate no laws in doing so. The only law that can stop something like this is patent law, and even the USPO would throw out a fatous patent such as "Method and System for Decryption of Cyberpatrol Blocked URL Lists."
Licenses cannot be revoked once given without an explicit termination clause. It's just that most licenses explicity prohibit redistribution instead of explicitly allowing it.
>Mattel DID win, in a big way. Now that they own >the copyright on the source, it's a slam dunk to >get the essay, the source and binaries removed >from the 'net. They own it now, and it's doubtful >that it will ever see the light of day. You say >that the original license gave the right to >redistribute, but that doesn't do the mirrors any >good now, as you don't own the code, anymore. It >would be foolhardy to think that Mattel will >allow any of what you assigned them to be >published on the net, in any form whatsoever.
IANAL, but I know several. A license connot be taken away once granted without a retroactive deactivation clause, and the GNU GPL as none. The mirrors cannot be threatened legally because of this. They have the right to redistribute despite what the current owner, Mattel, says.
Since when has the USPO cared about prior art for software patents? :)
So then we need someone else to write something to do the same thing. Would it be that hard to write something different that performs the same function, expecially now that we've read the source and the essay on how he did it? I can't imagine that this man was such a brilliant coder that there is no one else who could've done it. Then we can start again.
--
linuxisgood:~$ man woman
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
Yeah, then you would have cphack as prior art.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
Good point.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
some testing tools for windows (e.g. QARun) let you capture any text that appears on the screen wheter it's cut&paste-able or not... it has to be displayed using fonts, of course, if it's bitmap you have to use OCR.
erik
...all excited, don't know why...
The most important problem here is that the big issue with programs like Cyber Patrol are not their use in the home, but in schools and public libraries. It doesn't do a library any good that somebody is looking at porno sites, nor is it an easy job to monitor these lists.
:) As for replacing the program, this can be done on any system, even Linux. Physical access to a computer is complete access. Little Jonny could continue reading his porno while his parents think he's looking at slashdot and educational sites.
On the domestic end, this program still suffers from the same problem that every other one does. A program like that can be easily replaced with a dummy that either removes certain sites from the list, or a program that just chooses from a random list of Jonny-approved urls. In Linux I could easily program the latter, and versions of the former would probably be found all over the net. An even simpler trick would be to just kill the program and send the e-mail yourself every day.
Censorship is still not the best option. If parents really do have a good reason to keep their kids from reading porn, it's their job to teach it to their kids. Setting up rules and blocking programs just give the kids a chalenge.
ROTFL.. That was the funniest troll that I've ever seen. Keep it up!
They DID have the right to issue it at the time, though.
Here was the series of events.
- Code Belongs to Matthew Skala and his friend.
- They release the code under the GPL, thereby licensing it to you and I. They also give me distribution and other rights. This is considered a contract.
- Mattel purchases copyright to the code
- Doesn't matter, I still own a license to the code, including the right of distribution.
Mattel cannot take away my license to distribute/modify/use/whatever the code, because the contract is already made.
mirror only part of it
much like the DeCSS code - can they really nab you if you only have 2-3 lines of the code including a pointer to another site that contains the next 2-3 lines?
I'm Spartacus! No, I'm Spartacus!
- passion
I doubt Mattel would/could buy them off, but I can imagine no other reason (except perhaps the advice of an incompetent lawyer)for such a quick change of heart.
Anxiously awaiting further details...
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
...from the user info. I wonder what is going on with all the reporting if so though?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
On what grounds do you claim they didn't have the right?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Even if this does become law (and let's not let it) it still cannot apply to licenses granted before it becomes law, not in the U.S. at least. The US Constitution has some very plain language in it about ex post facto laws.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Although it's been passed in Virginia, it is not yet in affect. Once it does come into affect (if the people of Virginia don't come to their senses and get it repealed first) then there could be some interesting test cases.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
They settled. So what?
First of all, the software is under the GPL. That means that once it's out in public, they can't pull the plug on it. Sure they can sign over the rights of the origional version, but that doesn't stop anyone from changing a couple menu options and the version number and redistributing it. Boom, new version. Still under the GPL. Can't stop it.
That being said, it's obvious why the guys settled. They probably got money out of it, and the software will live on. There's also the added bonus that people will leave these two guys alone.
Another thing... exactly how much jurisdiction does a settlement in a civil case in america have over a canadian and a sweed? None. Zip. Zero.
I would settle, wouldn't you?
-----
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
The Man wins again. *sigh*
perl -le 's;;uoli;;$a=length;y;g-w;e-u;;$a--;s;j;$a;;print'
Why should you care what Benjamin Franklin thinks?
"Ben stands alone as the only person to have signed all four of the documents which helped to create the United States: the Declaration of Independence (1776), the Treaty of Alliance, Amity, and Commerce with France (1778), the Treaty of Peace between England, France, and the United States (1782), and the Constitution (1787). He actually helped to write parts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. No other individual was more involved in the birth of our nation." - Franklin Institute Online
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Declan's article at Wired can be found here.
I'd have to agree with you on this one. The PR dept. of CyberPatrol is sitting back grinning right now. Did anyone else notice how good CyberPatrol looked in the article? That was definitely set up, and there's no way those guys agreed like that without some money.
I mean comeone, Their software finds out that Mattel's software dosent exactly work, so what does Mattel do? Slap a lawsuit on their back. And what do they do in return? Settle. Not fight and say it only shows that Mattel's software is flawed, but just plain quit and agree to a restraining order. What were they thinking? Maybe to get this over with? Someone enlighten me!
It's not that "presumption of innocence" doesn't apply - it's the proof of guilt. In a criminal case, the prosecution (the state) must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove guilt by "a preponderance of the evidence." O.J. was found not guilty in a criminal proceeding, but guilty in a civil case. The standards are VERY different.
but don't blame the two programmers. it's not easy being a trail blazer. the threat of fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars would make many of us settle. i know i couldn't afford that.
My employer uses smartfilter, but allows anonymizer access. I presume that they look at a sampling of the anonymizer urls to see if they are reasonable. Whatever you may think og this in an employment situation (I'm happy with it), I can see it working in a home environment.
Someone working under such a regime could expect me to judge a call to "hotlesbians4u.com" differently than "lawreview.com/people_vs_Lesbian_bookstore_inc". Allowing a tracked bypass gets rid of the accidental links, and allows links in the cases where the kid's sober second thought is "I should be allowed to go there." If we disagree with his conclusions here, it is an opportunity for constructive parenting.
