Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Asks Slashdot To Remove Readers' Posts
From: "J.K. Weston"
To: "'dns_admin@andover.net'"
"'dns_tech@andover.net'"
Subject: Notice of Copyright Infringement under the Digitial Millennium Copyright Act
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 07:08:49 -0700
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.58)
Andover Advanced Technologies
Andover.Net
50 Nagog Park
Acton, MA 01720
Phone: (978) 635-5300
Fax: (978) 635-5326
Email: dns_admin@andover.net; dns_tech@andover.net
Dear Internet Service Provider:
We understand that your website, http://www.slashdot.org, is a popular site for developers to discuss topical issues of interest. In that vein, it has come to our attention that there have been numerous posts of concern related to Microsoft's copyrighted work entitled "Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems" and we would appreciate your posting this email to the site to help relay our position to your users.
This notice is being sent under the provisions, and following the guidelines, of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA).
Included on http://www.slashdot.org are comments that now appear in your Archives, which include unauthorized reproductions of Microsoft's copyrighted work entitled "Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v.1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems" (hereafter "Specification"). In addition, some comments include links to unauthorized reproductions of the Specification, and some comments contain instructions on how to circumvent the End User License Agreement that is presented as part of the download for accessing the Specification.
Although not intended to be an exhaustive representation, the specific comments below, categorized by corresponding activities, are examples of the misuse of Microsoft's proprietary information:
Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:
"by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, May 02, @03:37PM EST (#197)"
"by BlueUnderwear on Tuesday, May 02, @04:09PM EST (#239)"
"by BlueUnderwear on Tuesday, May 02, @04:15PM EST (#248)"
"by smartin on Tuesday, May 02, @02:20PM EST (#86)"
Comments Containing Links to Internet Sites with Unauthorized Copies of the
Specification:
"by ka9dgx on Tuesday May 02, @2:52PM EST (#133)"
Comments Containing Instructions on How to Bypass the End User License
Agreement and Extract the Specification:
"by myconid (my S conid@ P toge A the M r.net) on Tuesday May 02, @07:27PM
EST (#362)"
"by markb on Tuesday May 02, @05:47PM EST (#321)"
"by Sami (respect.my@authorita-dot-net) on Tuesday May 02, @01:47PM EST
(#19)"
"by iCEBalM (icebalm@[NOSPAM]bigfoot.com) on Tuesday May 02, @01:52PM EST
(#33)"
"by Jonny Royale (moc.mocten.xi@notners) on Tuesday, May 02, @01:59PM EST
(#51)"
"by rcw-work (rcw@d.e.b.i.a.n.org.without.dots) on Tuesday, May 02, @07:12PM
EST (#353)"
Under the provisions of the DMCA, we expect that having been duly notified
of this case of blatant copyright violation, Andover will remove the above
referenced comments from its servers and forward our complaint to the owner
of the referenced comments.
This email notification is a statement made under penalty of perjury that we
are the copyright owner of the referenced Specification, that we are acting
in good faith, and that the above-referenced comments, as part of
http://www.slashdot.org, is posting proprietary material without express
written permission.
We request immediate action to remove the cited violations from Andover's
servers, in accordance with the provisions of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act of 1998.
This email is not intended to waive any of our other rights and remedies.
Please confirm your receipt of this request by responding to this email.
Also, confirm the status of this request either via email or via the
following contact mechanisms:
By mail:
J.K. Weston, Designated Agent
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way, 114/2314
Redmond, WA 98052
By phone:
(425) 703-5529
By email: jkweston@microsoft.com
---------------------------
To: J.K. Weston"
From: Robin Miller
Subject: Notice of Copyright Infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Dear J. K. Weston:
Per your request, we are posting your e-mail on this subject on Slashdot.org to help you relay your position to our users.
The balance of your e-mail's content is somewhat puzzling to us. I'm sure you agree that freedom of speech is at least as important a principle under American law as the freedom to innovate, so I'm sure that you personally, and Microsoft corporately, will understand our hesitation to engage in censorship.
Indeed, after reflecting on the nature of freedom for a little while, you may wish to withdraw your request that we remove readers' comments from Slashdot. Please realize that if we censor our readers's posts because they contain ideas Microsoft does not wish to have made public, we may set an unhealthy precedent for other online news outlets and online service providers, including those owned in whole or in part by Microsoft itself.
Meanwhile, in case Microsoft does not decide to have a happy change of heart and support a free and open Internet (which would certainly be in everyone's best interest), we have sought advice both from our attorneys and from our readers about what, if anything, we should do next.
Please expect a formal reply to your request that we censor our readers' comments, which we allow them to post on Slashdot as freely as Microsoft allows user-generated content to be sent through Hotmail and through chat facilities and discussion groups hosted on MSN.com servers, as soon as we receive wise counsel not only from our attorneys, but also from concerned members of the Slashdot community and other interested parties.
Sincerely,
- Robin "roblimo" Miller
Editor-in-Chief,
Andover.net
Microsoft tells Slashdot to remove comments. Wow.
Once again, we must return to the often-forgotten part of the copyright laws, which are NOT absolute.
Fair use.
If they quoted portions of the document for the purposes of journalism or research, its fair use. Black letter law. Case dismissed. No amount of money or lawyers (even Microsoft lawyers) is going to change that.
If they quoted the whole document, then there is a problem, because fair use allows portions of a document to be quoted, not the entire document.
Still, it may yet be fair use, since the market for this document may not have been affected, and the use was probably non-commercial.
Looks like an interesting discussion, though.
I recall something like this from another forum: If Slashdot edits or removes any posts, it may then be legally responsible for the content of all posts. As long as it stays entirely hands-off, it bears no liability for any posts, just like newsgroups. But as soon as it exercises any editorial control, it becomes responsible for all of it.
The DMCA is about protecting the service providers (eg. Slashdot) and removing their liability for content and not anyone else.
As someone else posted recently, upon receipt of a petition claiming to be supplied under the DMCA rules, the provider is required to remove the offending content in order to remove their liability for the content. The petitioner is claiming (under risk of perjury) that the content is actually illegal under the DMCA.
don't lie to yourself, it censors the tone of OOG's posts, and for his posts the tone is the message. it is censorship.
YOU WHAT?? I've never heard such trollbait! Get this message removed immediately!
Could you expand further on your point?
We're wondering what you're talking about.
it seems to me that you're all sheep, following the "it's our right for this that and the other thing at the cost of everyone else's right to secrecy and initiative" philosophy that's so often posted on slashdot.
Microsoft put down their terms & conditions concerning the information they posted on the net. various slashdotters violated that agreement. Microsoft, IMO, is being VERY nice to you people concerning your doing something that violates an agreement that you made with them about their material. shame on you for believing that information is only there for exploitation at the expense of the providers license.
oh, so you can hack around the EULA when you go to d/l that information? oh, gee, then if you do what they don't want you to do with their information as expressed in said unread EULA, then you won't be breaking any copyright violations.
you'll be a theif.
there's the letter of the law, and there's spirit.
you know what you're doing. don't try to get around that fact in the name of some social apotheosis.
-------------------
You would be post #86. They confused you with either #87 (has full text), or #96 which lists a neat circumvention method (I don't know if it actually works, I don't have the .exe). Interestingly they say:
"by smartin on Tuesday, May 02, @02:20PM EST (#86)",
yet the copy I have says:
"by smartin on Tuesday May 02, @03:20PM EST (#86)"
Yet, the headers on 87, and 96 are:
"by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @04:21PM EDT (#87)" and
"by scotpurl on Tuesday May 02, @04:27PM EDT (#96)"
However you look at it, it seems they were smoking some of the $3 crack that is so common around here :) (Joke, don't sue me for slander/libel M$.)
Made particularly tasty by this:
"This email notification is a statement made under penalty of perjury that we are the copyright owner of the referenced Specification, that we are acting in good faith, and that the above-referenced comments, as part of http://www.slashdot.org, is posting proprietary material without express written permission. "
The worst was receiving fax calls on my voice phone from the CISCO automated fax server at 3am. Microsoft may have played a lot of dirty tricks but I hope this does not happen to this Microsoft guy.
On the other hand Microsoft has made the material publicly available, upon agreement. I believe you should replace the "Microsoft content" with a blurb and a PERMANENT link to the Content available from Microsoft. I would compel Microsoft to re-affirm that the link will NOT be removed or changed. This will allow anyone who wishes to view the protected content with the choice.
A newspaper does not have the right to publish the entire contents of a book. Neither does Slashdot.
As for the rest of their request, all references to methods of bypassing the Agreement within the archive, all links to foreign (non-Slashdot websites) should be left as is.
Slashdot is not responsible for the users postings, those postings which they have a right to make.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say. whee..
Sue the bastards! They've trashed your good name by associating criminal acts with it!
The file in question, though it had been renamed as something.exe, was in fact a zip file, simple to see and examine with unzip. No encryption was attempted (though zip can do this), so that if there was something prepended to the zip file, it is inconsequential. Nobody had to look at it, run it, or anything else, and the usual unzip -v file.exe command showed the file was in fact a zip, so a simple unzip file.exe unpacks it. This is not a control device, in point of fact, by any reasonable standard. Many of us routinely see files in zip form which are so misnamed, often due to errors setting up websites. Running unknown executables is also, obviously after the recent virus incidents, dangerous. The document does contain a copyright statement which may have been erroneously left in or may (in view of the action by Microsoft) have been meant. Erroneous copyright statements are also common. Duplicating the whole doc would seem to violate the copyright, but the contention that some access control device that effectively protects the document existed here is ridiculous. Also the technical content is clearly NOT protected by a copyright of the containing document; that is I believe considered fair use.
Lets look:
Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:
"by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, May 02, @03:37PM EST (#197)"
"by BlueUnderwear on Tuesday, May 02, @04:09PM EST (#239)"
"by BlueUnderwear on Tuesday, May 02, @04:15PM EST (#248)"
"by smartin on Tuesday, May 02, @02:20PM EST (#86)"
Comments Containing Links to Internet Sites with Unauthorized Copies of the Specification:
"by ka9dgx on Tuesday May 02, @2:52PM EST (#133)"
Comments Containing Instructions on How to Bypass the End User License Agreement and Extract the Specification:
"by myconid (my S conid@ P toge A the M r.net) on Tuesday May 02, @07:27PM EST (#362)"
"by markb on Tuesday May 02, @05:47PM EST (#321)"
"by Sami (respect.my@authorita-dot-net) on Tuesday May 02, @01:47PM EST (#19)"
"by iCEBalM (icebalm@[NOSPAM]bigfoot.com) on Tuesday May 02, @01:52PM EST (#33)"
"by Jonny Royale (moc.mocten.xi@notners) on Tuesday, May 02, @01:59PM EST (#51)"
"by rcw-work (rcw@d.e.b.i.a.n.org.without.dots) on Tuesday, May 02, @07:12PM EST (#353)"
OK, lets look a little deaper shall we:
Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:
197 guilty as charged.
239 not guily as charged, but does provide link.
248 not guilty as charged, but does provide link.
86 WTF?
-------------------------
Posting the data is all well and good, but.... (Score:2)
by smartin on Tuesday May 02, @03:20PM EST (#86)
What happens to the people that implement it (ie. the Samba guys) even if they obtain the information without intentionally breaking the license. Are they exposing themselves to expensive litigation? Are they endangering the project?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
-------------------------
Comments Containing Links to Internet Sites with Unauthorized Copies of the Specification:
133 guilty as charged.
Comments Containing Instructions on How to Bypass the End User License Agreement and Extract the Specification:
362 guilty as charged. Winrar is illegal you know.
321 guilty as charged. Using winzip is not good for your health.
19 ditto.
33 guilty as charged. Winzip again.
51 winzip.
353 accidental persecution?
Now, didn't I read something along the lines of:
This email notification is a statement made under penalty of perjury that we are the copyright owner of the referenced Specification, that we are acting in good faith, and that the above-referenced comments, as part of http://www.slashdot.org, is posting proprietary material without express written permission.
I am confused? Can someone interperate this for me? :)
Dear Mr. Weston:
I certainly do not appreciate Microsoft's attempt to use existing laws to censor unfavorable comments made in a public forum. From all the postings that Microsoft asked to be removed, there is only one which might have infringed Microsoft's copyrights. I believe Microsoft took advantage of just one post to try to supress lawful and valid critique, and I am very unhappy about that kind of disrespect to the Constitution and the laws of this country. I would also like to warn you that you made some claims under penalty of perjury that are unmistakenly deceiving and suggest a retraction by Microsoft of some of those false claims.
Sincerely,
....... your name here ......
Dear Mr Klein:
I would like to inform you of a new antitrust practice of Microsoft Corporation regarding its new Windows 2000 operating system.
Microsoft Corporation has purposedly broken interoperability with preexisting secure networking standards in an attempt to grab the portion of the server market currently held by Unix (TM) and Linux operating systems. To this goal, Microsoft has implemented an extension to the widely used Kerberos protocol that is incompatible with all existing implementations and keeps the specifications as a trade secret.
Recently, Microsoft made a restricted release of the specifications of their proprietary extension that requires the licensee to agree to use the information only for security auditing and not for implementing interoperable Unix protocols. However, when this information was leaked to the public Web forum known as Slashdot, Microsoft began an attempt to not only suppress possibly copyrighted information but also criticism and explanations of how the protocol works.
It may be of your interest to investigate this new demonstration of antitrust behavior by Microsoft Corporation.
Dear Mr/Ms ....
I am writing you to inform you about some portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that are clearly being used for a purpose that I am sure is not what Congress intended when it enacted it. I would like you to consider an ammendment to this Act to clarify some points.
In particular, Microsoft Corporation is attempting to use the DMCA to suppress free speech in the public Web forum known as Slashdot. While there was a leak of copyrighted information posted to that forum, Microsoft Corporation is using the DMCA to try to also suppress criticism and technical advice offered by some posters. While that technical advice might be unwelcome to Microsoft because it concerns proprietary protocols that Microsoft is unwilling to publicly discuss, this by no means is a copyright infringement, just a possibly unqualified opinion.
I am sure the intention of the DMCA was to prevent and punish illegal acts on the Internet, and not to be used as a vehicle to suppress criticism or dissenting opinions.
Thank you,
The new attempt of Microsoft Corporation to suppress public criticism and dissenting viewpoints in the forum Slashdot shows that Microsoft is continuing its monopolistic practice without regard to the current antitrust trial in which it is involved.
It seems that a breakup of Microsoft Corporation is fully justified, given that in the current situation Microsoft is big enough to just ignore the United States government and judiciary and disrespect the United States Constitution.
The new embrace and extent tactic is using proprietary extensions to a widely used secure networking protocol in order to grab the Unix server market. When the protocol was made public, thus allowing Unix and Linux servers to interoperate with Windows 2000 machines, Microsoft claimed copyright infringement and is attempting to erase the information (and with it also some criticism and technical explanations) by threatening with lawsuits. The basis of its claims is the new Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was enacted to fight pirates, not to suppress freedom of the press. This outrageous demonstration of contempt must be stopped now.
It looks like we'll have to break up MS in three parts, not two as the US gov't wants.
They censor our comments, call us names (troll, coward, lamer) and generally show little respect for their readers. I have absolutely no sympathy for them.
smartin: you are one of the few posters who is identifiable. I hope you do submit a claim to Slashdot in a timely fashion to defend your post against claims of copyright infringement. If you need legal or financial assistance please ask for it here and you will receive it.
Otherwise, Microsoft will prevail in its quest to be able to censor Slashdot for us Anonymous Cowards.
My original message above was mistaken, sorry. I thought you had posted the entire spec. But my post was in defense of posting the entire spec. This is exactly what the EULA provides for, to be able to conduct a security analysis of their program.
Your question about Samba is to the point. In the EULA, Microsoft agreed to distribution of the spec, but it attempts to forbid implementations based on knowledge of the spec. That is ridiculous.