(Warning - Advice on parenting by single male. Use with caution. However, my parents let me look up anything that I felt the need to look up)
Someone would really have to go through a lot of work to masquarade as Matthew for a year before he writes cphack, unnoticed, in order for him to pretend to be him on Slashdot.
The UCITA isn't law yet. Virginia has passed it and the governor has signed it, but it doesn't take effect for two years.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
Okay So let me understand this two ppl who don't even live in this country just settled a case that mattel had virtually no chance of winning and agreed to remove their posting. So if I want to make some money all I have to do is post some negative feedback on a product that doesn't work properly and give the code that shows it. Damn why don't I just mirror their site and maybe Mattel will pay me a few grand to take it down. Now if I could just learn how to mirror a site.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I don't really consider one dollar to be much of a payoff, do you?
The $1.00 probably wasn't even paid. It isn't a payoff, but necessary in order to enfoce the agreement. In Canada, there must be something given in exchange in order for the agreement to be valid. The sum of one dollar is common, and is seen on all sorts of agreements, for example on stock option agreements (in consideration of $1.00, the corporation grants...).
I can't find an address on their site to send email to, only forms requiring you to register before you use them. Anyone have contact info?
didn't they file suit against all of them? (course i could be making things up again) if they did file suit against peacefire was well, is the ACLU still defending him?
-------
-------
"don't smoke, don't drink, don't fuck
at least i can fucking think"
Minor Threat
-------
-------
"don't smoke, don't drink, don't fuck
at least i can fucking think"
Minor Threat
It matters little that they may take their code out of distribution because they have made a proof of concept, anyone with a copy of their code can now see what they have done, make a parallel process, and redistribute gpl if they want. There is no reason for these two gentlement to take any more heat, they did the important part of the work, exposed what needed, and now programmers at large can either take up the flag or not at their leisure.
Where does this decision leave those who mirrored the site and software? Maybe the programmers were scared enough to settle, but what about the hundreds of people who were willing to be martyrs in what they believe in and decided to mirror the software?
Have we now lost the right to host the software now that it has been sold? Or does the settlement refer only to the software and not the Essay?
I suggest whoever takes up the challenge should hold out for a $2 settlement if it ever gets to court.
Wired reports here http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35216,00 .html That court documents have been filed to fine mirror sites with contempt charges. It also says that: "The seven-page "assignment agreement" signed by cphack co-author Eddy Jansson of Sweden gives Mattel "all rights" to the program's source code and binaries and an explanatory essay he wrote. Co-author Matthew Skala of Canada signed a similar agreement giving up his rights for one dollar. " hmmm $1. Hardly sounds like the whole story to me.
It doesn't matter now -- what needed to be done here was done (and anybody who wants a copy of the code need only post somewhere and some civic-minded citizen will be happy to give them one, yes?). What does matter is that this case doesn't keep other people from finding the flaws in other software, which I don't think it will. It's a victory -- the flaws in CyberPatrol are obvious, Mattel has a bruising PR problem, and overall, the good guys win.
Did you read it? They gave up "All rights, if any" In other words, just as Linus can tell people not to use "Linux" in a domain name if he doesn't think they have any business using it, Mattel can tell people they can't use "cyber patrol" or some obvious derivative in a name of some kind. In other words, they still have no control over distribution. Perhaps they could demand that something by the name "cphack.exe" or "cphack.c" be taken off of a mirror, but if you change the name, you're not violating any rights of theirs. They only got what rights the programmers had, if any.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
I emailed the legal consort for mattel about the cphack legal debate today. This is the entire message I composed after doing some reading of his dealings with this case before emailing him to avoid looking like a complete fool, and maybe partly from my ph43r of him hax0ring m3!!(jk) well here it is in its entirety
0 .html I personally do not enjoy being afraid, do you? I assume not. Also since I do not assume you have personal knowledge of computer engineering, as you probably assume I do not have personal real knowledge of legal proceedings to clarify things such as I read in your subpoena email, which is posted on http://www.politechbot.com/cyberpatrol/schwartz-03 2000.txt "Accordingly, I have included a subpoena to you that requires you to disclose the log of persons who downloaded either "CP4break.zip" and/or "cphack.exe". The problem with this logic is there is simply no way for you to get these logs from a person who does not wish them to you. More exact there is no guarentee any log is kept, no way to check without gaining superuser access to these computers and more importantly I believe there is no guarantee these files are what you assume them to be. And since there is no explicit discrimination between the information stored in them it is impossible to claim these people can be criminals. I can open up any text editor and save files named "CP4break.zip" in about 10 seconds, then make an html document that links to my in reality text file. Is that considered breaking the law? obviously not. So what would my simple recommendation be for companies like the ones you may work for? Instead of using old tactics that dictate legal proceedings to cover up a job not well done (ie. an encryption algorithm that was cracked) why not try to follow the lead of open source projects and the things that will be gained in the least would be 1) faster development of software 2) higher quality of this software 3) a faster turn-around from bug-find to bug-fix 4) higher user satisfaction. If that doesnt sound good to you then I must be a moron. Please note that the next sentence is not assuming knowledge of your persona, morals, ethics or any of the such because I simply do not know you but here it is. When you do your job as a lawyer in this nearly-free country please do so with a conciense and realize we are all people, and many of these people we have interaction with are evil people and with motives of injust cause. So on that note.! thanks for reading..and remember judges are just men in robes, when in reality we are all able to as thinking humans to make our own justice and use our own grace in making decisions. have a great day, week,month, whatever.... ms
Mr.Schwartz subject:cphack? Hello Mr.Scwartz, I do not in any way enjoy the company of software piraters and i know from experience what it is like to literally survive from the sales of software I have written, it isnt easy.Just to make this clear up front, but keep reading, I dont want to write all this for nothing of course, =). But then again I am a large user and coder of open source, free software. Simply put without people like us you would not even receive this email, or any other. You wouldnt even be able browse 65% of the internet, case in point www.apache.org and www.sendmail.org. Thoughts should in only the most grave instances be censored, when someone finds a way to break software what the really smart people do is acknowledge the hole in structure exists and then fixes it. Where companies who are in chaos from trying to write software in corporate dungeons go wrong is they try to convince themselves that if they sue someone they will make the problem go away. Personally I wonder how difficult it would be to have the programmers of the software effected by cphack (i simply dont care to find out its name even) would have spent less time changing their encryption algorithm than the company has spent on going through legal proceedings. This is how technology advances, legal proceedings such as this just spread wanton fear "They should be afraid of being hauled into court on contempt proceedings," Schwartz told the judge. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35216,0
Let us further suppose that after waiting for a while, there were no takers.
Let us further suppose that, purely in an excess of zeal, some one went and hired some hackers to do the RE.
NOW it makes sense as to why they folded so quickly.
but that's just my evil, scheeming, low down and back stabbing mind.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
---
"Silly humans - always looking for patterns that aren't there." - Dr. Who
{Deth Onastick}
SubSolar
Beware wrath of Barbie!!!
SubSolar
Once one get's away from computer type sites like /., most folks think Matt and Eddie are hacker thieves, stealing from poor Barbie.
Nah, Barbie will cash in no matter what. I'm waiting for the new Cyber Patrol Barbie to come out -- "Not censoring the Internet is HARD!"
Well, you make a very good point. Their personal inconvenience aside, (not that it wouldn't be substantial, to say the least) this doesn't do much for the cause of free speech and freedom from information. I guess if it was me, I'd have to think hard about sacrificing a few good years of my life for this cause, but the end result is that (assuming they had won) future conflicts will not have the benefit of legal precedent.
The evil corporation has shoved cash at the would-be exposers of oppressive information and free-speech suppressors, and they went home and deposited the checks. (ok, overdramatization, but you get the idea...)
So what did we really prove? Nothing in the eyes of the law, much less to the public at large. Maybe some of us have a good idea of what was really going on, but the rest of the USA Today-reading public thinks the evil hackers gladly took a deal to keep from going to jail.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Well, not legal precedents, for sure. But this settlement could have the effect that others in the future will also be unwilling/unable to stand up for themselves. In fact, the absence of a precedent in that there was no actual judgement (assuming it would go against Mattel) is what hurts. Next time something like this comes up, the lawyers won't be able to cite Mattel vs 'whoever' as a precedent to make an argument against the bogus charges being brought by the next evil corporation who feels like throwing a few lawyers after a couple college students that have publicly humiliated them for crappy internet-filtering software.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
When corporations were given the same rights as citizens government ceased to serve the population. We now more than ever vote with dollars and not ballots. At least through our purchases we can effect policy. If you want to change the system we have socially move away from constant growth as the foundation of our culture. Only when we begin to value ourselves more than profits will that happen. As I see it the three reforms that would be needed to put political and judicial power back in the hands of the non-corporate population would be: Revoke those laws that give corporations the same rights as if they were people. Comprehensive campaign finance reform that makes it fair and affordable to run for office. i.e. free t.v. ad time for everyone who has enough signatures to qualify to run for office. (this also might get more honest people to run) Significant penalties for corporations that abuse the public trust quickly and aggressivly pursued under the auspices of reform 1. With penalties such as nationalizing corporate assets and redistributing them. (one of the draconian suggestions of what to do with microsoft;)) In summary the system has been bought and paid for out from under our noses so long ago that it seems like it's always been this way. "abuse of power should come as no surprise" -unknown
Down at the bottom, it says "The seven-page 'assignment agreement' ... gives Mattel 'all rights' to the program's source code and binaries and an explanatory essay he wrote."
normal(adj)- people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots [DECS]
But maybe that's just semantics. Anyway, I wouldn't impugn anyone's motives who had stared a malicious corporate lawsuit in the face, but I wish they had decided to fight. Sadly, the big guns usually win.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Money talks. As the first few posters pointed out, it is rumored that they (the authors of the censorware cracking program) were paid off. It may have gone against everything they believe in, but they could probably use the cash.
If it's not true that they were paid off, there is still the fact the government and the judicial system have a history of being more inclined to cater to the interests of large corporations rather than individuals. Yet another unfortunate fact. And also, this same government has a history of being almost paranoid in its efforts to "protect" young minds from the evils that lurk out there. Put together, these two facts seem to indicate that the US government would not be very likely to support someone who was attempting to bypass something as innocuous^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ridiculous as Cyber Patrol.
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Exactly. But how many people are too lazy, too forgetful, too clueless to do this?
Probably the proverbial 99.4%.
No sig is worth reading.
Hmmm - if this is really the guy moderate it up.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%E5%8D%8D&bt
If the code is out there, then it might not matter if they settled or not. It could end up another DeCSS, where no matter what they do to the original code writer, the code is now OUT THERE. And like pandora's box, once it's out, then it's extremely dificult to bottle it up again.
/. which was to slap Matel with a class action law suit for libel/slander for all the sites that they claimed were "pornographic". Does anyone know if this is possible? I guess I just feel like something bad should happen to Matel for the @#$% they pulled...
Even if the code project stopped, can't someone still do something to Matel? I seem to remember a fairly good idea someone had last time this topic came up on
Well.
d on't-like-it" to the unenlightened infidels at Mattel!
If they are THAT interested in recieving public feedback in order to better refine their product, then far be it from me to deny them my small contribution of opinions. Thank you for supplying the contact info.
I, at least, intend to use it.
Others should do so as well. Come forth, slashdot legions! Let us carry the word of "not-counting-a-site-as-obscene-just-because-you-
Actually... This might be one of those situations where a slashdot hoard is JUST what we need. If they got enough customer service complaints about their criteria for blocking sites, it might just convince them that something was wrong....
Perhaps someone can clear this up for me and the rest of the /. community. I was under the perception that copyrights protect only the implementation of an idea, not the idea (or method) itself. In that case, while the copyrights to the particular implementation, cphack.exe, have been signed over, there is nothing (aside from more saber rattling and legal motions) that they can do to prevent a new implementation being put together. With the author's step-by-step instructions available, I would imagine it won't be too long before another cphack-like program shows up.
If I am misunderstanding the nature of copyright law, please let me know.
Let's think about it for a second: Years tidious of court dates and legal battles to fight for free speech where the out come is undetermined, or a simple sell out to the comapny to get them to go away.
I'd sell out. I don't think I 100% believe in free speech as it stands today (the framers did not garentee the right to say *everything*). I wouldn't fight. At least not for this. Other free speech issues, you bet, but not hacked software. Wouldn't be worth my time.