Again, I state that the conflict between "intellectual property" and "free speech" is here apparent, and needs to be settled in the courts and not with an out-of-court settlement. This is an excellent case to bring, since Microsoft has obviously shot itself in the foot by agreeing to the spec's distribution, and then attempting to retract that.
Do not give up easily slashdot, the slashdot masses (and bots) are behind you 200%. (yes, I realize you are not taking this to court, but it may be necessary, and we will support you).
And so it begins...
You would be censoring posts because they are illegal and violate standard US intellectual property norms, not because someone didn't like what they said. I know I would be pissed if someone decided that my couch wasn't actually mine and they should give it away to someone else.
...not if the removal is by court order. It matters who initiates the censorship.
No. That whole Kerberos kludge needs to die. Further perpetrating it does no good.
You guessed it...
Don't remove any comments at all. /. into doing censoring.
/......DONT DO IT.....
/. users, the freedom og speech, and to show Microsoft, that they don't run the whole freakin world, and they have absoltely NO right to demand ANYTHING of /. or anybody else.
First of all Microsoft, ain't gonna bully
Second, slashdot isn't responsible for what gets posted on this site, just like the phonecompany ain't responsible if people use the phone to talk about illegal things.
The only perons responsible are the people who posted the info in the first place. And thats the people who Microsoft should be going after, if they want to. But the fact is that htey don't know who it is, and know they try again to DAMEND that somebody does as Microsoft wants. But
Keep the posts. As a sign of respect of
I don't know who is in charge of PR over there in Redmond, but I strongly suggest letting this one slide. Its not worth fighting and ticking off hords of /. readers ... including MCSE's (like myself) who also use and love Linux. Face it, you got called on your bluff of actually opening up "standards" and now you are showing your true colors.
...
Anyway, Rob, just send them a big bowl of Hot Grits! Mikey likes it, I think Bill would too
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
I as a UNIX user will no longer be tolerant of Windows in any way. I will remove it from any machine to which I have access, and I will refuse to work for an employer or client that maintains it in my immediate working environment.
More of the IT industry is preparing to do to Microsoft what they have done to us - no tolerance for their views or their products.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
IANAL, but it seems pretty clear-cut to me.
Slashdot, take this to court. You may lose, but imagine the publicity, and the awesome responsibility of demonstrating how perverted our legislative and legal system have become.
Let me know if you need a contribution to your legal defense fund.
But the real battle of free speech is won at the individual level, not by giving more money to lawyers duking it out with another company.
You are partly correct; but in this case, there is very little distinction between the individuals and the corporation. MS is using a corporation (Andover) to pressure/censor individuals (ACs and other posters). If Andover does *not* bend, then we have a rare case of a corporation standing up for the rights of the individual. In that case, we have a corporation acting in the best interest of our rights-- and doesn't this contradict your claim that a corporation *never* does this?
(Corporations are inherently evil; their only alliegence is to the allmighty Profit. But some corporations have a moral center (always with individuals) that balances this.)
And if that happens, I think it is our moral imperative to help support that fight, in any way possible.
I despise lawyers, since most tend to get wealthy off the pain, suffering, and oppression of other people. But they are necessary to work within the system like this.
Our only other defense against the sort of this insane manuevering is to read the specs, write our software using the published-but-secret specs, and publish it in spite of the law. If we do that (Civil Disobedience) we don't stand much of a chance. Our best bet is to fight it now, while it's fresh.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Urrrmmm....
/.'s content.
/.'s name into the mainstream. What better than a Free Speech battle with MS to get good press?
/. does not stand up for Free Speech now, it will never get the chance again.
The DMCA definately sucks, but in the end, companies will do what is best for their profitability.
In general, I agree. In this specific, I do not. I believe Rob, Robin, Hemos, et. al., are moral individuals. They have been given complete editorial control over
Plus, in this case, I believe it will be worth a court battle; it'll bring
Personally, I would support *any* corporation who has the balls to stand up for what is Right instead of what is Profitable. If it were MS itself fighting the good fight, I would support them to the best of my ability. (Though with MS it would be moral support, and not financial.)
If
In Germany they first came for the Communists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
--The Reverend Martin Niemöller, a pastor in the German Confessing Church who spent seven years in a concentration camp.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I would strongly suspect it is Totoro from the
Ghibli anime `My Neighbour Totoro'. An amazing
piece of work.
Reverse-engineering? The EXE file is a self-extracting ZIP file - and a ZIP file extractor (in the case of Linux, the InfoZIP 'unzip' program) will readily extract it, no reverse-engineering required.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
They put the PDF containg the summary of their changes to Kerberos under a license that says, effectively, "you can LOOK at this, but you can not TALK to anyone about it, and you can not USE this information for ANYTHING"... It seems like Microsoft was just hoping for someone to violate the license.
I mean, why else provide this info under a license that prohibits everyone from using it? What's the point, other than (a) making a weak attempt at satisfying customer/the DOJ, or (b) baiting people specifically to violate their license. Seems like a major waste of effort otherwise.
I, for one, would like to ask them what their real intention was. Not that they'd provide an honest answer to my question, but I'd at least like to ask it...
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Why do you think they bothered to provide the specs to their "improvements" to Kerberos with a clickwrap license that basically says you can READ it, but you can't TALK about it or USE it... What other reason would there BE? Why would they waste the energy if that wasn't exactly what they were looking for?
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Amen. If they're gonna change it so it's not compatible with Kerberos anymore, then don't sport the name, thereby implicitly promising compatibility with the rest of the Kerberos-using world...
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Yes, it'll be messy. You'll probably have to add your own non-compliant headers to maintain the level of threading and moderation you have here, but if the messages are no longer centralized nasty parties will have a harder time making a case for you being responsible for 'em.
--
I quote:s :)
Please review this Specification copy only if you licensed and downloaded it from Microsoft Corporations website; if you did not, please destroy this copy, but you are welcome to license the Specification at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/kerbero
WTF? I somehow sincererly doubt that this has any legal meaning. So, could I hand out papers on a streetcorner saying: "Please read this only if pay me 20 USD...". HELLO!? Nobody can control what I choose or choose not to read. Sometimes I think that (some) laywers need to relax a little, take a walk in the park, drive out of town and lay down on the grass or spend some time with their friends and families. (Yes I do believe that laywers can have friends and famelies)
MODERATE THIS UP!!!!!!!!!!!!
Best idea seen here yet!
Jón
>by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12, @12:55AM EST (#1218)
>It appears that Slashdot has already removed the offending
>article at the request of MS. The page is blank. Or else
>Slashdot has been hacked. Check the link for yourself -
>could just be server overload
Wrong. The article is still on Slashdot. Use a decent WWW browser like lynx to search for information instead of lame GUI browers....
In the US the law is differet from the UK.
8 957,00.html
this article http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,255
was the test case in the US.
It's _not_ your problem
I can think of one other argument. Slashdot could maintain that all posters on Slashdot have an inherent copyright on their posts, and therefore M$ needs to go after the posters of the material(s) in question. The only thing that breaks this, is again, the moderation system. Slashdot could contend that Slashdot (as an organization) does not actually moderate posts (at least the type of posts in question), and that the actually users of the site are the real moderators (some what true, IMO), BUT, again, there large holes in this argument. Several years ago AOL was sued over slanderous statements made in an AOL chat room. AOL contended that the AOL Guides(tm) were individuals, and AOL (as a company) was then NOT liable for the guides negelance in moderation. AOL lost, and the basis for the finding was simple. AOL gave the individuals themselves the tools to moderate other users, and therefore they were acting on behalf of the Company. I beleave the same holds true for Slashdot.
So this would mean, that as an ISP, we give our users the "tools" to actually send posts to usenet and e-mails to other users with similar infringing content and are therefor responsible for what they do with them?
This sounds a bit like the theory that people selling guns are soley responsible for the people who get shot...
smashI run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Between this, the open cookie jar, and Steven Barhkto, it's only a matter of time before we're all Microsoft mind-controlled zombies.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Dear Microsoft,
I expect compensation for the many many hours I spent during the years 1987-1995, tweaking autoexec.bat and config.sys files to get your defective DOS operating system (which others will point out that it *wasn't* yours) to function properly.
Counting interest, I reckon $50,000 ought to do it.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The BSD license itself has been changed to remove the annoying advertising clause, and I suspect this is the case with the Kerberos license.
The BSD license basically says, "Do whatever you want, just don't claim you wrote it." From this interpretation, MS is within their legal rights as far as Kerberos goes. This ain't the GPL were're talking about here.
Shane
I believe this is the best comment posted so far :-) Someone else (can't find the post now) wrote that we should post the info on msn's server and wait for it to be removed. Perhaps I can add an additional thought that in order for to be an even better analogy we should post some other proprietary info not from microsoft on msn and wait for the msn admins to remove it. I'm from Seattle and ordinarily I'm proud to say so. However, there is one blight in the Seattle area and it's not the rain. Microsoft needs to be spanked. Don't budge an inch, slashdot!
it seems to have been said enough times already but:
the comments containing the entire document (or large portions thereof) should be removed. they are microsoft documents, and posting them is against any copyright law, DMCA or not... i liked the suggestion of somebody further up that said they should be replaced with something like:
this text removed because it was a verbatim reproduction of copyrighted material that the copyright owner asked us to remove.
any additional comments the user made could be retained, just replace the text of the document.
On the otherhand, the links to the document and the instructions on how to bypass the agreement should not be taken down. i dont think microsoft has any legitimate right to ask that those be removed, and if they insist on persuing this, i think it's a battle worth fighting.
i do believe in copyrights and intellectual property, but there need to be some limits to what the copyright holders can get away with.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
And why doesn't McDonald's deserve the right to due process of law?
This is how all issues like this should be posted on Slashdot. A calm reporting of what happened and the response made, instead of kicking off yet another roiling mass of bile and ignorance.
It doesn't surprise me that Microsoft is trying to censor ideas that are unacceptable to them. I think that if there is information that is quoted from the specification (and if that specification is protected by the DMCA) then only the quoted material be blanked out (possibly with a link to the specification and notes on where the quoted material is found) but the actual comments, and not the quoted material, should be left alone.
Also, I think it would be important that possibly both e-mails be sent to every news organization in the mainstream media so that they are truly aware of the fact that Micro$oft is trying to censor ideas and using the DMCA to do that. Maybe strong public opinion (more likely lobbyists for the mainstream media) can get the Feds to realize that they enacted a law that can be used as censor people's expression of the first amendment. (Fat chance)
The only thing I don't understand is why release a specification if developers can't talk about it!?!
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
-Let registered users remove comments.
-AC's get removed by Admin's will.
Registered users should get more privilages than
ACs because there is some accountability. Since some *accounts* were abused, the account holders should be allow to correct the situation or duke it out with M$. AC's have no rights.
Frankly, this doesn't seem like a slashdot issue. It has to do with irresponsible users. You may not like copyrights, but they are currently protected under the law. If you feel the need to protest, do so. It is your right. Slashdot doesn't not have to provide you with the means of protest.
Remember what the submit form sayth:
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by
adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
We have the momentum of a zillion people here, why don't we just get our arses in gear and form a special interest group to as least inform, if not pressure, Congress to see the stupidity of all this. This is evidence towards why Microsoft should be broken up.
-- Making computers see, hear, and think... http://www.componica.com/
I'm not sure I understand why you say that the Microsoft documents should be removed. Sure, Microsoft owns the copyright, but isn't this kind of use considered "fair use" under copyright law? -- Why should it be illegal to quote a reference when arguing a point or offering an issue up for discussion? Does the DMCA really go this far?
-- The Theorem Theorem: "If if, then then."
Rats, that was me. Post anonymously got checked somehow.
-- Arm yourself when the Frog God smiles.
From Seattle? Only if your library card is 'Bill Gates' I'm sure. But you might want to try the libraries in Scotland. I'm sure you've got one or two...
;)
Alternatively, attend Boston University for a few years (The Big U is loosely based on BU, Stephenson's alma mater and a very urban school) and you can just live it.
-- 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.
What really sucks is that the street they're on is actually 156th Ave NE.
But it is rather telling. I used to support nuking them from orbit (the only way to be sure) but unfortunately I now live _way_ too close to MS HQ. All my stuff would get blown up.
The other really good computer company address that I know of is Apple: 1 Infinite Loop.
-- 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.
Aw, The Big U isn't _that_ good. And it follows the Neal formula (a whole bunch of crap happens, a lot of which is for atmosphere, some of which is based on one lone idea -- e.g. What if biotech could be used to clean the Harbor; What if there were viruses that could infect the mind; What if there were pervasive nanotech; What if there was Nazi gold still hanging around)
Although I was amused by the two roommates that constantly fight over music.
Anyway, if you're really interested take a tip from Neal: Use the Interlibrary Loan program. It worked great for me in the Seattle area.
-- 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.
The result is that you must make the top item in your server room a MicroSoft system if you want to use MicroSoft products at all. This is an obvious use of monopolistic power to force themselves into a market they don't control.
The obvious evil intention of MicroSoft is probably why this has generated so much foul feelings here and desire to fight them.
This is like claiming MSWord file format is an open standard because MSWord can import ASCII.
PS: MicroSoft must have the stupidest PR people in the world if they thought this threat was a good idea!
That's an interesting point. I don't know the answer, but somebody please moderate that up! Although I would guess that while quoting relevant parts of it in a discussion is fair use, just posting the whole thing verbatim is not. So perhaps a point-by-point analysis would be good...
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
The Microsoft Specification was only made available in a format which could only be viewed on a Windows OS since it was a WIN32
Reverse engineering to interoperate with other software is not illegal under the DMCA. Writing a program for Linux which took the Microsoft
-weld
Greeting Congressman Weiner and Mathew:
h tml)
r ans.html ) is being
0 5/msg00159.html for a
5 0400safi.html t ml c urrents/016.html
I'm sending this email out to you about the The Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, Public Law 105-304 (1998), added a new Chapter 12 to
title 17 United States Code.
This Act by Congress needs to be dramatically altered to ensure that the
fair use rights given to US citizens under the Constitution are better
protected, and to ensure that everyone in America has the right to
innovate and participate fairly in commerce.
Without going through the complete details of the the entire act,
fundamentally, this law was passed by congress in response to the
increasing concern by various traditional broadcast and media
corporations that the limit license provided by copyright is becoming
harder to protect in the digital environment. The trouble with the act
is that it has no respect for the constitutional balance between the
rights of holders of copyright licenses and the rights both free speech
and property of people who consume information. And of course we are
all consumers of information.
As Law Professor Yochai Benkler of NYU, an expert of Inforamation Law,
was quoted as saying, "If the judge finds for the plaintiff (in a case
involving the DMCA in NY), and the decision isn't knocked down on appeal
it will create an environment that's closed like nothing we've ever seen
before....Say you want to criticize the liberal leanings of Hollywood,
or criticize the sexist movie of this or that, You need to be able to
quote little pieces of the movie. You can do that under the copyright
law, because that's fair use, but using DVDs lawfully as the [film
association] reads the law, you can't do that. This really extinguishes
user privilege to an unprecedented degree."
(For more information see
:http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0018/howe.s
The DMCA, as it is currently written and interpreted by the Federal
District Court of NY, under Judge Lewis Kaplan, (See the transcript at
http://www.2600.org/news/2000/0121-files/0121-t
interpreted so strictly as to undermine the protections that were
written into it for the protecting reversing engineering and fair use.
The law states that if a copyrighted material is available in digital
format (and what is not going to be available in digital format in the
future), that an electronic access device can be used to regulate access
to that material in order to protect piracy of the material.
The trouble with the law is largely 3 fold:
A - The law tramples fair use and property rights.
B - The law is stifling invocation.
C - The Law is stifling free speech and is a direct threat to the kind
of discourse necessary for a free society.
In the first case, up until now, the Supreme Court has drawn a line
between the limited rights of a copyright holder to material, and the
protections of speech and property of owners of the actual media in
which material is publish on. For example, an owner of a record is
allowed to copy music to cassette tape for personal use. The owner of a
book has the right to quote parts of the book, as I did here, even to
photocopy it for a personal archive or a report. The DMCA prevents
these activity when the printed text or the audio tract is on a DMCA
protected digital format. As an example, in the case of the new DVD
media, the purchase of the DVD does not give the owner of the disk the
right to use it as they see fit. For example, they may be only be
allowed to view the disk on a computer running Microsoft Windows, or a
computer using a specifically permitted software or other authorized
device. This arraignment places a choke hold on what information can
and can not be viewed and removes freedom of choice and fair use. You
can not copy any segment of the information, anotate it, or print it
out. As things are currently, for example, a standard American DVD can
not legally be seen on the Linux Operation
System, the second largest operating system in current use in the
US. In response to not being able to view DVD's on Linux, Linux
developers create a program to access the DVD for viewing. The
developers posted the program on the internet. In response, the Movie
industry brought suit in NY and in California. Judge Katz in NY has
said in his ruling that EVEN UNDER THE CONDITION that the program was
developed for use under Linux, and was protected under the reverse
engineering clause of the DMCA, that this would not protect the
developer of the program from arrest, or the web masters who post the
program on the internet from prosecution under the DMCA.
As it is, the developer is a 16 year old boy and both the boy and his
father were arrested in Norway, where they live. If he lived in
America, the boy would be considered a felon under the DMCA.
In the second case, if Judge Katz ruling is to stand, and if congress
does not strengthen the rights of developers to reverse engineer DMCA
hardware and software for inter-operability with new hardware and
software, then the impact on the US economy will be devastating. The
Linux operating system, for example, was created by a graduate student
who had an open platform in the IBM Personal Computer clone. Without
the ability have this open platform, the Linux operation system, in
addition to nearly every other internet based piece of software, could
never have come into existence. The DMCA is a dagger at the heart of
Linux, and other new technologies like it, and to the internet itself.
If any part of the PC which is copyrighted (which is almost the entire
platform), the DMCA today would prevent the exploration of the hardware
and the firmware, and more to the point, would make the new technology
illegal just for accessing the computers insides without
pre-authorization by the copyright holders of the technology.
In short, under today's legal system, thanks to the DMCA, the internet
itself, which is larging driving today's economy, would never have come
into existence because the protocols which run the networking would be
protected and closed through means of DMCA devices.
In the third case, the DMCA is stifling free speech today, and will have
an increasing devastating effect on free speech in the future. The news
outlet at http://slashdot.org has received notice for Microsoft Corp. to
remove information posted on the web site in discussing Microsoft
business proactice, because they claim, not that the information itself
was copyrighted, but because it was protected under the DMCA. The
copyright itself would not have given Microsoft protection because the
material was being discussed in the context of a of a conversation of
it's unfair business practices. So they needed to evoke the DMCA.
Microsoft by passed the fair use doctrine which protects individuals and
news media by invoking the DMCA. (see
http://nylug.org/list-archives/NYLUG-TALK/2000-
copy of the Letter sent by Microsoft the the publisher of slashdot)
This threat is larger than the recent spat with between Time-Warner and
Disney over channel seven/WABC. In that case, the NY Times has ardently
come out in support of protecting the freedom of the speech by the
press. In this case, there would no longer BE ANY PRESS accept for news
disseminated through approved channels under DMCA protection. Both
creators and consumers of information would be censored through the
control of access to the public.
Barring any potential perceived monetary risk which media companies
think up, and especially in light that no evidence exists that digital
media has costed companies a single penny from copyright infringement, I
must ask that the Congressman take the lead in protecting individual
property and fair use rights, freedom to innovate and share in our
prosperity, and the freedom of speech. This is the trinity of a great
and free society. Congress is empowered to protect and enhance these
activities. But Congress has stumbled because it seems to lack a real
understanding of the issues, and how technology works.
I want you to lobby and to present a bill to repeal the DMCA, or at
least, pass an amendment reaffirming the rights of every individual, in
relationship to copyrighted and exchanged information, to their
historical guarantees which have, until now, served this great nation so
well.
________________________________
Other Sourses of Information:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/safire/0
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0018/howe.sh
http://slashdot.org
Must Read-->http://noframes.linuxjournal.com/articles/
--
Ruben I Safir
ruben@sruben.dental.nyu.edu
ruben@wynn.noSppam.com
Perl Notes:
http://www.wynn.com/jewish/perl_course
http://www.brooklynonline.com
Manager of Intranet Development NYU College of Dentistry
Resume: http://www.wynn.com/jewish/resume.html
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
I didn't know they had set a date already, I thought they were still motioning and complaining.
I guess second isn't too bad.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Please slashdot, rob, please hire an inhouse lawyer to respond to questions with actual legal advice?
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
First off - and GOD I hate siding with MS on this part - but "prior restraint" implies stopping publishing BEFORE it occurs, not after. In this case the items have been published already.
As for stating that the government should be overthown, well that may border on the illegal as well. I aint a lawyer, but me thinks that if it is illegal to threaten the Pres, it's probably illegal to urge the over throw of the government.
As to the DMCA - it DOES go to far. MS has high-jacked a public standard. At this point I think all internet standards should be GPL'd! If MS extends or enhances said standard they should be REQUIRED to devulge the full extent and details of same. But then - MS is in denial about what happened in court so what do you expect.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
No, this is not the first.
Emmanual Goldstein from 2600 already
had a court date for his case against
the MPAA on DeCSS. They _ARE_ suing him
for providing tool that volate DMCA.
> Taiwan or Malta would be good - they don't have copyright laws there at all, so MS couldn't really do anything about it.
Wrong: What operating system do you think the governments of these countries use (for the most part, anyway)? Micr*ft has the leverage to easily prod the government into forcing the removal of the document(s). This holds true for almost any government, since the company is such a behemoth nowadays.
Ben Winslow..........rain@bluecherry.net
bluecherry internet..http://www.bluecherry.net/
I was wondering about this myself - can an e-mail really be considered "legal nofication"? Who here could not have forged this message?
I'd say do nothing until you receive a letter in a more verifiable form, like via registered mail, a courier, or served by a police officer.
Of course, if they were using a decent mail user agent they could have at least digitally signed it.
Second: Under copyright you are allow to quote small sections when making a cometary. Using that rule if a large group of people took one of the copies and divided up the document in to 1% chunks, they could then proceed to quote the original, and make a comment on it. (Using something as simple as: it sucks, or great idea, is perfectly valid).
Now they post each of there articles on the original document, complete with the quote to a common web site.
Next someone creates a set of links such that the quoted sections can be read in the original order.
Lastly someone takes all of the sections and creates a new document that is a compilation of the original quotes. You place that under a new compilation copyright and allow any to copy it for any purpose.
Automating the process is left as an exercise to the OSS community.
-- Linux Consultant
Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale, a tale of a fateful site
That started from this topic board , aboard this tiny box,
The Sysop was a mighty hackin' man, the Posters brave and sure,
Five thousands readers set replying that day for a Microsoft cure.
A Microsoft Cure.
Well, Bill started getting rough, the tiny site was tossed.
If not for the courage of the fearless crew, Slashdot would be lost.
Slashdot would be lost.
The site set ground on the shore of this uncharted desert isle
With Roblimo, CmdrTaco too, an Emmett and his wife,
Timothy, the Coward and Natile Portman, here on AntiMicrosoft Isle.
If enough of us speak up, someone might hear. Let's put the Slashdot effect into good use.
Everyone, Write Weston and explain that this no degree of censorship is acceptable on Slashdot.
-- Mako Hill Standing up to an evil system mako(at)debian(dot)org is exhilarating. --RMS
We also have Dialpad and I-Link to make these calls for free. What's stopping us from calling him up and asking what's up?
-- Mako Hill Standing up to an evil system mako(at)debian(dot)org is exhilarating. --RMS
...don't put too much faith in this opinion :)
The posts with the text of the pdf file are in violation of the copyright. They should be removed, and if Microsoft so wishes, their identities made available to the legal department for the purposes of pursuing other legal action against them.
The Courts have already ruled that Hyperlinks are not aplicable for copyright infringement (regardless of what the DeCSS people think). If someone has a link to the document off-site, leave it up.
As far as the " How To Extract " examples, the DMCA explicitly allows reverse-engineering for the purposes of interoperability. In this case, the packaging has been reverse-engineered in order to obtain the inner workings of the package (the specifications). To hell with the DMCA, if they want to flaunt it for the first case, you should use it for the last.
I have to agree with the comments about using " Kerberos " to describe the protocol, though. I know Kerberos is registered by someone (UCBerkeley? Or Bell/AT&T?). The copyright owner needs to pursue a copyright infringement suit contending dilution of the Name Recognition and Product. While it may look like Kerberos, the is definitely not, and should not be labeled as such.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
No, you wouldn't be attacked for what you know, you would be attacked for violating an agreement, which you did agree to if you clicked that YES button, that explicitly forbids you to disseminate this information.
It's called Corporate Law, and while all the kiddies out there may not understand it, it's Trade Secrets and such that have created competition and let this free market thing flourish. If you want a part of the market company A has, but they have a Trade Secret, you will come up with something to beat it.
Quit whining about people coming after you when, if you could read, you'd know exactly why Microsoft would be well within it's right to throw your luser butts in the pokey for a few years. Open Source is nice, but it doesn't supercede the law.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
Comments containing the entire document yes, however I believe that excerpts, clearly marked as such, would be covered under fair use. IANAL, whatever that is worth
Comments are owned by the poster.
Yes, and what I understand is that the DMCA gives ISPs the right/obligation to remove copyright infringements to prevent further damage.
Roger.
This all suggests another copyright fighting tactic: posting lots of copyrighted material on information boards published by copyright-holder...
-- Faré @ TUNES.org
-- Faré @ TUNES.org
Reflection & Cybernet
Since I'm not a Lawyer I can't say leagaly what you should do. But as regular reader of /. I know that I would hate to think you backed down from M$. If /. can't afford to fight them, that I could understand. But, if you can fight them do it.
/. is a very depressing thought.
I know that if you just comply with M$ then I for one will loose quite a bit of respect for this site. Also if you back down now, what else will M$ start demanding be removed? The thoughts of a M$ moderated
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
With the DMCA, there is no longer any such thing as "fair use." It has been obliterated.
This process happens all the time with ISPs. First you name "John Doe" in your suit in order to subpoena the records you need to discover the AC's identity.
Then you get slashdot's records of when the post was made and from what IP address, then you go to the ISP that owns that address space and get the logs from them. You then change "John Doe" to the actual name of your victim/perp/whatever and serve papers to them.
Contrary to Emmet's "we don't back down" posturing, I agree that the actual text should be removed, but the links to other sites are not infringing. Microsoft needs to deal with those sites directly.
rm
>If this ever reaches court (who knows, let's hope not), and Microsoft can show 400 postings which say "fuCk yOU mICRo$oft", it won't help too much. Keep calm, keep thinking.
Two down, 398 more to go!
Okay, quick list of reasons to open installer executables with a zip program (the technology in question) with anonation on if I have used it:
Add your own.
Herb
Herb
Again, feel free to sentence me to death if my questions annoy you. I'll come back in 5 minutes anyway. -Sythi
Ya know, wasn't this precisely what M$ said they were going to do, per the Haloween Documents? Invoke copyrights, patents and stuff like that to harm Open Source. (I'm going from memory here, I don't know where I put my hardcopy of those documents) I'm wondering if MIT will put their foot down considering the license that Kerberos lives under. If not, it's M$ to their "innovation" tricks of embrace and extend.
This world is a test, and only a test. If it was a perfect world, M$ would play fair and actually have good software, and utilize open standards.
"If you insist on using Windoze you're on your own."
Not being a lawyer, but having heard a bit about the RICO act, I have a question:
Microsoft has been found to have repeatedly engaged in illegal monopolistic practices; does
this pattern of activities fall within the scope of the RICO act?
It seems to me that if agents of the government can seize the car in which a very small amount of
a proscribed substance was discovered, that they could seize Microsoft, Inc. a) to recover the
cost of the prosecuion and b) to prevent a recurrance of the activities by auctioning off the
assets of Microsoft to different companies.
Shareholder losses would be irrelevant, just as being a shareholder in a bank that laundered cash.
I say take down any code that was posted here, but leave the links and the workarounds for the EULA up.
Its not censorship... its a lameness filter. It doesn't cover up what you say, it just prevents you from saying it in ALL CAPS. Or from saying it several hundred times.
Go read http://cryptome.org/ustr050800.txt for the whole list.
include: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
The person claimed that writing a story on a "news" site construed "fair use". Copying wholesale, of anything is not reporting. And so the nature of the material is irrelevant.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Fair use reporting, does not extend to wholesale copying of protected material.
Think about it this way, it's perfectly legal for a newspaper to write a story about the new Tom Clancy novel. It's not legal for them to print the text of the new Tom Clancy novel, verbatim, in the paper.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Unfortunately for you, Jon is a firm believer in copyright, when it applies to his own scribblings. It's just when anyone foolishly tries to apply it to a different medium that he worries about it.
Books are simply a sacred cow in his world, and can't be tampered with.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Except that there's no difference between AC posting and posting as a user ID you just registered, with no valid e-mail address...
IMHO, /. is already covered. I'm reading the bottom of the "Post Comment" screen:
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated.
So /. can already remove everything that's illegal. Maybe that statement just needs to be stronger, and state that by submitting a comment, you take full responsibility of it, and release /. of all legal liability. Of course, IANAL.
And if all else fails, host /. in a country that respects freedom of speech, and where copyrights mean very little. :-)
I think it could easily be argued that the posters are protected by the Fair Use Law.
See this post above.
diva Pasty Drone NewsTrolls, Inc.
See here.
A quote from the above link:
Downloading or Printing a Document from the Internet
A professor is conducting research by finding materials on the Internet and locates a report that is directly relevant to his current study. The document was made available on the Internet with the copyright owner's permission, and the professor had lawful access to it. For research purposes only, the professor wants to download a copy of the document to a computer disk or print a copy on the attached printer.
Analysis
The Internet provides access to a wealth of original material and, although it is freely and easily accessible, we must assume that original materials on the Internet are protected by copyright until we learn explicitly that the copyright owner has dedicated the materials to the public domain, or the copyrights have expired. Therefore, the fair-use limits for materials found on the Internet are essentially the same as the fair use of materials disseminated by any other means.
Single copies of short items for a person's own study may fall within fair use. If a work is freely available on the Internet, making a copy will have little or no effect on its market simply because no commercial market for the work has been established or claimed. Nevertheless, some publishers have argued that the potential market for charging Internet users for each copy means that any copying hinders the market. In the meantime, copying of works that are freely accessible to the public for personal uses only will likely satisfy the "purpose" and the "effect" factors of fair use.
As with photocopying, one might reasonably conclude that the "nature" factor would favor uses of non-fiction rather than fiction, and that the "amount" factor might reasonably favor copying excerpts of longer works or copying short essays or articles rather than copying an entire book or other longer piece.
Here is the Fair Use Law:
Fair Use Law 17 U.S.C. 107 (1988 & Supp. IV 1993).
Section 107 provides in part: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
It seems clear to me that in this case /. posters were using Microsoft's specs information for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, and research which are all protected by the Fair Use Law.
Therefore, /. posters have done nothing illegal and their comments should under no circumstances be removed.
---diva
diva Pasty Drone NewsTrolls, Inc.
...would be to fix the hole that allows the license circumvention. I know that fixing security issues isn't a normal Microsoft priority but that doesn't make ignoring it one of ours.
"If anybody asks me, I'll say: 'you mean there is a liscence on that .pdf? I open all my .exe files with Winzip -- Don't you!?!?'"
Well, executing a selfextractor isn't an option for me, running Linux as I do.
The zip tools for Linux have an option for getting stuff out of selfextractors.
So that is what I would use "in the ordinary course of operation".
--
Peter
Folks,
I just sent Rob this, in email.