CALM DOWN OOG. OOGS LOVER HERE. OOGS LOVER LIKE GOOD CAVEMAN LOVE. CAVEMAN LOVE IS BEST KIND. OOG MAKE GOOD SEX. OOGS LOVER MAKE OOG HAPPY. OOGS LOVER WILL SMASH MATTL LAWYERS HEADS WITH OPEN SOURCE CD IF LAWYERS TRY TO STEAL OOGS CAVE!!!
Perhaps he was paid his "token dollar" now, but when he's kicking back on the board of directors at Mattel in a year, he'll have the last laugh. If you can't beat 'em, hire 'em.
This is a little sad that the big companys win again. One interesting thing i is that cphack was released under the GPL. From Unit1.pas
Judgements set down precendents, not settlements.
A lawsuit was filed against me in British Columbia Supreme Court. There were not, to my knowledge, any criminal charges here or anywhere. It would certainly have been some kind of test case; it would test lots of things including reverse engineering.
There are civil liberties organizations in Canada, but they don't have the funds to do a huge amount in my defense. EFC was certainly willing to set up a fund and take donations. That's a dicey business. We certainly wouldn't be looking at the kind of money an organization like the ACLU could bring to bear... and if the ACLU was willing to "represent me in the USA", they never told me so. Their comments to the press seemed to indicate they were more interested in the email subpeona thing than in the issues directly relevant to me. EFF was very supportive. Because of the jurisdiction issues it's not clear that my formally getting a lawyer in the USA would be a good idea.
Issues arising from this work may still end up in court, because of the licensing and subpeona issues. But I personally hope to be bowing out of direct involvement with that. The copyright is Microsystems's now, not mine, so they can try to enforce it.
- Matthew Skala, completely unauthenticated.
The settlement isn't secret, it's in the Boston court record and may well end up on my or someone else's Web site eventually, and I haven't been hounded nor indeed had any communication at all from Mattel's corporate lawyers, except through my own lawyer and the service of the initial Boston lawsuit documents.
- Matthew Skala
Dunno, if it really says "Released under GPL" you can get a few thousand programmers to testify that this is perfectly clear to anybody in the field.
I can't think of any plausible way that "GPL" could be interpreted as something else in this context.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Can somebody check their copy of the code (I didn't download it) and see what the license was? If it was GPL or something similar then they can still assign the copyright, but they can't prevent people from distributing it.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
I am an attorney, but I"m probably not licensed in your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice. Get that from a lawyer who is licensed in your jurisdiction if you need any.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. An assignment of "all rights, if any" ???
In property law, this is a "quitclaim" deed. If I didn't make any representations about my ownership interest, I could give you a quitclaim deed to the Empire State Building without committing any civil or criminal wrongdoing. All it says is that whatever I own, you own now.
Mattell's description of this sounds just like that.
There's no fraud or misrepresnetation, as Matell suggests. Mattell was represented by rather expensive counsel, and had full information available. Previous licenses just plain aren't assignments. Just plain a dumb move. However, depending upon the wording, it *may* prevent the authors from receiving a GPL'd copy and making further modifications, as if it is written properly, future rights would be assigned as well--i.e., those that the authors could receive as licensees under the GPL, and their rights as authors to any new code. Post assignment, it is not possible for them to grant any type of license at all.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction
>There's generally only one reason that a court case gets settled, and
>that is that one of the sides has an unfair advantage of winning.
No, that's not it at all. You couldn't get much farther from the truth.
Almost all cases settle (well past 95%). They settle once both sides either
have a good estimate of what will happen, or a good estimate of the probabilities of what will happen. Then they choose something between each side's worst case. If it is clear who will lose, the loser generally surrenders to avoid further fees and costs.
hawk, esq.
1. Manufacturer can always claim that what software is doing is their "intellectual property".
2. This would eliminate any mention of user registration, since this is effectively limiting of access to software based on collection of information.
3. That's the case now, not?
4. That also the case. Moreover, I doubt that any license term that was not known to user before purchase (and when user cannot return product if he doesn't agree) would hold up in court.
5. That's tough to prove. If some Big Software Vendor proclaims that his system is "highly stable", how many crashes a day contradict these terms? Also, most of advertisement terms are buzzwords anyway, try provind in court that partcular software is not "user friendly".
6. This is easyly enforced by not buying "bad" software. You need not any law to do this.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
It may not be over for Mattel. Yes, they reign in control over the product that decrypts their site list, but that site list has already been made public several times and it shows some questionable decisions on the part of Mattel. Several CyberPatrol customers could easily get together and file a class-action lawsuit for, at the least, false advertising since sites that did not fit the particular descriptions were blocked. Sites themselves may still have a case for libel (representing knowingly that something false about another person is true) for those sites that were blocked inaccurately (and indeed, on purpose). If people still want to, they can attack Mattel (as opposed to defending themselves from them).
It's only over if you give in.
Apparently the UCITA allows old licences to be revoked by newer licences; i.e., Mattel can cancel the GPLed licence of the released cphack.
UCITA could be a "magic bullet" against the GPL.
You might well want to explore the fact that the original documents gave permission to redistribute.
Irrelevant -- Mattel can withdraw the original license. All they have to do is sue in a Virginia court (where UCITA is law); anything that can be downloaded in Virginia would be infringing.
Furthermore, anybody else reverse-engineering Cyber Patrol can be sued for copyright infringement. All efforts against Cyber Patrol (or derivatives thereof) are tainted and thus illegal.
CPHACK has not been withdrawn, but turned into a offensive weapon against reverse engineering, a blunt instrument Mattel can use to bludgeon anyone having a go at Cyber Patrol, reinforcing their powers to keep the serfs ignorant.
That grant of rights cannot be revoked retroactively. (And there is also the bit about "released under GPL" in the source code.)
Under UCITA, licences can be retroactively revoked. All Mattel has to do is show that the essay is downloadable in Virginia (where UCITA is law) and sue in a Virginia court room.
The Seattle Weekly recently published an article about Seal Press' battle with Mattel.
Seal published a women's-studies anthology called Goodbye Barbie that featured several Mattel-trademarked items on the cover. Including Barbie's own, special shade of pink.
Yes, Mattel owns a color. Does the sun pay trademark duties? Was there no prior art?
This case was also settled out-of-court, with Seal Press agreeing to change the title and cover art.
Don't fsck with Barbie, man.