******************************************
I'm send this to you, as well as posting. I see a zillion posts...well, here's one that *means* something: put me down as literally putting my money where my mouth is, in supporting freedom of the press. If y'all take this to court, and start incurring legal fees, and need funds, I'll pony up $100 towards that.
******************************************
This *is* all in the US, both andover.net, and M$, and so it's a blatant violation of the First Amendment, both freedom of speech, and of the press. It *is* censorship. So, all you big-mouthed slashdotters, anyone else willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk?
mark
What? We're already not buying anything Microsoft?
Boycott them even HARDER!
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Its nice to see that you are continuing to live up to your reputation of attempting to squash any open discussions of your business practices.
Oh please. Do you really think that's why they're doing it? Just think about the amount of crap that gets posted about Microsoft on Slashdot every day. I'd imagine there's quite a lot of stuff there that could be interpreted as libellous, and a lot of it which is innacurate. And yet this is the first time Microsoft has come down on Slashdot. I'm sure that Microsoft would rather not have to do this - they have enough bad publicity as it is, but some of their copyrighted works have been posted on Slashdot and they have a right to ask to have it removed.
Take one misinformed, idiot-born law.
Add one corporate behemoth, with a whiny attitude and the bucks to inflict it on others.
Shake.
I wish some of this situation made sense, but it started badly with the DCMA, and has gone rapidly down-hill from there. Naturally, my first instinct is to holler "FUCK 'EM!" from the rooftops, but offering only moral support, it comes out more like, "*YOU* FUCK 'EM, while I watch from here in Canada." I've no spare cash, and no U.S. vote, so I'll be holding my breath, hoping that our own illustrious leaders don't get similar idiot ideas from yours. Good luck though!
Who's Microsoft and why should we care about them?
Please realize that if we censor our readers's posts because they contain ideas Microsoft does not wish to have made public, we may set an unhealthy precedent for other online news outlets and online service providers, including those owned in whole or in part by Microsoft itself.
come on now
let's not confuse 'ideas Microsoft does not wish to have public' and legal copyrighted information wish Microsoft does not wish to be stolen (please do not try to redefine the word 'steal' in replies...we know what you are thinking). in other posts, readers view Microsoft as being childish. i believe outright that passive aggression is the most advanced form of 'neener neener neener!'.
Indeed, after reflecting on the nature of freedom for a little while...
uncalled for patronization/condescension, or sincere politeness? what do you really think.
but all issues of childishness aside, i think people are ignoring the issue. slashdot has posted 'illegal' material. i don't want to hear about slashdot saying that posts are the responsibilities of the posters, because that is irresponsible (and gee, i would think *not* legally valid). i think that slashdot should take some responsibility, remove the information, and address the information, and ABOVE ALL NOT ATTEMPT TO SWAY SLASHDOTTERS INTO THAT ALL TOO FAMILIAR EXCITED FRENZY.
that i believe is truly manipulative.
I see your point.. And the MS would have to read through all the trolls to find the posts.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
The there are a few old Coke formulas that have been leaked, accidently, by Coca-cola's own hand. You can do whatever you want with these.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Good job so far, BTW
Given your situation I'd take a hard look at the posts they're claiming infringe copyright. If any of the comments actually contain material that is held under copyright by Microsoft, remove that material from the comment, replace it with a suitable explanation of exactly why it was removed , but otherwise leave the comment intact as a permanent remidner that Redmond are a pack of....
Any comment your lawyers deem not to have infringed copyright, leave alone. You've already pointed out publicly how Microsoft are watching and attacking every piss-ant *perceived* threat that comes by, and retarding free speech in the process. You're also protecting yourself from liability and leaving the comments in place as a subtle protest. Remember though that the comment itself is not and cannot infringe on the copyright . Only part (or all) of text inside that comment infringes so leave the comments there for the public record and remove the text.
As for links, hasn't it already been established that linking isn't illegal in the US?? (I'm in Aus. BTW)
M@T
'sapientia potestas est'
I say we all bend over and drop 'em and show M$ what we think...
I know this is why off topic, but I can't help it.
At first glance of that headline "Microsoft Asks Slashdot..." I was thinking, "Microsoft Ask Slashdot? has Cliff gone loopy? Ask Slashdot about microsoft products. how silly." then I read the rest of the headline. *shudder*
---
I post links to stuff here
Well, I could see that there are copies/snippets of what looks like actual document text posted on slashdot. Which is stupid! Posters should summarize and/or link to M$ to avoid this crap. So, I think (--shudders--) M$ has the right to request removal on this.
Cutting/copying & pasting is not 1st amendment stuff. Of course, any kind of opinions and whatnot posted re: this matter, as far as I'm concerned, should live long and be free.
Being the Unreal Tournament person I am, the simple solution to this matter - in a non-existent, perfect world - would be to launch a Redeemer at Redmond and be done with it. But, that's only make believe... *sigh*
Well, I don't know if it really is, but according to Mr. Weston's letter:
This email notification is a statement made under penalty of perjury that we are the copyright owner of the referenced Specification, that we are acting in good faith, and that the above-referenced comments, as part of http://www.slashdot.org, is posting proprietary material without express written permission.
Which means, that he says it is. And while I may not be a lawyer, I get the feeling that as Microsoft's "Designated Agent", he is. And since the above referenced comments included one that does nothing of the sort that they claim, that means he, or Microsoft, are liable, according to his professional opinion.
The thing is, AFAIK and INAL, that once a forum of this sort exhibits any control over the content posted by its users, it becomes liable for ALL of the content posted to it.
/. is not, at this point, responsible for the information posted to it by its users and qualifies as a common carrier.
Slashdot manages to avoid this by implementing a user-based peer moderation system, exhibiting no control over user posts as an entity.
As far as I know,
Is there any legal standard for this?
Mycroft-X
Drop the if :)
:)
Use (cond xxx) if you want to be thruly l33t LISP haxx0r!
Maybe it was somebody from Microsoft who actually made the anonymous posting? Yummy, what a tasty conspiracy theory. "Bill devises a strategem sure to discredit that pesky Slashdot site"
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
While I think that the morons that published code they didn't have the right to publish are the stupid morons that were more interested in getting slashdot in trouble than "fighting the good fight". This is quite a pickle! If slashdot starts censoring (as they do anyways, just in more enlightened ways) the standard and reputation of slashdot will fall straight into the toilet. granted, we have the Gob-fulls of trools, wannabees, and misfits here, but thise people make slashdot what it is. If we remove the "un-desireables" and the "not PC comments" then slashdot might as well become ZDNET.
it's up to rob, and the gang to sort this out..
I see that slashdot is at an impasse that will either create a martyr for the cause, or become a hero of the times.
and it's really all in Cmdr Taco's hands.
Well rob? you havent posted in a comment section in YEARS, Let us know what's going to happen.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Correctomundo!
IANAL - BUT
At least, this deserves a thorough test in court. If the courts find that DMCA violates the First Amendment, it's toast (or at least the provisions that violate it are).
If Slashdot decides to fight this on these grounds, I doubt they'll have trouble with legal fees. The ACLU would probably take the case pro bono.
The accepted way (AFAIK) to make a compatible protocol is to completely clean room engineer it. Why not build a test suite using the published specs (so we can verify that Microsoft actually meets their own specs) and then let distributed.net do a GIANT genetic algorithms search for an algorithm than can meet this spec.
A fairly robust fitness algorithm would have to be developed. The algorithm could start with a current open implementation of Kerberos as it stands without the Microsoft addons. Just do random tweaks (even to a specified part of the code) until the test suite OKs the code.
This may be impossible, or it may be trivial. It should be easy enough to prove that nothing was reverse engineered. Does this get around the DMCA issues at all?
You'd have to have a C interpreter, or an interpreted language that could be translated to/from C reliably.
Just a thought... but it would be a fascinating way to circumvent issues such as this.
"Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me."
I take a simple attitude, follow the law.
As for links to the specification, and instructions on bypassing the EULA...pfft! I wouldn't remove them.
"Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification" is where they have a case: Iff Slashdot is responsible for copyright violation in the actual text of comments posted by users, then remove those comments. That's a big iff though, is Slashdot responsible or are the users who posted the comments?
If the had been posted to usenet who would they go after then? Probably the user who did the posting. You can't ask the whole network to stop relaying. There is a Slashdot/NNTP gateway in the works, if that were active, what would they do then? What if instead of using MySQL as the database you wrote the Slashdot backend to work directly off of an NNTP server? Wtih complete NNTP integration, everything would become part of usenet and be replicated around the world. Slashdot could then argue that they are no more responsible for content on usenet than Deja or any of the other millions of NNTP servers.
Weeel, I think you should tell Microsoft to Butt Out.
I agree with the other x-to-the-n posters here who think Microsoft is carrying things Too Far. Maybe we should have a class action suit over civil rights too?
I'm definitely getting awfully annoyed at Certain Corporations now. If they keep acting like rapacious shark-weasel-alligator similes then maybe someone should club 'em analogously...so to speak.
One more thing. Don't ever let them get away with concealing who the minions are. We're out in the open. So should they be. When they offer you an NDA, offer them a DA. Because if this goes black I smell RICO.
Here is a quote from the welcome email I got after signing on to slashdot:
- -
---Posting Rules--------------------------------------------
1. Stay on topic.
2. Don't flame people.
3. Don't be a potty mouth.
None of these are concrete black & white issues, but we reserve
the right to delete comments that violate them. We're not willing
to get sued over what you post. And frankly, we don't want Slashdot
to degenerate to what usenet usually is like. So don't do stupid
things like 'first comment' crap.
This of course is from the pre-moderation era. What does the welcome letter say now?
- Do everything that MS wants
- Remove nothing at all, screw MS
- Remove only copyrighted material, no links etc
- Remove copyrighted material and suggestions as to how to bypass the EULA, but not links
- Remove copyrighted material and links, but not suggestions on bypassing EULA
I vote for (3), FWIW.You don't speak for all of Slashdot's readers, because you don't speak for me.
Am I the only one who gets fed up with people saying that they speak for everyone on Slashdot, as if Slashreaders were a homogenous group with carefully allocated centrally planned ideologies????
My Journal
Would Micros~1 stifile competition?
Naaa... they are "providing innoviative solutions."
Can we say HOGWASH?
---
Sig Return: 204 No Content
Seems to be the right approach, do nothing. SEP (Somebody Else's Problem).
... unless you happen to be working in the Office group, take all those extra options -- except for you Mr PaperClip guy, you should just throw in the towel, please.
Since Softies are watchin' here's my view on MS currection actions and the eventual breakup.
I think Mr Bill is playing briar rabbit. Most people at the top of MS *know* that they have to be broken up to survive. In other words MS is poised to bleed people and loose money from about 4 months ago into the forseeable future.
Why? Look at the corp revenue, do a quick and dirty P&L. All MS revenue comes from Office and OS platforms. Some quick math says the all the OS flavors and support (which only exists as a platform to run Office on, to be honest) make the whole OS arena little if any profit on it's own. This means from a pure profit standpoint that you want to divest yourself of everything but Office.
How? If you do it yourself you'll be sued by your shareholders for putting yourself and a poor position.
DOJ? Yep. They are a ready made scapegoat that's gonna pull your a** out of the fire. Blame the evil DOJ for the breakup and sharp loss in revenue, let the OS division limp along while the Office division ports to other desktop platforms and makes tons-o-cash.
Services? Oh, don't forget to take the opportunity to dump all those other cash sinks like MSN into a MS Services IPO 'cause the whole MS Certification program has about run it's course anyway...
Seems to me all those Softies ought to be jumping ship just about now
Microsoft is just jumping on Slashdot because they think it will quiet down the Unix community. They don't want an uprising and a revolution. I say that if Microsoft gains any footing in the issue that we (the people of the free world) respond in a way that would gain attention. Revolution will happen and we can easily overthrough the Communist threat in our midsts. Are weapons are stronger and more reliable, we are wiser and more resoursfull. I believe we can overthrough oppression! will you join me?
My perspective on the matter can be summed up in a single word: Publish!
The most appropriate response to take in response to someone attempting to sweep matters under the rug, to silence, to censor, is to make that attempt subject to the most glaring of spotlights, to advise the public-at-large of the attempt to suppress the truth. I am pleased to see that this is exactly the course of action Slashdot has chosen so far.
(Before anyone criticizes the use of the word "censor" above, please note that my comments are not specific to any non-governmental entity, but apply to all equally.)
Entities attempting to repress the truth are reprehensible.
Entities fearing the disclosure of the truth will generally not appreciate the light of day shining upon their attempts to the repress the (original) truth.
Entities such as the above will generally look at previous actions taken in response to attempts to intimidate and suppress, and take that history into account when deciding whether to initiate an[other] attempt to intimidate and suppress. This is most important.
Any indication of acquiescence (translated as fear by the nose of the vicious beast) will result in further attempts to repress free speech and the freedom of the press, not only by the original attacker, but by other subsequent entities in other subsequent matters. Call this "precedent" if you will.
You may note that so far I have not specifically named any "evil empires," as these principles apply equally to all of them, in my opinion.
If I were to say I was shocked by Microsoft's actions here, those that know me would laugh, since they know there is very little that corporation could do any more which would shock me. If I were to say "I will therefore never buy another Microsoft product" they would again laugh, since they know I have reached that decision over a decade ago, so this would be idle speech.
What I will promise instead is that I will forward these words to at least one mailing list (where is it acceptable of course) which I know will be read by at least some individuals reading using Microsoft products/OS's -- individuals who would likely continue to use Microsoft products for some time in the future -- individuals who are in contact with others who support Microsoft, both financially and via mindshare.
Today the part of the villain is being played by Microsoft (an actor with great experience in this type of role, perhaps one could even make a case for being typecast heh) but tomorrow, the villain may very well be AOL/TW or any other entity. The principles are the same, and the response should be as well.
I'm sure others have pointed out by now what a plethora of pro bono legal support would be available, if necessary, and what a public relations nightmare it would be for Microsoft "when" the evening news discusses this most-recent strongarm tactic on the part of Microsoft. Personally, I look forward to seeing how Disney, ahem, ABC News covers the story. (Surely your own stock values will climb after the coverage.) CBS should also provide interesting coverage. As for NBC (of MS-NBC) ... well, it's now my time to engage in some of that laughter mentioned above.
surprise, slashdot readers can't handle the responsibility of an open forum and abuse their freedom to POST.
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
I saw this same crap when that story broke, and I'm getting sick and tired of it.
/. isn't profitting from that book, and neither is Andover (now va)
/., those that agree with point 3 and those that don't. The editors (and me) fall into the first group. You and a couple other (highly-vocal) people don't. But when you go back and look at that story, it was basically 4-5 people who kept posting the same thing over and over again, and not listening to any of the responses. Frankly, I don't remember if you were one of them or not, and I'm too lazy to go check. But I think it's interesting that when you compare all the people who read /. to those who actually cared enough to post, there is a distinct feeling that there wasn't nearly as big a problem as those few people would have you believe.
Point 1: Ripped off how?
Point 2: Jon Katz's book. I think the vast majority of the flammage comes from that phrase, which isn't even true! Jon posted several times under that story that he had little or nothing to do with the book, other than being the original author of the articles.
Point 3: Fair use. Get a textbook and read the definition over and over until you actually understand what it means.
Point 4: As you can see from all the post on this thread, there are basically two groups of people on
Point 5: I tend to ramble.
Point 6: See point 5.
Heh. Please see Point 2: This isn't Jon's book. From repeated posts under the original article, Jon said that he was proud of what *CmdrTaco* had done, because *JON* *HAD* *NOTHING* *TO* *DO* *WITH* *THE* *BOOK* *OTHER* *THAN* *WRITING* *THE* *ORIGINAL* *ARTICLES*. Wow, that's a lot of shouting. My fingers are hoarse. Anyway, as I said in the original post, a lot of the backlash was against "Katz's" book, when in fact, it wasn't his at all. If it had been a book compilation of articles done by that long-winded circular reference guy that did a few "articles" before quiting (something about a beach? maybe? it's been a year or so) I don't think the reaction would have been the same at all. I'm not saying there would have been no outcry, it just wouldn't have been quite so vehement. Wow. Please see original points 5 & 6 ;-)
Anyway, I offer this approach:
In compliance with legal request, this information has been censored, but may be found at the owner's website The point is to A) Put it in their lap to do to the work (after all, they know their patents best, right?), yet still provide for the opinions of Microsoft's implementation to be openly demonstrated, and for the code samples to still be available through linkage (and this has already proven to be legal, hasn't it?). Also, this puts the burden of protection in Microsoft's hands.
And as usual, IANAL (like that was any surprise)
Pls read!
would be one of the first
is not the same as the first
Way to go RL! It's good to see there is somebody in the media with a bit of backbone.
Its a feature, not a bug!
If MS can claim that a self-extracting zip file is copy protection, then I suppose fair use will be no use :-)
The DMCA anti-circumvention provision is a real threat to freedom. There must be some amendments made to the law that will expressly allow reverse engineering for educational purposes, at least. Microsoft is above the law when it comes to fair business practices. Why should they complain when someone else uses a few dirty tricks?
...why does anybody need the full text of MS's document?
/. could remove the offending posts, and MS would have to fall back to their original claim, that anyone who sees the document is obligated to protect their trade secrets.
Someone could produce an abstract of the document that explains the extensions Microsoft has made. Liberally quoting from the code should be allowable under the doctrine of fair use. It should be fairly easy to get the spec out there without simply reposting MS's copyrighted material.
Then
Were you wondering how Microsoft would deal with Linux if it ever becomes a serious threat to revenues?
Now, thanks to the company's lawyers, you know.
FYI, I'm a bit too old to go back to University.
forget MSN--send it through hotmail.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
We Shall go on till the end.
We shall fight through email
We shall fight in IRC and ICQ
We shall fight with growing confidence and
growing strength in the mainstream media
We shall defend our weblog, whatever the cause may be.
We shall fight on usenet
We shall fight on editorial pages
We shall fight in the bars and in the streets,
We shall fight in Redmond
We shall never surrender!
[Cue music]
There goes the siren that warns of the lawyers
Then comes the sound of the geeks in the back
Out for the scramble we've got to get online
Got to get on for the coming attack.
Turn on the modem and type in the password
Start up V.90, there's no time to waste
Gathering speed as we initiate the datalink
Gotta get online before it's too late.
Powering (powering)
Dialing (dialing)
Connecting (connecting)
Trolling (trolling)
Flaming (flaming)
Debunking (debunking)
Type! Live to flame! Flame to live! Do or die!
Type! Live to flame! Flame to live! Aces Online!
...etc...
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Nope, you can download the file from Microsoft's site without agreeing to anything. There is no EULA.
Their only hope would be to say that running it through WinZip violates 1201, and there's just no way that would fly. How can a self-extracting archive be said to "effectively control access" if means of getting at the content are already widely available before the content was? That's a pretty perverted concept of "effectively".
You can get the file w/out violating DMCA, and there is no EULA. So the only thing that applies is good ol' fashioned copyright law. You can't redistribute it. That's all. Any form of Fair Use is permitted.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think that in the long run, this is the very best thing to do. Congress needs to be watched like a hawk and suffer extreme embarrassment and accusations of corruption, every time they try to fuck us. Make them know they are accountable. And it starts by making them know that everyone is staring at them, wondering why they haven't repealed DMCA yet.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Why don't you (Taco/Roblimo) consider moving Slashdot to a neighbouring country without any of these idiotic laws? You should see the new 80 GBps Fibre Optic backbone they laid across Canada last year, just in case you're concerned about (lack of) bandwidth.
It may sound silly to move but if this sets any sort of precedent, you might be seeing a lot more of these types of orders from Microsoft and others.
My C$0.03 ($0.02 US)
Stupid Lawyer Tricks / Bill is Crying Softly Now / Empire gone, gone, gone...
Well, if this doesn't test the new server, nothing will.
;-)
Are we sure that they didn't make this up to give it a trial by fire?
Reminds me of the April Fool prank on Userfriendly where they pretended Microsoft shut them down....
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
Perhaps this is flamebait, but I've been rather disturbed by the growing tide of sentiment I've seen on Slashdot that says "well if it's the law right now then you just better obey it till it changes". This is a distressingly naive view. It bears all the political and philosophical depth of an issue of Martha Stewart Living.
Obey the law until you can change it? Intentionally breaking an immoral law is the first step in changing it. Don't take my word on it, ask Thoreau--ask Ghandi--ask Martin Luther King (or Martin Luther, for that matter). It was only possible to rectify the greatest injustices of this century after someone had the huevos to stand up to them and break an immoral law.
"Oh you're just a Stallman commie" you say? If someone really feels that the breaking of any law is always wrong and not the way to create positive change, how can they stand to live in this country? Doesn't it make them feel like a hypocrite every time they wake up and remember that those patriots didn't ask "pretty pretty please can we throw all that tea in the harbor?"
Praise the Force Field! Praise the Laser Project! Slackware Loon #19830573
I would personally like to thank Microsoft for pointing out exactly which comments contain copies of the document in question and which ones have links to copies of the document. It saved me so much time, time that I would have spent wading through comments but instead put toward my homework and ultimately my Bachelor's. So not only would I like to thank Microsoft for helping me find their document, I would like to thank Microsoft for helping me get my bachelor's degree. Thanks Microsoft!
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
Maybe so, but is it really worth it? The DMCA may have subdued Microsoft's fears enough to release the specs, but the DMCA is a terrible terrible law with provisions that are inherently at odds with constitutional rights. As #705 by Nickbot suggests, the only way to get this law into court so that a judge can say it's unconstitutional is to break it.
If Andover's got the guts, I suggest they resist Microsoft, seek out the help of the ACLU and EFF, and take this as far as it has to go to get the DMCA overturned.
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
Another interesting question: if someone makes information available to you in readable and usable form before you have agreed to any of their terms, can they prevent you from using it if you refuse their terms? After all, it was given to you without requiring you to agree to any license.
This is a question I'm interested in because I downloaded the specs from MS's Web site and unpacked them into a readable PDF file without encountering any mention of a license at all until after I had opened and could read the entire PDF file. And I did not use any non-standard tools, merely IE to download it and save it to disk, WinZip to unpack it into a folder after bringing up the right-button menu on the saved archive file and Acrobat Reader to open and read it. I can't post their file, but precisely what legally would prevent me from reading what was made available to be before the license was mentioned ( the entire file ) and summarizing it's contents?
So Chrysler has a specification for a new car, and they're sharing it with people from their industry. Only this time, they decide to make it available to the public as well, but requiring everyone to sign an NDA. But upon reading the spec sheet, several people from several industries realize that the spec is designed to make a car that almost everyone will drive, but has a special engine that will only work with Chrysler-brand oil and parts. They think this is just plain evil, and in an effort to expose this plan, many of them send their copies (or parts of it) to the Chicago Tribune. That paper, knowing news when it sees it, prints the story. Along come Chrysler's lawyers, informing the Tribune that the specification was under an NDA, and that they have to round up all copies of their paper in order to protect Chrysler's trade secret. (For the moment, let's pretend this is possible!)
The Tribune might (rightly) say, "Nuts to you!", because the Tribune itself never agreed to any such NDA, and if Chrysler wants to pursue legal recourse, it must pursue it with the parties that violated its NDA.
That's where Slashdot is, I believe. So Rob & Co., if you're listening: I say stand your ground. Refuse to censor, refuse to become part of anyone's goon squad, and refuse to allow the Internet to be clipped apart by those who think that linking to information is a problem in and of itself. Let the burden be on the accuser, as it should be.
Believe nothing, not even if I say it, if it violates your sense of reason -- Buddha
wow.
You're right, circumventing the EULA is not demonstrably illegal.
However, that doesn't stop Microsoft from taking the question to court, and like all big bad corporations, they have the pocket change to keep the question in court for quite some time if they choose to. And the issue of circumventing the EULA is murky enough that the judge won't immediately throw the suit out as frivolous.
IANAL, but one doesn't have to be a lawyer to be able to predict the behavior of corporate lawyers in these troubled times.
Bite my big fat ass We won't pull those damn comments Go fuck yourself bitch pull those damn comments you gotta be damn crazy I'm gonna kill you
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
jdube is who
ok, now the READABLE version
Bite my big fat ass
We won't pull those damn comments
Go fuck yourself bitch
Pull those damn comments
You gotta be damn crazy
I'm gonna kill you
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
jdube is who
But come to think about it, I can't say that I understand why Microsoft wouldn't RFC some of its procedures.... That's always kinda been standard practice for this sort of thing. The RFC system promotes, y'know, what's that word?... oh yea, Innovation. And I mean, isn't innovation what Microsoft is really all about?
hear, hear. I say they go for it. That is, so long as they have support. Then they'd be nearly unstoppable!
Is it a coincidence that after Microsoft has been accused to have incorporated software created by Scientology owned firms, MS Corp now starts to resort to the very same tactics that Scientology uses to bully Internet users around the world?
Both cases are roughly similar; in the CoS case, people quote from "copyrighted, internal, secret, whatnot" CoS papers to show that CoS is Bad For You.
In this case, people made public the Kerberos specs to show just how MS is trying to fuck our beloved open standards and take over the Net in a coup d'etat.
MS would be a prime target for CoS. Maybe this is just a conspiracy theory with no base to rest on - I make no claims whatsoever! - but this is actually making me feel uncomfortable.
So what now, will all the trolls add microsoft documents to the list of things that they post to every thread?
Personally, I agree with the general sentiment--pull the articles containing actual copyrighted text, but don't pull those containing links. (Actually, don't pull the articles, just cut out the copyrighted material and leave a "censored" notice, so the arcives record as close to the original post as possible.)
I was reading the letter. The claim under penalty of perjury that the request is made in good faith, but it is obviously not. They basically want to bully an open forum where people can read truths rather than plain lies. For instance, people might actually know that WMF is not a real standard.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Good point. No one has to sign or read anything
to be bound by copyright. The GPL allows you
extra rights you wouldn't have otherwise if
you agree to the license.
My understanding of the EULA is that you *must* agree to it to be legally entitled to access the content. Even if you work around, it is an illegal access of the document in question, and as such is breaking copyright.
Well IANAL, but it would seem to me that the EULA is a case of contract law, not IP law. I get the impression some posters are liberally mixing up the two.
Microsoft's site did allow everyone to download the file without being notified that there was a click-through clause. Therefore if you downloaded the file from the site, when that was the case (they may have smartened up and changed the download page by now), you legitimately obtained a copy of the self extracting executable and it was reasonable to believe that Microsoft was providing you with the right to a single copy of that file under copyright law.
If you then proceeded to try to use an archiver to unpack the contents of the file (to avoid viruses) and bypassed the click through EULA, it's not clear to me that you are breaking the EULA contract - you haven't seen it or agreed to it so how can you be subject to it? - or copyright.
Now a few more data points. When Microsoft does distribute software where they want you to follow a click through EULA (i.e. any of the Office, NT, or BackOffice service packs) they usually use a variation on their standard CAB file format which cannot be decoded by the standard CAB file processors available from Microsoft and thrid parties. Let me repeat this: Microsoft used an encoding procedure for this spec file that is different from the procedures they use for every other product they consider proprietary and where they want you to agree to a EULA. The spec file encoding is a widely-supported compression algorithm; IT IS NOT A COPY PROTECTION METHOD. As such I do not believe that the DMCA's injunction against circumventing copy protection measures apply.
So you now have a copy of the document which you have obtained without breaking any non-disclosure contract, and without circumventing copyright or copy-protection measures (so the DMCA shouldn't be available to be used against you, up to this point). AS far as I'm concerned, that ends Microsoft's claims that this is a trade secret.
Now you open the file and you see a lot of legal speech that implies that if you have this file and you haven't read or agreed to Microsoft's agreement, which you are just learning about now, that you should destroy it. Now this is where a good contract lawyer needs to take over and state whether these opening paragraphs have any legal force. If you live in a state where the UCITA has been ratified, then that opening paragraph probably has legal force. Otherwise, I suspect its just an unenforceable and illegal contract and that you are not bound by the requirements that the document not be used for the purpose of implementation.
Either way, I think that any claims by Microsoft that the document can still be considered a trade secret are garbage. If you stumble across a document in the street that states it is a trade secret and you should destroy it, that doesn't really help it stay a trade secret.
Microsoft has done the equivalent of dropping envelopes from an airplane. The envelope contains an inner envelope which says that the inner document should only be opened if you agree to keep it secret. Because you are not convinced that the unabomber (or copycat) has been caught, you open the envelope with scissors by cutting off one side instead of the top. You ignore or fail to notice the double envelope and pull out the document inside. You are now in possession of a document which claims it is a trade secret (it no longer is) and that you must destroy.
As far as I know, copyright prevents you from making a copy of a work without the copyright holder's permission, but it doesn't give the publisher the right to force you to burn a copy which they allowed you to obtain in the past, either freely or by purchase.
Now you still can't COPY the document (i.e. post it on slashdot) but I don't see how what is on that document can be considered a legal contract. If you can, please state relevant law/paragraphs and trial cases.
Thus anybody who obtained the Spec in this manner should be able to use it to implement the Microsoft Kerberos extensions into the open source Kerberos implementations.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
By any means necessary, short of tactical nukes.
.. Hmf. someone should whip up a tactical nuke and end this shit.
:-)
Tactical nukes.. Hmm.. I think that would get rid of the problem permanently
.. or maybe not.
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
Exactly. IANAL, but I've seen stuff about fair use before, and the rule for fair use allows you to quote portions of material in order to provide a context for your own material. Quoting the entire work is not legit, nor is quoting part of it without adding on to that material with original content of your own.
So I could take 2 or 3 lines from this spec (which I haven't actually read, so I can't post actual material here), and say:
MS Spec lines 23-25 here
These lines are a good indication that blah blah blah, yada yada etc. They demonstrate that Microsoft has clearly violated the prescribed standard, that they are all four feet tall, and that we should sneak into their offices and paint their toes blue.
Fair use is useful as long as the use is fair. :-) Beyond that, though, the law does (as it should) prevent blatant theft/copying of the material.
Thanks to Hurst Dawg for pointing this out for me while I was away from /. You'll also notice that the timestamp formats are different. Big deal. You do know that you can set those in your user preferences, right? I just figured everyone would realize that a difference only in the hour field would be a matter of time zone differences... oopsie. I guess not everyone catches on that fast.
Eric
Threatening someone is not the same as voicing your opinion. Any government that throws people in jail for saying the government should be overthrown, problably will be overthrown.
Consider this:
Pictures of you and the lady from next door having
fun is being posted to a public site.
However legal it would be to have them publicly
accessible YOU wouldn't like the situation.
There's no point in arguing just because it's
Microsoft. It's clear that the posters have
done something they shouldn't have done. By
helping to correct the situation SlashDot
would show it is a site of honour and worth
respect.
And no, I don't work for MS, it's just that
I have a little humanity left.
Panu
I say give 'em hell.
-- PSiONiC
Wasn't that UCITA they passed the law against? DMCA is federal law, so I don't think states can just override it.
NOTE; I haven't examined each of the posts in question. Copyright allows for "fair use" of material. I.e. I can quote a subsection of a copyright work without penalty, as long as I attibute the original work. Now these users may quote the article, if enough users quote seperate bits and pieces of it, the entire article may be quoted as long as the quoter add additional material not produced in the original work.
As far as the links go, it depends upon what is being linked to. If they are linking to an exact copy, then they may have a problem. If the are linking to a derivative work then Microshaft hasn't a leg to stand upon.
The Evil Dwarf from Hell
It's not like Rob, Hemos, Roblimo, etc. posted the bypass information, etc. Geez, what's next? Is the RIAA going to try to sue Slashdot for all of the comments in stories on MP3.com and Napster? Is the MPAA going to sue /. for all of the comments and stories about the deCSS court cases?