P.S.-- the Weekly cover featured a drawing of Barbie clubbing a harp seal. Wonder if they'll be receiving a li'l note from Mattel?
According to Wired, the agreement that they signed states that they "are the sole proprietors of all rights" involved with cphack and have "not assigned" them to anyone else. If they have released it under the GPL, then they are screwed because they have given everyone that has acquired it the right to distribute it. If the "Released under the GPL" comment in the source is not enough for it to be considered covered by the GPL, then we're stealing Mattel's legally-acquired property in distributing the cphack s/w. Bummer either way.
I would like to see a tool which would give children free reign on the net, but which would notify parents of visited URLS. The scenario:
Mom & Dad talk to Johnny, tell him about the Web, and lay down the law for what they think is appropriate. Johnny goes surfing. Each day, mom and dad get an email with the URLs Johnny visited. The PARENTS decide what's a problem and what's not, and since Johnny knows mom and dad are watching, he tries to do What's Right.
Now, of course, the problem is, this requires (gasp) active parental involvement. But you're not going to have to argue that one too hard. What's cybersitter going to say - "Yes, but with our product, you don't have to take an active part in your child's life!" You could make it easier on parents by having lists similar to cybersitter's lists - but instead of BLOCKING those URLs, they could be used to flag URLs which have been visited - and then the parents decide.
This would not be that hard to do (for someone with better programming skills than I have...)
---
And it's you on the front lines, so ignore any who say you chose wrong; if they want to set the rules, they can pick their own fight.
--
Infuriate left and right
Chances are there's a NDA on it, and chances are the NDA is in order to hide the fact that Mattel may have paid these guys off.
;)
Hey, I wanna get paid off! I really missed the boat on this one.
-Waldo
Really? Give 'em the logs. I would like the Mattel Corporation to know that I, Charles Adams, a resident of the State of Colorado, own a copy of cphack.exe, and with intent, intend to distribute it from my my webpage, located at http://members.xoom.com/scrytch or by other means I find expedient. You may subpoena further information as to my from my Internet Service Provider, USWest.net. I will destroy all copies of cphack.exe in my possession and accept a permanent injunction against distributing this program when said injunction is issued after a hearing in civil court, so see you in court, motherfuckers.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
If an american "church" can do that, why shouldn't Mattel through carefully selected politicians on it's payroll^H^H^H^H^H^H^H list of nice people to contact be able to apply the proper pressure to make a swedish ISP remove the page, and a lonely swedish citizen to give up?
Not to be offensive against americans, but from this side of the pond it's blatantly obvious that America and american politicians use any means to prevent its economical and political interests, wherever in the world America feels it's interests are threatened, and regardless of the strength of the measures (Echelon, Warfare, political pressure, economical pressure, you name it).
America isn't what it is because of talent. It's because of its size, and its willingness to protect itself with any means even when not under direct attack. You don't have to like it, but it works!
Constant harrasment, and a juicy out-of-court settlement with a non-disclosure agreement. If you had spent the last two weeks being hounded by corporate awyers day in, day out, and all of a sudden they offered to 'buy' your software, would you not also cave in to the pressure?
You say you want a revolution....
I don't think it's appropriate to characterise this as Microsystems et al "winning". The document is out there, I know the mirror sites aren't going to take it down without a fight
My mirror of the files is going down now. I'm not interested in fighting the fight for you. Sorry mate, you made a great program - you made a fool out of mattel, but now you've made a fool out of us who supported you.
I feel like a fool. I've recomended people to mirror the stuff, I've put up a pretty decent mirror myself with links to the relevant articles and stuff. And now - you go ahead and do this.
Wellwell, my mirror is taken down effective immediately. (At least the mirror of the essay / files).
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
My site DOES NOT mirror the source and binaries anymore. I cannot see how I possibly can stand up legally when Mattel suddenly has copyright on the program / essay.
They are TAKEN DOWN.
(But I still link to relevant sites. Oh, and the openpgp mirror should still be up..)
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
> Damages are too dangerous, I'm afraid.
I too have mixed feelings about suing over bugs, and I know that that right would be a sticking point for vendors when we tried to get them to buy in.
However, I actually worded that proposed right very carefully. I did not rule out disclaimers (though perhaps I should have), but rather, "if their software does not perform as advertised by the vendor".
Thus if a softwarehouse puts in the usual merchantability disclaimer, but also advertises on TV that (say) "Our software makes your internet connection faster" when in fact it doesn't, then IMO you should have a right to sue.
If they put in the disclaimer and don't make unsupportable claims in their advertising, then I (tentatively) don't have any problem with that.
Much beyond that gets into sticky issues that I don't even know where I stand on, so I'm a bit reluctant to encode more into a draft BoR.
But hey, I put it out there for discussion. Maybe I'm being too soft? Too hard? Either way, thanks for your feedback.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
IF YOU GET A SUBPONEA AND DESTROY THE LOGS, YOU ARE FUCKED.
I can hear you perfectly well.
However, if you destroy the logs and get a subpoena, they are fucked.
See the difference?
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Well, there seems to be a high chance for another legal battle. The right of a copywrite owner to change the license, or more importantly the battle over the meaning of copywrite versus the importance of a electronically stated nonsigned license agreement. Expect this to be a first test of the power of GPL. As I see mattel now suing the mirrors to copywrite violations, not of just the list but of the program to break the list that they now own.
I can't argue the merits of this case (i.e. is it free speech or copyright infringement?), but from personal experience, I know how freaky it can be when a large organization makes legal threats. Even if Jansson and Skala are in the right, it will cost money and take up time to defend themselves; they probably don't have much of either to spare. So even if they did win, they would still lose (and forget about filing against Microsystems for "malicious prosecution" - that takes time and money too). I'm no mind reader, but I doubt they did this to get famous or get sued. They have made the public aware of an important issue, who can expect them to do more than that?
BTW America has the ACLU with expensive lawyers ready to protect the rights and freedoms of the masses but Canada's got squat, the best they offer in Canada is some friendly advice and they'll help you get in touch with a lawyer (that you'll have to pay for yourself)
if at first you don't succeed, shoot the consultant who suggested you try in the first place...
Post stuff anonymously and THEN mirror the hell out of it. You'll miss the accolades, but the lawyers will miss you.
--
+&x
I was at the hearing; you can find an article I wrote (filed via Palm VII directly from the courthouse) at wired.com. You'll see another there at 6 am et Tues.
./ -- in fact, attorney Irwin Schwartz introduced part of a slashdot posting during the hearing today as examples of how the evil hax0rs are trying to circumvent the Authority of the Court.
The settlement agreement is not private. I have a copy, and quoted from it in my article.
The agreement requires that Jansson "has not assigned or licensed" the rights to cphack etc.
Mattel is claiming victory. Few people in the "real world" read Slashdot and see the furor here. Mattel's attorneys are crowing about the evil "hackers" and the PR flacks are having a field day. I flew back on the plane to DC with one; I know.
They're reading
Even though I just linked to the cphack app from my article, I got a subpoena. It's unclear to me what happens next. A reasonable interpretation for me and everyone else is that the subpoenas are void now since the permanent injunction is about to be granted and the case settled.
It would be interesting -- purely from a news perspective -- to see someone else write a cphack2 program that used *none* of the source of the original and just the description of the cryptanalysis outlined in the soon-to-be-no-longer defendants' essay. Shouldn't be too difficult.
The ACLU is going to keep fighting as long as Mattel is insisting (which Irwin is) that the permanent injunction applies to mirror sites and violators are up to contempt charges.
#include
Doesn't the fact they did not defend the case, despite the fact the case was apparently questionable to begin with, set a dangerous precedent for any future cases that may be tried on similar grounds?
Isn't this the whole reason that lawyers cite prvious work that may be applicable, like Roe v. Wade or what have you? Won't the fact they caved in now, quickly, quietly, and easily seriously impact any and all future cases where progam reverse engineering comes into play, or future challenges to closed-list filtering software such as this?
Inquiring minds (well, me anyways) want to know.
(I apologize for the fact that the sum total of my legal knowledge has come from John Grisham movies and Law & Order re-runs on A&E)
--sugarman--
Yes, it would be more satisfying to walk away with a court decision saying, "Matthew, you didn't do anything bad, you're a good boy", but enough other people have told me that that it's not worth the hassle to try to get it from a court as well. I reached the point of diminishing returns. If you think that makes me a coward or a sell-out, feel free to prove yourself a better hacker than me by doing yourself whatever you think I ought to have done.
I don't fault you Matt, at all, I don't think you're a coward or a sell-out, and I have great respect for your technical ability.
But as for it being worth the hassle, to you, maybe not, I mean, what do you get out of it? Bankruptcy, months (years?) of headaches in court, who knows. But to the rest of Canadians, hell, non US citizens, your hassle could have meant that these jurisdiciton questions finally get answered, and no one else would have to go through the same thing the next time some oppressive company gets embarassed.
To you it may not have been worth the hassle, but to the world it was, but if you don't want to help the world out, thats your choice, you gotta look out for number 1. Next time you do something like this, email me and I'll post the work under my name and I will stand up to any company that comes knocking with a summons because I am tired of these companies thinking US law applies to the rest of the world.
-- iCEBaLM
Another factor is that a criminal jury must usually be unanimous, although I think some jurisdictions recognize that even kooks have the right to sit on a jury so they'll convict on less than unanimous votes.
In contrast, I think many civil juries can decide a case with simple 2/3 or 3/4 majority.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Here are a few places to check.
/. - puzzling}
The article describing how it was done. It's here as well.
The source and binaries are at http://arcade.kvinesdal.com/cyberpatrol.html.
These are all personal sites, so be gentle.
Share and enjoy.
{PS - the last link was reverting to
Yeah, a serious charge. One or both of them should explain if it is true. Of course, usually on those types of "settle out of court" agreements, they are also gagged from talking about it, leaving the rest of the world to think the worse... :(
Happened outside the states too.. KPN, dutch telecommunications business type thingy (allied with Qwest) has trademarked a certain shade of green. no advertisements by other companies (including non-telco companies) can be mostly in that colour.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Are you going to hold a mirror if Mattel sues your ass?
They've now got the right for the program, so everyone with distributing it is doing it illegally. They can also pretty easily chance their encryption scheme. In some time, there won't be a lot left of CPHack lying around.
The difficulty is whether they can restrict copying of copies that were downloaded before the agreement. I suspect not, though it puts them in a good position to threaten people.
I'm not a lawyer, though I have played a politician on TVp?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Presumably because the offer was reasonable. You shouldn't expect everyone to be willing to martyr themselves for the cause of free-speech.
Assuming that the settlement resulted in no admission of guilt, and no lawyers fees; just handing over the code (with a affidavit of reassigned copyrights), I think that this would be a pretty attractive exit plan.
Particularly if you were say a minor, and your father's house might be taken away if you lost, or if you didn't think that you could afford attorney's fees to compete with a wealthy multi-national corporation.
The justice system isn't always about winning -- sometimes it is just reasonably prudent to step out before the discussion gets too heated.
-kls
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
Anyone who have actually USED cphack before Mattel noticed, and have produced a list of blocked sites?
Instead of publishing cphack itself, we can publish the OUTPUT of cphack, which would achieve the same effect (at least in the short run) and Mattel can do nothing about it (output is NOT a derivative work).
We can also bruteforce the web with CyberPatrol and make up a list of blocked sites. It would be a perfectly legal way to make the list available, sidestepping any Mattel censoring attempts.
Then let's mirror the list instead - it is more direct anyway!
This is pretty sad. Snipped from a Wired article:
The seven-page "assignment agreement" signed by cphack co-author Eddy Jansson of Sweden gives Mattel "all rights" to the program's source code and binaries and an explanatory essay he wrote. Co-author Matthew Skala of Canada signed a similar agreement giving up his rights for one dollar.
Yep, that's right. One dollar. I wonder if it was American or Canadian? If it was Canadian, Mattel cheated him out of a couple cents...
I just wonder, if this code had been released under an open source or free software licence, could Mattel have been unable to pressure them to sell out like this?
------------
"Okay, who taught the cat how to type ctrl alt delete?"
Of course, if he had created an account and called himself "matthewskala", no one would have doubted him, when an account name actually has no real authentication value
Some comments:
I don't think a law would do it. The software business is far too international. I'd prefer a volontary certificate for companies who promise to live up to the criterias. Then lobby for official agencies (as well as your employer) to only use certified suppliers.
1.Consumers have a right to know what exactly their software is doing
Absolutely! But rather (for reasons stated above) "We provide full documentation for our software's functionality and interaction with it's environment"
2.Consumers have a right to know what information their software is collecting about them, and also the right to restrict such collection in arbitrary ways, and to do so without jeopardizing their status as registered/supported users.