In case anyone wonders why we continually rant that the DCMA and it's evil cousin UCITA must be defeated in order to maintain our freedoms, just think about Microsoft's legal pressuring of Slashdot for a minute. And then realize that Microsoft was and is a major player in terms of the soft money which got the DCMA passed in the first place and is shelling out big bucks to try to make sure that UCITA goes through as well.
Conclusion: Microsoft doesn't care about your freedom. Which is why I don't give a damn about what happens to Microsoft in the future. One final thought: Maybe we should forward copies of the better /. commentary on the corruption of the Kerebos protocols to Judge Jackson...give him another reason to tear them to bits.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
IMHO, Microsoft should have to contact each poster individually, and settle the matter with that person by persuasion or litigation as neccessary. If they want Slashdot to give out non-publicly available information (IP addresses from their httpd_access logs, for example) to help Microsoft track down the ACs, then they should have to get a court to issue a search warrant (which will involve Microsoft having the burden of proof to prove infringement of copyright for each instance).
If the poster requests that Slashdot remove his/her comments, then (and only then) should they be removed. Anything else would make "Comments are owned by the Poster." a mockery. And I'm sure that Microsoft wouldn't want to challenge the validity of implied electronic license agreements.
-Esme
mod this up! mod this uuuup!
the obvious solution to get the case thrown out!
There is no way Slashdot or Andover can fight this and win. It's a drag to have to censor things on the whim of MS, and will no doubt anger a large number of people, but if you don't you may find yourselves out on the street.
My advice is: comply with their demands for now, but move to a country without DMCA as soon as is reasonable.
I think you'll find that site operators are personally responsible under US law for everything on their sites. It's part of a set of laws the US passed in the 80's specifically so that this sort of thing would be possible.
Ok, by MS's own admission, this is a trade secret. From the license:
> The Specification is confidential information
> and a trade secret of Microsoft.
Now according to a little research I performed here.
> In fact, publication of a trade secret to any
> third party could destroy its confidential nature.
I think they are toast.
-Wintermutei say we unleash a rabid pack of 31337 s|r1p+ |1dd13z on them and thier email servers, infecting them all with ILOVEYOU :)
I would like to thank M$ for including article numbers in thier email. I would have searched for days for the information and they have made it easier for me. Thank you M$.
Cause you can't get a tan from an amber monitor. If you do, there is something horribly wrong.
Cause you can't get a tan from an amber monitor. If you do, there is something horribly wrong.
But for what you're trying to do, your own web site (or geocities, or whatever) is equally good a forum for free speech. And by doing that you lighten the load on the slashdot crew and distribute the problem.
Anm
You're barely helping anyone. First of all, you'r only reposting on slashdot. That isn't distributing the text, so Microsoft still only has to fight Slashdot.
Second, you're expecting slashdot to take on the legal fight, something that can cost them resources that can better be put elsewhere.
Anyone with an out of states server? Any takers?
Formally copyrighted before anyone can call
:-P
/. for us?
foul on it's being violated?
Has anyone actually checked to see if there is,
in fact, an actual copyright on this?
Now, I'm sure Microshaft is quite on the up and up
with it's legal department... but it would be interesting
to find out that they have been lax on these "on-line"
EULA's, no?
Could someone (with obviously more time than myself)
check into this and submit the results to
My curiosity is piqued
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
...Slashdot the bastards.
Please note: This comment is the opinion, and expression of Brian Landsberger, any misuse, reproduction, or otherwise doing something that I don't want you to with it will result in me suing your ass. If you don't like it - read the DMCA.
/.ers don't use MSFT products in every day life & nor will they ever, therefore they are attacking those who are not apart of their little world.
/. will need to comply with this, or face suit. Personally I would face suit with the face of the first amendment. The DMCA must be amendmed, and the true crimes must go punished.
With laws where they currently are, anyone MSFT included has every right to infringe on our first amendment. MSFT also knows full well that most
The fact of the matter is that
Not all of them, e.g. smartin's post on 00-05-02 21:20 MET:
is put under the header of Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification. Please note that MICRO~1 admits: IANAL, but why shouldYou are just too funny, Mr. Coward! Is that the best you can do? Attack my "childhood"?? What a pathetic attempt on your part. As for your drivel, please, spare me the apocalyptic view that if Micro$oft is broken up into pieces that it will destroy the economy. The economy existed BEFORE micro$oft and it will exist AFTER M$ is dust, too. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, I never said anything about me being a *NIX engineer. Attacking a field the you know nothing about just shows your ignorance. Here's a quater...go buy a life. ;)
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
Even though /. does not own the posts, they are making them available. Nowhere in the /. policies have I ready anything that binds /. to continue to host my posts. I don't see why /. has any obligation to make available material that violates copyright. Deleting it is not destroying the information (the original poster can repost somewhere else), nor affecting the ownership of the post in any way.
I'd suggest that removing the blatant copyright violation and leaving the rest is a reasonably course of action. That said, this is an opportunity for /. to stand up for the notions that as a group we stand for, namely that the time has come to revisit IP law. The existing laws don't make sense in a digital context and are being abused by large corporations to server their own ends. By not removing the posts of complete copyrighted documents, I think /. is violating the law. But I think it is also violating the law in the manner of an activist chaining him or herself to the object of their opposition.
magic
How is this a Troll? My sentiments exactly...
Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
This attack to us makes me really mad. What worries me the most is that they're likely to increase if a precedent is set. Civil disobedience is the key.
Hugonz
Hi,
If you want to tell M$ what you think about this, then mail them:
csfeed@microsoft.com
or for UK viewers, you might *also* mail:
2way@microsoft-contact.co.uk
If you need additional contact details do not hesitate to ask me.
--
Jonathan.
http://www.jonmasters.org/
What if someone posted a modified copy of the text in a country that trade secrets are illegal. The text posted would not include microsoft's restriction. This being so... they would not be liable and it would then be in the public domain...
All problems solved.
There _may_ be a flaw in this plan, but I thought it was a bit better than the rest of the (sheep like) ideas of posting the code on the internet.
PimpSmurf
Stupid people do stupid things... Smart people outsmart each other... --System of a Down
kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.
kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.
I didn't write the law, so don't blame me for the bad news. As I tell all my friends: "You don't have to like the law, you just have to obey it." And then they usually realize there are way too many laws infringing on their natural rights, so I point them to places like CATO or the national Libertarian Party website.
If you disagree with what Microsoft is doing, perhaps you should tell your representatives in congress that a rewrite of intellectual property laws are in order. Ranting about it on Slashdot doesn't further your cause. Getting politically active does.
If, for instance, Coca-Cola were to print it's formula for Coke in a newspaper and label it a trade secret, maybe with some gimmicky lisence seal, is that really excersizing an adequate level of protection to keep it a trade secret? Can click-through lisences apply to such a tight restriction, especially one where the restriction is only permitted if the company makes an effort to make sure its secret is not released?
The CCA claims that the decryption keys that were used to write DeCSS were a trade secret. Mormally the keys would be encrypted in the player but in one case they were not. If every player contained the keys in a plaintext file, could they make the same claim?
Ooo, maybe he'll use the "Chewbacca Defense". If that won't get /. & Andover out of trouble, nothging will.
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
Has a copy of the letter been forwarded to the DOJ yet? They might be really interested. Maybe MS should include a copy in their rebuttal.
I hereby relinquish this post into the Public Domain.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
Everyone likes to compare the Internet to the frontiers. The thing about the frontier was that someone's rights only existed as far as he could enforce them with his Smith and Wesson.
/. to express opinions is worth at least that much.
Well, I'll kick in $10 to hire a hot gunslinger. Having someplace like
Of course it's important to remember that one person's rights only extend to the point where they infringe on some else's. One of the best things my Dad taught me.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
Possession of a list of stolen credit cards numbers is not a crime, unless there is an intent to defraud. See U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1029.
If you'll take this one all the way to the Supreme Court. DMCA (and UCITA, btw) needs to be overturned, the sooner the better.
Should I send a check or just buy some stock?
1. Freenet.
2. Here's what's coming with DMCA: More Proprietary File Formats, an End to Legal Reverse Engineering.
So, when MS screws the Kerberos standard through embrace and extend, it won't even be legal for you to try and find out what they did, much less to share your findings.
Fight it.
Can moderators really remove a post from /. ? Or do they just moderate it down to a level where it falls below the radar all but the most masochistic of readers?
Maybe I just don't get it. From what I've read here, Microso~1 is saying that any technical discussion of thier products, based upon specifications they provided, are not legal.
The impression that this leaves with me is that they want to gag us all. Ok, fine.
Doesn't this then hurt themselves? If we (those of us who aren't Micros~1) can't discuss the good or bad points of their products, then how does thier technology develop? If we aren't allowed to try to find ways to improve, then only the creator of the product can do that, with very limited input because they (Micros~1) couldn't legally discuss it with anyone outside their clique.
Why would anyone limit themselves in that way? As much as I hate to think of bigger, badder things going on in the shadows, it's time to wonder if they aren't trying to bring themselves down. The bad press this subject is bringing them is damage enough I would think, and they had to know it would bring bad press when they sent the letter to Rob.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
I don't know... I saw the posting of the full text as a form of protest against Microsoft's proprietary extensions to Kerberos, which is supposed to be an open standard. If you look at it from that point of view, couldn't it be argued that it was a form of free speech?
And another thing... comment #86 by smartin, which is listed above as having a copy of the full text, has nothing of the sort. I think they meant to put comment #87 by an AC, which does. The two comments made by BlueUnderwear also don't contain the full text, as stated in the letter. The merely contain this link.
"... message passing as the fundamental operation of the OS is just an excercise in computer science masturbation."
That is 100% against EVERthing open source, free software, and freedom of speach are all about.
That is the worst form of sensorship IMHO, it's no better then when women weren't alowed to read The Bible, or forcing Blacks (insert proper PC term) from going to the same schools as whites.
I don't mean this as flaim bait but your comments are wrong, and very nearly biggoted.
Other comments were:
That wasn't Picard: that was Locutus of Borg.
Just received this link. Seems MS can't keep track of its own sites, much less other's.
-
sig sig sputnik
-
sig sig sputnik
I think Rob just got bitchslapped by Microsoft.
How about a link to a link. Is slashdot responsible for that too?
Microsoft clearly has a copyright on their documentation of their Kerberos implementation. Just as you have a copyright on everything you write.
This has absolutely nothing to do if their Kerberos implementation is patentable (it most probably isn't patented, because if it were so, their implementation would already be documented in the patent, and people wouldn't be forced to read Microsoft's own documentation to find out something about it).
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
Apple's address also explains a lot:
Apple Computer
1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino,
California, USA 95014
First Metallica attacks their fans, turning in their names and having them banned from Napster. Now Microsoft attacks the leading geek site on the web. Yep, that's the way to win hearts and minds. I'll be sure to keep in mind next time someone asks for my input in deciding between SQL Server and Oracle.
I thought the following snippet of information might be relevant to the discussion taking place. This is, of course, just for reference. Oh, and by continuing to read this post, you agree to Microsoft's EULA and authorize the immediate transferral of your soul to Microsoft Corporation:
s .
::= SEQUENCE {
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft Confidential.
This Specification is provided pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Microsoft Authorization Data Specification
v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems (the "Agreement") for the sole purpose of allowing review of the
Specification for security analysis, as further specified in the Agreement. If you have not downloaded the Specification from
Microsoft's website and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, you are not an authorized licensee of the Specification.
Page 1 of 12
Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0
for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems
April, 2000
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
Microsoft Confidential
Please review this Specification copy only if you licensed and downloaded it from Microsoft
Corporation's website; if you did not, please destroy this copy, but you are welcome to license the
Specification at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/kerbero
If you are an authorized licensee, when you downloaded the following Specification, you agreed
to the Agreement for Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000
Operating Systems (the "Agreement"). For your future reference, that Agreement is reproduced at
the end of this document.
Abstract
Microsoft Windows 2000 includes OS specific data in the Kerberos V5 authorization data field that is
used for authorization as described in the Kerberos revisions Internet Draft [1]. This data is used for
user logon and to create an access token. The access token is used by the system to enforce
access checking when attempting to reference objects. This document describes the structure of
the Windows 2000 specific authorization data that is carried in that field.
Top-Level PAC Structure
The PAC is generated by the KDC under the following conditions:
- during an AS request that has been validated with pre-authentication
- during a TGS request when the client has no PAC and the target is a service in the domain or a
ticket granting service (referral ticket).
The PAC itself is included in the IF-RELEVANT (ID 1) portion of the authorization data in a ticket.
Within the IF-RELEVANT portion, it is encoded as a KERB_AUTH_DATA_PAC with ID 128.
The PAC is defined as a C data type, with integers encoded in little-endian order. The PAC itself is
made up of several layers. The outer structure, contained directly in the authorization data, is as
follows. The top-level structure is the PACTYPE structure:
Windows 2000 Kerberos Authorization Data April 2000
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft Confidential.
This Specification is provided pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Microsoft Authorization Data Specification
v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems (the "Agreement") for the sole purpose of allowing review of the
Specification for security analysis, as further specified in the Agreement. If you have not downloaded the Specification from
Microsoft's website and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, you are not an authorized licensee of the Specification.
Page 2 of 12
typedef unsigned long ULONG;
typedef unsigned short USHORT;
typedef unsigned long64 ULONG64;
typedef unsigned char UCHAR;
typedef struct _PACTYPE {
ULONG cBuffers;
ULONG Version;
PAC_INFO_BUFFER Buffers[1];
} PACTYPE;
The fields are defined as follows:
cBuffers - contains the number of entries in the array Buffers
Version - this is version zero
Buffers - contains a conformant array of PAC_INFO_BUFFER structures
The PAC_INFO_BUFFER structure contains information about each piece of the PAC:
typedef struct _PAC_INFO_BUFFER {
ULONG ulType;
ULONG cbBufferSize;
ULONG64 Offset;
} PAC_INFO_BUFFER;
Type fields are defined as follows:
ulType - contains the type of data contained in this buffer. For Windows 2000, it may be one of the
following, which are explained further below:
#define PAC_LOGON_INFO 1
#define PAC_CREDENTIAL_TYPE 2
#define PAC_SERVER_CHECKSUM 6
#define PAC_PRIVSVR_CHECKSUM 7
#define PAC_CLIENT_INFO_TYPE 10
Offset - contains the offset to the beginning of the data, in bytes, from the beginning of the
PACTYPE structure. The data offset must by a multiple of 8. If the data pointed to by this field is
complex, the data is typically NDR encoded. If the data is simple (indicating it includes no pointer
types or complex structures) it is a little-endian format data structure.
Windows 2000 Kerberos Authorization Data April 2000
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft Confidential.
This Specification is provided pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Microsoft Authorization Data Specification
v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems (the "Agreement") for the sole purpose of allowing review of the
Specification for security analysis, as further specified in the Agreement. If you have not downloaded the Specification from
Microsoft's website and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, you are not an authorized licensee of the Specification.