Again an absolute yes, rephrase as above
3.Consumers have a right to perform, publish, and view benchmarks and other quality assessments of any software on the market.
Now *that* should be law. Not just for software, but for all products.
4.Consumers have a right to know all licensing terms before they make a purchase.
Again a general law. However for a certificate: "We promise that our licencing terms are in no way stricter than the [XX] standard licence"
5.Consumers have a right to a refund and/or appropriate damages if their software does not perform as advertised by the vendor.
Damages are too dangerous, I'm afraid. How about:
"Should we fail to fix a bug ourselves in [NN]-days after it is reported, we promise to provide appropriate documentation (including source code) to anyone willing to fix it. The author of a bug fix under these premises, will recieve fair compensation for the work involved. If a bug makes the software unfit for the purpose it was intended for, the buyer is entitled to a full refund."
6.Consumers have a right to software that uses open protocols and media formats, and a right to perform, publish, or use reverse-engineered materials whenever vendors deviate from such standards.
Or to put it in a way SW companies could accept:
"Our product does not use any undocumented protocols or media formats. Where proprietary formats are used, registred users of our product are granted full rights to use that format in any other application wihc they have the right to use. Be it purchased, self developed or public domain."
All opinions are my own - until criticized
This was a copyright issue, which would be a civil matter.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
I settled because I have made my point and don't need the headaches. I don't think it's appropriate to characterise this as Microsystems et al "winning". The document is out there, I know the mirror sites aren't going to take it down without a fight (even with my copyright assignment), and judging by the level of conspiracy theory here on Slashdot, the companies' public relations nightmares have only just begun.
I can't fault your decision to settle. Deep pocket corporations can bleed defendants with nothing to gain from winning the suit dry.
Unfortunately, I can't see this as anythng but a win for Microsystems. The assignment of copyright gives them a case to supress the software when they didn't have a case before. I would have rather that the issues were heard in court, but we won't have that now with this case. Bring on the next one.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
If you were in your early 20s and a large multi-national company threatened to litigate you into bankruptcy, would you cave in?
This is what they tried to do to me. Mattel offered to drop their libel claim against me, if I would agree to SHUT UP. And if I broke that agreement, I would have to pay Mattel $50,000 per blab.
This may be what happened here.
Fight Spammers!
That if you, or someone else, decide to build a new CPHack, don't give a user the ability to disable the product (though there are many ways to already), but allow the list to be critized and exposed.
If you don't decrupt the passwords, you will destroy their argument that you are invalidating the product.
Fight Spammers!
Fight Spammers!
People, 1. Quit moderating up fucking mirror sites.
p gp.net/censorship/index2.html
2. DON'T DL FROM HERE. DL FROM THE OPENPGP SITE AND USE ANONYMIZER. LOG FILES MOST LIKELY WILL BE SUBPONEAED. IF YOU GET A SUBPONEA AND DESTROY THE LOGS, YOU ARE FUCKED.
Use this link:
http://anon.free.anonymizer.com/http://www.open
DL it, but don't be caught in a bind with your logs.
No sig is worth reading.
OOG WANT CECIL SERPENT PUPPET!!! OOG LIKE!!! BUT OOG NO HAVE EBAY ACCOUNT BECAUSE OF EBAY PREJUDICE AGAINST CAVEMAN!!! BUT OOG WANT!!! MIGHT HAVE TO BREAK HEAD!!!
WAIT!!! OOG REWRITE CPHACK!!! OOG IGNORE EXISTING GPLED SOURCE AND READ DOCUMENTATION TO CPHACK AND REIMPLEMENT!!! THEN OOG ADD KDE ENHANCEMENT AND RELEASE UNDER QT LISCENCE!!! OF COURSE OOG GET SUED AND BY MATELL AND GET BADASS CECIL PUPPET!!! OOG BE HAPPY THEN!!!
OOG NOT WANT BE FORCED TO PROGRAM KDE, BUT MUST DO FOR CECIL PUPPET!!! OOG BE HUGE BADASS WITH CECIL PUPPET!!! OOG JUST HOPE MATTEL LAWYERS DONT TRY TO STEAL OOG'S CAVE!!!
OOG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN!!! OOG BREAK HEAD WITH OPEN SOURCE CD!!!
Mattel can unambiguously sue any mirror sites this side of Libya for copyright violation if they host it, something they could only do in the US before.
they're mattel. they don't need money to buy people off.
Personally i suspect that, unbeknowst to Wired, Matthew Skala recieved $6,000 in Hot Wheels merchandise as well as one of these things and the full set of these, in exchange for his compliance.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
1) There has been no legal precedent set that makes this sort of thing illegal
2) CyberPatrol's reverse engineering instructions and the list of sites circulate through the net feely.
Seems like a win-win scenario to me!
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Well, if you read his homepage the statement was basically the same, and seemed to have identical writing style. So either someone spent much time borrowing his style, just to restate was he already stated in his homepage. Or else Matt just simply didn't bother signing it.. :)
Think about it. Joe average (or even Joe very good) programmer is threatened by a large corporation with lots to spend on lawyers. Even backed by the ACLU and EFF, their life is going to be turned upside down for the duration of the trial, and if the corp wants to really drag it out then it might be years before the defendant can move on with their life. The fact that the suit is bogus is no help. And since this is a free speech issuse the corp might decide to take it all the way to the supreme court just to make an example out of their victim. Even if they lose, his life i s on perment hold while he fights this.
Even if Joe wins, he loses. And the corp officers who call the shots really lose nothing either way; since the legal system does not let Joe get punitive damages for such bogus lawsuits.
Jason Denton Colorado State University [Thoughs and comments are my own, and not reflective of CSU]
I emailed them, and got a reply from one of them, that he would not need legal representation in Boston.
The CPHack program did encourage people to upgrade.
I wonder.