Page 3 of 12
PAC Credential Information
PAC_INFO_BUFFERs of type PAC_LOGON_INFO contain the credential information for the client of
the Kerberos ticket. The data itself is contained in a KERB_VALIDATION_INFO structure, which is NDR
encoded. The output of the NDR encoding is placed in the PAC_INFO_BUFFER structure of type
PAC_LOGON_INFO.
typedef struct _KERB_VALIDATION_INFO {
FILETIME LogonTime;
FILETIME LogoffTime;
FILETIME KickOffTime;
FILETIME PasswordLastSet;
FILETIME PasswordCanChange;
FILETIME PasswordMustChange;
UNICODE_STRING EffectiveName;
UNICODE_STRING FullName;
UNICODE_STRING LogonScript;
UNICODE_STRING ProfilePath;
UNICODE_STRING HomeDirectory;
UNICODE_STRING HomeDirectoryDrive;
USHORT LogonCount;
USHORT BadPasswordCount;
ULONG UserId;
ULONG PrimaryGroupId;
ULONG GroupCount;
[size_is(GroupCount)] PGROUP_MEMBERSHIP GroupIds;
ULONG UserFlags;
ULONG Reserved[4];
UNICODE_STRING LogonServer;
UNICODE_STRING LogonDomainName;
PSID LogonDomainId;
ULONG Reserved1[2];
ULONG UserAccountControl;
ULONG Reserved3[7];
ULONG SidCount;
[size_is(SidCount)] PKERB_SID_AND_ATTRIBUTES ExtraSids;
PSID ResourceGroupDomainSid;
ULONG ResourceGroupCount;
[size_is(ResourceGroupCount)] PGROUP_MEMBERSHIP ResourceGroupIds;
} KERB_VALIDATION_INFO;
The fields are defined as follows:
LogonTime - the time the client last logged on.
Windows 2000 Kerberos Authorization Data April 2000
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft Confidential.
This Specification is provided pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Microsoft Authorization Data Specification
v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems (the "Agreement") for the sole purpose of allowing review of the
Specification for security analysis, as further specified in the Agreement. If you have not downloaded the Specification from
Microsoft's website and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, you are not an authorized licensee of the Specification.
Page 4 of 12
LogoffTime - the time at which the client's logon session should expire. If the logon session should
not expire, this field should be set to (0x7fffffff,0xffffffff).
KickOffTime - the time at which the server should forcibly logoff the client. If the client should not be
forced off, this field should be set to (0x7fffffff,0xffffffff). The ticket end time is a replacement for the
KickOffTime. The service ticket lifetime will never be longer than the KickOffTime for a user.
PasswordLastSet - the time the client's password was last set. If it was never set, this field is zero.
PasswordCanChange - the time at which the client's password is allowed to change. If there is no
restriction on when the client may change its password, this field should be set to the time of the
logon.
PasswordMustChange - the time at which the client's password expires. If it doesn't expire, this field
is set to (0x7fffffff,0xffffffff).
EffectiveName - This field contains the client's Windows 2000 UserName, stored in the Active
Directory in the SamAccountName property. This field is optional. If left blank the length, maxlength
and buffer are all zero.
FullName - this field contains the friendly name of the client, which is used only for display purpose
and not security purposes. This field is optional. If left blank the length, maxlength and buffer are all
zero.
LogonScript - This field contains the path to the client's logon script. This field is optional. If left blank
the length, maxlength and buffer are all zero.
ProfilePath - This field contains the path to the client's profile. This field is optional. If left blank the
length, maxlength and buffer are all zero.
HomeDirectory - This field contains the path to the client's home directory. It may be either a local
path name or a UNC path name. This field is optional. If left blank the length, maxlength and buffer
are all zero.
HomeDirectoryDrive - This field is only used if the client's home directory is a UNC path name. In that
case, the share on the remote file server is mapped to the local drive letter specified by this field.
This field is optional. If left blank the length, maxlength and buffer are all zero.
LogonCount - This field contains the count of how many times the client is currently logged on. This
statistic is not accurately maintained by Windows 2000 and should not be used.
BadPasswordCount - This field contains the number of logon or password change attempts with
bad passwords, since the last successful attempt.
* UserId - This field contains the relative Id for the client.
PrimaryGroupId - This field contains the relative ID for this client's primary group.
* GroupCount - This field contains the number of groups, within the client's domain, to which the
client is a member.
* GroupIds - This field contains an array of the relative Ids and attributes of the groups in the client's
domain of which the client is a member.
* UserFlags - This field contains information about which fields in this structure are valid. The two bits
that may be set are indicated below. Having these flags set indicates that the corresponding fields
in the KERB_VALIDATION_INFO structure are present and valid.
#define LOGON_EXTRA_SIDS 0x0020
#define LOGON_RESOURCE_GROUPS 0x0200
LogonServer - This field contains the NETBIOS name of the KDC which performed the AS ticket
request.
Windows 2000 Kerberos Authorization Data April 2000
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft Confidential.
This Specification is provided pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Microsoft Authorization Data Specification
v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems (the "Agreement") for the sole purpose of allowing review of the
Specification for security analysis, as further specified in the Agreement. If you have not downloaded the Specification from
Microsoft's website and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, you are not an authorized licensee of the Specification.
Page 5 of 12
LogonDomainName - This field contains the NETBIOS name of the client's domain.
* LogonDomainId - This field contains the SID of the client's domain. This field is used in conjunction
with the UserId, PrimaryGroupId,and GroupIds fields to create the user and group SIDs for the client.
UserAccountControl - This fields contains a bitfield of information about the client's account. Valid
values are:
#define USER_ACCOUNT_DISABLED (0x00000001)
#define USER_HOME_DIRECTORY_REQUIRED (0x00000002)
#define USER_PASSWORD_NOT_REQUIRED (0x00000004)
#define USER_TEMP_DUPLICATE_ACCOUNT (0x00000008)
#define USER_NORMAL_ACCOUNT (0x00000010)
#define USER_MNS_LOGON_ACCOUNT (0x00000020)
#define USER_INTERDOMAIN_TRUST_ACCOUNT (0x00000040)
#define USER_WORKSTATION_TRUST_ACCOUNT (0x00000080)
#define USER_SERVER_TRUST_ACCOUNT (0x00000100)
#define USER_DONT_EXPIRE_PASSWORD (0x00000200)
#define USER_ACCOUNT_AUTO_LOCKED (0x00000400)
#define USER_ENCRYPTED_TEXT_PASSWORD_ALLOWED (0x00000800)
#define USER_SMARTCARD_REQUIRED (0x00001000)
#define USER_TRUSTED_FOR_DELEGATION (0x00002000)
#define USER_NOT_DELEGATED (0x00004000)
#define USER_USE_DES_KEY_ONLY (0x00008000)
#define USER_DONT_REQUIRE_PREAUTH (0x00010000)
* SidCount - This field contains the number of SIDs present in the ExtraSids field. This field is only valid
if the LOGON_EXTRA_SIDS flag has been set in the UserFlags field.
* ExtraSids - This field contains a list of SIDs for groups to which the user is a member. This field is only
valid if the LOGON_EXTRA_SIDS flag has been set in the UserFlags field.
* ResouceGroupCount - This field contains the number of resource groups in the ResourceGroupIds
field. This field is only valid if the LOGON RESOURCE_GROUPS flag has been set in the UserFlags
field._
* ResourceGroupDomainSid - This field contains the SID of the resource domain. This field is used in
conjunction with the ResourceGroupIds field to create the group SIDs for the client.
* ResourceGroupIds - This field contains an array of the relative Ids and attributes of the groups in
the resource domain of which the resource is a member.
Fields marked with a '*' are used in the NT token.
When used in the KERB_VALIDATION_INFO, this is NDR encoded. The FILETIME type is defined as
follows:
typedef unsigned int DWORD;
typedef struct _FILETIME {
DWORD dwLowDateTime;
DWORD dwHighDateTime;
} FILETIME;
Windows 2000 Kerberos Authorization Data April 2000
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft Confidential.
This Specification is provided pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Microsoft Authorization Data Specification
v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems (the "Agreement") for the sole purpose of allowing review of the
Specification for security analysis, as further specified in the Agreement. If you have not downloaded the Specification from
Microsoft's website and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, you are not an authorized licensee of the Specification.
Page 6 of 12
Times are encoded as the number of 100 nanosecond increments since January 1, 1601, in UTC
time.
When used in the KERB_VALIDATION_INFO, this is NDR encoded. The UNICODE_STRING structure is
defined as:
typedef struct _UNICODE_STRING
USHORT Length;
USHORT MaximumLength;
[size_is(MaximumLength / 2), length_is((Length) / 2) ] USHORT * Buffer;
} UNICODE_STRING;
The Length field contains the number of bytes in the string, not including the null terminator, and the
MaximumLength field contains the total number of bytes in the buffer containing the string.
The GROUP_MEMBERSHIP structure contains the relative ID of a group and the corresponding
attributes for the group.
typedef struct _GROUP_MEMBERSHIP {
ULONG RelativeId;
ULONG Attributes;
} *PGROUP_MEMBERSHIP;
The group attributes must be:
#define SE_GROUP_MANDATORY (0x00000001L)
#define SE_GROUP_ENABLED_BY_DEFAULT (0x00000002L)
#define SE_GROUP_ENABLED (0x00000004L)
The SID structure is defined as follows:
typedef struct _SID_IDENTIFIER_AUTHORITY {
UCHAR Value[6];
} SID_IDENTIFIER_AUTHORITY, *PSID_IDENTIFIER_AUTHORITY;
The constant value for the NT Authority is:
#define SECURITY_NT_AUTHORITY {0,0,0,0,0,5}
typedef struct _SID {
UCHAR Revision;
UCHAR SubAuthorityCount;
Windows 2000 Kerberos Authorization Data April 2000
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft Confidential.
This Specification is provided pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Microsoft Authorization Data Specification
v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems (the "Agreement") for the sole purpose of allowing review of the
Specification for security analysis, as further specified in the Agreement. If you have not downloaded the Specification from
Microsoft's website and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, you are not an authorized licensee of the Specification.
Page 7 of 12
SID_IDENTIFIER_AUTHORITY IdentifierAuthority;
[size_is(SubAuthorityCount)] ULONG SubAuthority[*];
} SID, *PSID;
The SubAuthorityCount field contains the number of elements in the actual SubAuthority
conformant array. The maximum number of subauthorities allowed is 15.
The KERB_SID_AND_ATTRIBUTES structure contains entire group SIDs and their corresponding
attributes:
typedef struct _KERB_SID_AND_ATTRIBUTES {
PSID Sid;
ULONG Attributes;
} KERB_SID_AND_ATTRIBUTES, *PKERB_SID_AND_ATTRIBUTES;
The attributes are the same as the group attributes defined above.
Client Information
The client information is included in the PAC to allow a server to verify that the PAC in a ticket is
applicable to the client of the ticket, which prevents splicing of PACs between tickets. The
PAC_CLIENT_INFO structure is included in a PAC_INFO_BUFFER of type PAC_CLIENT_INFO_TYPE.
typedef struct _PAC_CLIENT_INFO {
FILETIME ClientId;
USHORT NameLength;
WCHAR Name[1];
} PAC_CLIENT_INFO, *PPAC_CLIENT_INFO;
The fields are defined as follows:
ClientId - This field contains a conversion of the AuthTime field of the ticket into a FILETIME structure.
NameLength - This field contains the length, in bytes, of the Name field.
Name - This field contains the client name from the ticket, converted to Unicode and encoded
using "/" to separate parts of the client principal name with an "@" separating the client principal
name from the realm name. The string is not null terminated.
Supplemental Credentials
The KDC may return supplemental credentials in the PAC as well. Supplemental credentials are
data associated with a security package that is private to that package. They can be used to
return an appropriate user key that is specific to that package for the purposes of authentication.
Supplemental creds are only used in conjunction with PKINIT[2]. Supplemental credentials are
always encrypted using the client key. The PAC_CREDENTIAL_DATA structure is NDR encoded and
Windows 2000 Kerberos Authorization Data April 2000
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft Confidential.
This Specification is provided pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Microsoft Authorization Data Specification
v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems (the "Agreement") for the sole purpose of allowing review of the
Specification for security analysis, as further specified in the Agreement. If you have not downloaded the Specification from
Microsoft's website and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, you are not an authorized licensee of the Specification.
Page 8 of 12
then encrypted with the key used to encrypt the KDC's reply to the client. The
PAC_CREDENTIAL_INFO structure is included in PAC_INFO_BUFFER of type PAC_CREDENTIAL_TYPE.
Supplemental credentials for a single package are NDR encoded as follows:
typedef struct _SECPKG_SUPPLEMENTAL_CRED {
UNICODE_STRING PackageName;
ULONG CredentialSize;
[size_is(CredentialSize)]PUCHAR Credentials;
} SECPKG_SUPPLEMENTAL_CRED, *PSECPKG_SUPPLEMENTAL_CRED;
The fields in this structure are defined as follows:
PackageName - This field contains the name of the package for which credentials are presented.
CredentialSize - This field contains the length, in bytes, of the presented credentials.
Credentials - This field contains a pointer to the credential data.
The set of all supplemental credentials is NDR encoded in a PAC_CREDENTIAL_DATA structure:
typedef struct _PAC_CREDENTIAL_DATA {
ULONG CredentialCount;
[size_is(CredentialCount)] SECPKG_SUPPLEMENTAL_CRED Credentials[*];
} PAC_CREDENTIAL_DATA, *PPAC_CREDENTIAL_DATA;
The fields are defined as follows:
CredentialCount - This field contains the number of credential present in the Credentials array.
Credentials - This field contains an array of the presented supplemental credentials.
The PAC_CREDENTIAL_DATA structure is NDR encoded and then encrypted with the key used to
encrypt the KDC reply. The resulting buffer is returned in the following structure:
typedef struct _PAC_CREDENTIAL_INFO {
ULONG Version;
ULONG EncryptionType;
UCHAR Data[1];
} PAC_CREDENTIAL_INFO, *PPAC_CREDENTIAL_INFO;
The fields are defined as follows:
Version - This field contains the version field of the key used to encrypt the data, or zero if the field is
not present.
Windows 2000 Kerberos Authorization Data April 2000
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft Confidential.
This Specification is provided pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Microsoft Authorization Data Specification
v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems (the "Agreement") for the sole purpose of allowing review of the
Specification for security analysis, as further specified in the Agreement. If you have not downloaded the Specification from
Microsoft's website and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, you are not an authorized licensee of the Specification.
Page 9 of 12
EncryptType - This field contains the encryption type used to encrypt the data. The encryption type
uses the same values as the defined encryptions types for Kerberos [1].
Data - This field contains an array of bytes containing the encrypted supplemental credential data.
Signatures
The PAC contains two digital signatures: one using the key of the server, and one using the key of
the KDC. The signatures are present for two reasons. First, the signature with the server's key is
present to prevent a client from generating their own PAC and sending it to the KDC as encrypted
authorization data to be included in tickets. Second, the signature with the KDC's key is present to
prevent an untrusted service from forging a ticket to itself with an invalid PAC. The two signatures
are sent in PAC_INFO_BUFFERs of type PAC_SERVER_CHECKSUM and PAC_KDC_CHECKSUM
respectively.
The signatures are contained in the following structure:
typedef struct _PAC_SIGNATURE_DATA {
ULONG SignatureType;
UCHAR Signature[1];
} PAC_SIGNATURE_DATA, *PPAC_SIGNATURE_DATA;
The fields are defined as follows:
SignatureType - This field contains the type of checksum used to create a signature. The checksum
must be a keyed checksum.
Signature - This field consists of an array of bytes containing the checksum data. The length of bytes
may be determined by the wrapping PAC_INFO_BUFFER structure.
For the server's checksum, the key used to generate the signature should be the same key used to
encrypt the ticket. Thus, if the enc_tkt_in_skey option is used, the session key from the server's TGT
should be used. The Key used to encrypt ticket-granting tickets is used to generate the KDC's
checksum.
The checksums are computed as follows:
1. The complete PAC is built, including space for both checksums
2. The data portion of both checksums is zeroed.
3. The entire PAC structure is checksummed with the server's key, and the result is stored in the
server's checksum structure.
4. The server's checksum is then checksummed with the KDC's key.
5. The checksum with the KDC key is stored in the KDC's checksum structure.
Windows 2000 Kerberos Authorization Data April 2000
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft Confidential.
This Specification is provided pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Microsoft Authorization Data Specification
v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems (the "Agreement") for the sole purpose of allowing review of the
Specification for security analysis, as further specified in the Agreement. If you have not downloaded the Specification from
Microsoft's website and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, you are not an authorized licensee of the Specification.