Fight Spammers!
they've already published a long, very good explanation of how exactly the software works. why would it matter whether they leave the software itself available?
they've done what they set out to do, which is expose flaws in the CyberPatrol system and disseminate information on the way [badly] it works. they've managed to shame the programmers behind cyberpatrol badly, even if the people they've shamed cyberpatrol in front of [slashdot] hated cyberpatrol anyway. The point it seemed to me wasn't the software; the point it seemed to me was that they reverse-engineered cyberpatrol. The software was just an extra, just something they posted to prove they were right about everything, and because they'd already written it..
why should they have to bother paying a lawyer, or bothering with _anything_ in court? sure the ACLU would pay for everything, but they'd still wind up being bothered. Why should we expect them to go through that? especially since they've already published the details of what cphack did in such deep detail that it seems that rewriting the program from scratch would be easy to anyone with even relatively elementary C skills.
Now if the article they wrote talking about cphack and reverse-engineering cyberpatrol were being taken down, well, then, that would be rather bothering. But that isn't happening; the settlement seems to concern only the cphack program itself.
and it seems to me that if they led to a long, drawn-out battle in court over cphack, then it would distract the public eye a lot from the real issues at the core of all this.. i think it's a lot more important to encourage people outside slashdot to read the cp-hacking article than encourage people inside slashdot to distribute the cphack program..
maybe i'm very confused, but what they're doing makes sense from where i'm standing.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I just updated my mirror page with a link to this slashdot article. I thought I'd post the others on the list here for everyone's edification (and because the server of my personal web page probably wouldn't take it if you went there for it!)
"Upping the stakes in a battle over a utility that reveals Cyberpatrol's list of off-limits websites, Mattel threatened mirror sites with contempt charges during a court hearing Monday afternoon."
"ACLU attorney 'surprised' as programmers surrender rights to their hack of Cyber Patrol filter and agree to permanent injunction."
"The American Civil Liberties Union criticized Internet filtering software maker Microsystems Software Inc. and its parent company Mattel Inc. on Friday, accusing them of attempting to limit free speech on the Internet."
"A federal judge in Boston will hear arguments on Monday over whether a program that reveals Cyberpatrol's secret blacklist should be banned from the Internet."
"Call it legal spam. Lawyers in the Cyber Patrol legal battle have created an e-precedent -- sending subpoenas by e-mail."
"A legal dispute between a U.S. toymaker that produces a popular Internet pornography filter and two programmers that decoded the software could heat up into a messy international brawl."
"Mattel is updating the Cyber Patrol blacklists for all of their customers to include the homepages of the authors and all of the mirrors, blocked under every blocking category the product has."
What a misleading headline. Yet another example of McPaper earning its abysmal reputation.
"A federal judge in Boston has tried to ban the distribution of a computer program that reveals CyberPatrol's secret list of sex sites."
"In addition to demanding the removal of the decryption utility, Mattel is also seeking the logfiles of the Swedish ISP that hosts the decryption utility, to identify everyone who has downloaded it to date. Today's news was filled with Mattel's PR lies about their suit."
"Toy-maker Mattel has sued two programmers who revealed how to circumvent its CyberPatrol blocking software."
Several news outlets uncritically ran Ted Bridis's AP newswire story characterizing the decryption program as a tool to let children view pornography:
cnet's version adds this interesting paragraph:
CNN's version also adds the cnet paragraph and some additional reportage, but still mischaracterizes the program. However, their later coverage was more evenhanded.
Among other things, the SCBoR would ensure that:
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Or maybe they couldn't afford to prove they were right?
Presumption of innocence apparently doesn't apply in civil cases.
--
E_NOSIG
If I were the authors, I would 'give in' to Mattels demands simply to avoid legal bullshit, since I would realize there are already hundreds of mirrors with the software out there. The information has been widely distributed ... Mattel cant do anything about it now. Sucks to be them.
I have no Slashdot account, cope.
Yes, late Friday I made an agreement with the plaintiffs settling the cases in Boston and Vancouver out of court. I was planning to wait until I heard the results of today's hearing before making any announcement, but it sounds like that is now. I don't know Eddy's current status; last I heard from him he had not officially settled but was close to doing so.
I settled because I have made my point and don't need the headaches. I don't think it's appropriate to characterise this as Microsystems et al "winning". The document is out there, I know the mirror sites aren't going to take it down without a fight (even with my copyright assignment), and judging by the level of conspiracy theory here on Slashdot, the companies' public relations nightmares have only just begun.
Whatever public face they may put on their press releases, I don't think the plaintiffs are very happy right now. Whether they end up happy or having the last laugh will really depend upon how you, the public, reacts to this situation, and that's out of my hands.
There are serious jurisdiction issues for the Boston lawsuit, but the Vancouver lawsuit against me was certainly for real, and many of the relevant legal questions have not yet been decided in Canada. So I'd be faced with being a test case, and all the "fun" that involves. My right to do what I did may appear cut-and-dried to Slashdotters, but we'd have to educate the judge about that, and face all the litigation tricks that a well-funded multinational corporation can come up with. Litigation always involves a risk no matter how good one's case may appear at the outset. I'm a mathematician, not a gambler. I've got better ways to spend my time, thank you all so very much.
Yes, it would be more satisfying to walk away with a court decision saying, "Matthew, you didn't do anything bad, you're a good boy", but enough other people have told me that that it's not worth the hassle to try to get it from a court as well. I reached the point of diminishing returns. If you think that makes me a coward or a sell-out, feel free to prove yourself a better hacker than me by doing yourself whatever you think I ought to have done.
I'm sorry for the people who may find their situations worsened by my having made the copyright assignment. I still think that the overall effect of my actions has been positive. You might well want to explore the fact that the original documents gave permission to redistribute.
- Matthew Skala
That certainly seems to be the case. I can't see any way that Matt and his pal could have lost, and Mattel had started a potentially explosive PR problem by suing a couple of people for something that wasn't strictly illegal. They probably knew this before hand, as well, but felt that it was in their best interests to appear as though they were legally challenging the issue.
So what was the settlement, that's what I want to know. Chances are there's a NDA on it, and chances are the NDA is in order to hide the fact that Mattel may have paid these guys off.
Yes, I know that's hard to imagine, but think about the options they had. If they get sued, they have massive legal fees to deal with, and may or may not be able to countersue to recover those costs. If Mattel wants the problem to go away, offer to pay for the lawyers, and drop a few grand on each of them for their cooperation. No further charges, and the boys agree to stop publishing the software.
It seems rather reasonable. Mattel gets to look like it's protecting it's product diligently and winning. They guys don't lose anything, (they can always get the software off the net at this point), and everyone's happy.
The only concerning part is, is there now a market for software cracks to hold corporations hostage for small sums in order to not release their creations?