Page 10 of 12
PAC Request Pre-Auth Data
Normally, the PAC is included in every pre-authenticated ticket received from an AS request.
However, a client may also explicitly request either to include or to not include the PAC. This is done
by sending the PAC-REQUEST preauth data.
KERB-PA-PAC-REQUEST
include-pac[0] BOOLEAN -- if TRUE, and no PAC present,
-- include PAC.
---If FALSE, and PAC
-- present, remove PAC
}
The fields are defined as follows:
include-pac - This field indicates whether a PAC should be included or not. If the value is TRUE, a
PAC will be included independent of other preauth data. If the value is FALSE, then no PAC will be
included, even if other preauth data is present.
The preauth ID is:
#define KRB5_PADATA_PAC_REQUEST 128
References
1 Neuman, C., Kohl, J., Ts'o, T., "The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", draft-ietf-cat-kerberos-
revisions-05.txt, March 10, 2000
2 Tung, B., Hur, M., Medvinsky, A., Medvinsky, S., Wray, J., Trostle, J., " Public Key Cryptography for
Initial Authentication in Kerberos", draft-ietf-cat-kerberos-pk-init-11.txt, March 15, 2000
Windows 2000 Kerberos Authorization Data April 2000
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft Confidential.
Page 11 of 12
Legal Notice
This Specification is provided to you pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement for
Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems (the
"Agreement") for the sole purpose of allowing you to review the Specification for security analysis,
as further specified in the Agreement. If you have not downloaded the Specification from
Microsoft's website and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, you are not an
authorized licensee of the Specification.
For your reference, the Agreement is reproduced below.
Agreement for Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0
for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems
IMPORTANT--READ CAREFULLY: This Microsoft Agreement ("Agreement") is a legal agreement between you (either
an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") for the version of the Microsoft
specification identified above which you are about to download ("Specification"). BY DOWNLOADING,
COPYING OR OTHERWISE USING THE SPECIFICATION, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS
AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT DOWNLOAD, COPY, OR USE THE
SPECIFICATION.
The Specification is owned by Microsoft or its suppliers and is protected by copyright laws and international
copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties.
1. LICENSE.
(a) Provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, including without limitation
subsections (b)-(d) below, Microsoft grants to you the following non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free,
non-transferable, non-sublicenseable license, under any copyrights or trade secrets owned or
licensable by Microsoft without payment of consideration to unaffiliated third parties, to reproduce
and use a reasonable number of copies of the Specification in its entirety for the sole purpose of
reviewing the Specification for security analysis. By way of clarification of the foregoing, the
Specification is provided to you solely for your informational purposes (for review as specified above)
and, pursuant to this Agreement, Microsoft does not grant you any right to implement this
Specification.
(b) The Specification is confidential information and a trade secret of Microsoft. Therefore, you may not
disclose the Specification to anyone else (except as specifically allowed below), and you must take
reasonable security precautions, at least as great as the precautions you take to protect your own
confidential information, to keep the Specification confidential. If you are an entity, you may disclose
the Specification to your full-time employees on a need to know basis, provided that you have
executed appropriate written agreements with your employees sufficient to enable you to comply
with the terms of this Agreement. You are also permitted to discuss the Specification with anyone else
who has downloaded the Specification and agreed to these terms and conditions.
(c) You may not remove any of the copyright notices or other legends from any copy of the
Specification.
(d) Microsoft reserves all other rights it may have in the Specification and any intellectual property therein.
Microsoft may have patents or pending patent applications, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets or
other intellectual property rights covering subject matter in the Specification. The furnishing of this
Specification does not give you any license to these patents, trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights, or
other intellectual property rights, except as specifically set forth in subsection (a) above with respect
to certain copyrights and trade secrets.
Windows 2000 Kerberos Authorization Data April 2000
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft Confidential.
Page 12 of 12
2. ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS.
(a) The foregoing license is applicable only to the version of the Specification which you are about to
download. It does not apply to any additional versions of or extensions to the Specification.
(b) Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may terminate this Agreement if you fail to comply
with its terms and conditions. In such event you must destroy all copies of the Specification in your
possession or under your control.
3. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. All ownership, title and intellectual property rights in and to the Specification
are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers.
4. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its
suppliers provide the Specification (and all intellectual property therein) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and
hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions, either express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to,
any (if any) implied warranties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, and of
accuracy or completeness, all with regard to the Specification and any intellectual property therein. ALSO,
THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SPECIFICATION
AND ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEREIN.
5. EXCLUSION OF DIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY
RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SPECIFICATION, ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEREIN, OR
OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT, EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY
SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
6. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. Notwithstanding any damages that you might incur for any reason
whatsoever, the entire liability of Microsoft and any of its suppliers under any provision of this Agreement and
your exclusive remedy for all of the foregoing shall be limited to the greater of the amount actually paid by
you for the Specification or U.S.$5.00. The foregoing limitations, exclusions and disclaimers shall apply to the
maximum extent permitted by applicable law, even if any remedy fails its essential purpose.
7. APPLICABLE LAW. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Washington.
8. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement is the entire agreement between you and Microsoft relating to the
Specification and it supersedes all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals and
representations with respect to the Specification.
I suppose technically you have the choice not to live in the US, but they didn't exactly tell us when we got here that it would mean being bound by this law (because it didn't exist yet).
-Noodle
Having looked at both a Mac 128 and an iMac, is it any wonder that Apple is HQ'ed at 'one infinite loop'?
(Back off Mac zealots. I've got a Mac II (800k drives, no pmmu), a Classic, a P476, and a P6200. They've sold me enough road apples to have earned my feelings towards them.)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Your API argument sounds good. Maybe it's to test the waters for M$'s proposal to the DOJ (to whit: we will release the API to everybody). They can release the API, shout it from the mountains, take out a front page ad in the NY Times. But, only for 'security testing' purposes.
Crafty. (Or is that 'crufty'?)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Yeah, put the posts on Usenet, where they can't get at them. Then no one else will get them because NOBODY READS USENET (with the exception of the entire alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.* hierarchy).
Electric_Boy banned: Banned by Metallica: See http://infringe.napster.com/metallica.html
Malta does seem like the obvious choice for /.
"Dear Sirs: Your library contains the following books with content which violates our copyright. Remove them immediately..."
Now what? Do you do it, or do your lawyers and management have to burn money deciding what to do? That's this situation.
If you don't know, then you must not be getting royalty check from Microsoft for their use of the icon...or they're not using it...
Well... I would imagine almost certainly. I mean, there are a ton of geeks there, and not all evil ones. I bet some of those good ones will even be in support of Slashdot. OTOH, this is not the best time or place for them to voice that. Now if you mean the "M$" guys in the way that the person threatening /. , well I doubt it. Sounds like a lawyer type person and its just is unlikely.
http://www.somethingpositive.net Funny + bitter = comedy gold
To hell with a fighting fund, at the rate M$s stock is dropping in price why don't we all just stick 2c in the bucket and buy them out in a couple of months?
ZamZ
Looking at the recent story about Napster losing it's "mere conduit" defense, it seems to me that although Napster's status thereto might be hazy, Slashdot would definitely qualify as a "mere conduit" for the transmission of material.
Otherwise any ISP with a news feed that included alt.binaries.* would be screwed, (and Usenet would also die a stammering death).
(Can I go back to school please? I want to study law now. Someone pay off my old tuition debts, please?)
--
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Perhaps the best thing for /. is to meekly give in after, of course, they have thoroughly studied the situation with their lawyers for a few days/weeks/months. Who looks at these comments anyway after a few days? Meanwhile, the best thing for /. readers is to continue to post copies and links to copies. Then all Microsoft can do to /. is to sue concerning the speed that /. gets rid of the allegedly illegal posts. Meanwhile, /. can publish all the correspondence along the way and continue to give a black eye to Microsoft.
Does the DCMA limit the defination of fair use that I'm used to? And more importantly, does the quoting of the specs consitute fair use according to the copyright laws.
I seem to recall you are allowed to quote parts of copyrighted works to make a point or to bring focus to a specific part.
If the DCMA is going to limit that, then the whole point of "fair use" is going out the door. The limitations on the DCMA may just give all the power to a few companies (not people).
On a side point, I'm not fond of the almost reactionary grasping of older companies against the new technologies. Unfortunally, I think companies lost the reason to be in business (to supply services) and went for a desire for more money and power. Power corrupts, I guess.
--- My novel, The Mummy's Girl is now for sa
Look at comment number #86.. One of the ones they specifically cite as needing to be removed:
Posting the data is all well and good, but.... (Score:3, Insightful)
by smartin on Tuesday May 02, @03:20PM EST (#86)
What happens to the people that implement it (ie. the Samba guys) even if they obtain the information without intentionally breaking the license. Are they exposing themselves to expensive litigation? Are they endangering the project?
They want to censor that? Gimmie a break. That must be a screwup on their [oh wise and intelligent] part.
The poster obviously failed to follow the provided links regarding the DMCA
/.(or AOL wants to shutdown kuro5hin, or the CoS wants to shut down...) M$ pays a couple AC's to post unimportant yet highly actionable content on the site. Forces them to remove it. M$ does it again (follow shampoo instructions). M$ says to judge "This is getting rediculous, can we just shut the whole site down?"
The poster obviously feels that certain parts of the DMCA are a pile of shit.
The DMCA _makes_ content the service provider's responsibility.
Hmm (i.e. look at this scenario), M$ wants to shut down
Check numb's hack for another possible scenario.
Yes, the sites do share responsibility for what's on there, but some people do want to burn flags in public protest. It shouldn't be a public website's responsiblity to stop them.
Does anyone else think it's funny that Kerberos shows up again as we approach the Gates of Hell?
--
+&x
yes, it was a silly suggestion. I think that was my point, but I'm not so sure now. Testing idealism is a good way to get hurt, IMHO. When things don't bend, they break.
--
+&x
That's an interesting angle. Not only do we get to call upon the Freedom Of Speech, but also the Freedom of the Press, and the, aw hell, just let me quote the thing.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Those are delineated here.
--
+&x
All people like M$ and RIAA have to do is demand that everyone track the IP address of every connection and every up/download. With the default implementation of IPv6 having the MAC address of your Ethernet card built into it. It will not take much to find and penalize you. In fact the Internet more and more is making it possible for you to be watch. Look at that AnswerThink/Yahoo lawsuit for proof.
:-)
Excuse me for my error, the word isn't "impossible" just "more expensive, time consuming, and rights infringin' than any civilized Free society would stand for" I just shorten it to save you time.
--
+&x
I actually like the idea (of posting to Usenet).
... ) ?
How about if slashdot postings are mux-ed to
a usenet newsgroup (comp.tech.slashdot /
alt.slashdot /
It would give instantly more visibility and
distribution.
Optionally, how about a slashdot enhancement
that allows the posting (or the thread) to be
routed to Usenet as well ? (a check button on
the 'Post Comment' dialog).
Arieh
-- We have been doing so much with so little for so long, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
This is an interesting point, and actually causes me to consider the Usenet case, and how slashdot differers greatly from this. If Slashdot is going to maintain that the content posted by users is owned by users, then the users need to have complete control over their content (they do own it, after all). This is clearly not the case (no 'cancel' or 'supersede' provision in SlashCode).
:)
...as if 'cancel' has worked on Usenet the last 5 years.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Why is it ok to break the DMCA but not okay for me to go break the GPL? Seems like a pretty huge double standard to me.
.doc format in order to make my own document reader.
:)
Because the DMCA is bad. It is an overly broad law which give software and content manufacturers way too much power.
The DMCA must be shot down, or in 5 years I won't be able to:
- buy "e-books" and read them on whatever equipment _I_ choose, convert it to whatever format that is most convenient for _my_ private use.
- search for holes and weaknesses in my brand new firewall, and post the findings on Bugtraq.
- legally reverse engineer the latest version of MicroSoft's
I think those are worth fighting for.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
What is wrong with comment #86? It certainly isn't the text of the pdf as the letter claims.
Thats has no copyright violation AFAIK, just a hypothetical question.
#353 is a rebuttal saying he honestly didn't see a license agreement.
look at all of the posts mentioned in the letter.
2 of them are blatant violations ( complete reposts ) Several are links to probably infringing documents ( unfortunately not legal under the DMCA) . Some are "its a zip with an exe wrapper, don't look at the wrapper".
I don't see how #86 is a violation at all. It asks a question that I wouldn't want to answer were I microsoft, but its valid and I believe (and hope), legal.
I have to agree here, at least in part.
/. of all sites!
Come on folks, I can't believe that Microsoft would have sent that email without thinking VERY carefully about what they were getting into.
(Of course, that could be wrong, considering how busy their lawyers must be with the anti-trust suit, and the instant mirroring of DeCSS around the world!)
I'm not sure that they released the spec for malicious reasons (although it is suspicious), but they must think they have a bulletproof case here to email
The most important point of all this is to act responsibly!
------ Nope, Not me, you can't prove I said that!
-jpowers
-jpowers
...is to make every effort to get Microsoft out of the position where they believe they can dictate technical "standards" to everyone else, then protect those "standards" so that no one else can use them. Don't use MS products. Don't go out of your way to build code that works with their stuff. Lobby at every opportunity to get others to avoid their products. Their arrogance and deceit will continue as long as they own the PC market.
Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification should be removed.
Comments Containing Links to Internet Sites with Unauthorized Copies of the Specification and Comments Containing Instructions on How to Bypass the End User License Agreement and Extract the Specification are here to stay.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
So why not give IBM a little army. Even better, General Dynamics. How many people are going to break in with M1's rumbling around the parking lot?
-jcl
This is one potential situation where the legality of the DMCA could be challanged. /. should NOT remove the referred to posts or links. Let's get this [DMCA] overturned by the courts.
---
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
DMCA is also the product of the most corrupt and evil organisation the world has known. Here in Europe, you must support customers with matterial to make their products 'interoperatable'. GPL is a license some developers agree to and it is tried and true legally worldwide. DMCA is just 'American Bullshit' and it shows!
BillSF
I think the weakest point they have currently is thier insistence that you remove all postings with links. Somthing that offensively un-american can't ever hold up in a higher court. ( i know about japan and stuff, but i have more faith in american high courts)
How can it be illegal to tell sombody about a document? Is this not exactly the type of thing abhored by our founding fathers? Could the brits who provoked our declaration of independance have dreamt of a more intollerable act?
In the history of freedom of speech litigation there has always been consideration of both the speech and the forum. Not only can certain speech never be restricted, but established public forums must be protected as well from limits on speech.
For instance: To prevent the KKK from getting its message out, the city cannot ban political speech from the public park during busy hours. Speech must be allowed in the freeest sense in the park. That is an established forum of the kind without which free speech would be utterly meaningless.
I see the internet as such a protected forum. They can't burden the speech on the internet with special restrictive regulations for "linking" which is no different than discussing a document and mentioning it by name in a public park. making the service providers liable unduly burdens free speech as this forces the service providers to review each posting which is often not possible, so open discussion becomes a liability.
In Conclusion to this Ramble
Linking is really tough to justify banning
The Internet (slashdot.org??) is an important (and constitutionaly protected)public forum of a kind w/o which free speach would lose its meaning.
FINE PRINT
1)Dont flame me for my spelling
2)I am tired and irate. keep that in mind
~clearcutting prevents forrest fires
Asking someone to be coherent and well-argued is certainly not the same thing as expecting them to agree with you all the time.
Isn't there something on Slashdot which says that Slashdot isn't responsible for people's posts? If that's the case, then how can MS go after Slashdot?
I agree it's out of line to remove the links. But if, under DMCA, links to illegally-copied material are ruled illegal, then are links to links to illegally-copied material illegal?
In which case Microsoft would be shooting themselves in the foot. There is undoubtedly illegally copied material in their products.
In other words, suppose someone places a copy on a server in Lilliput, out of the reach of DMCA (and perhaps a rogue nation that doesn't acknowledge intellectual property rights at all)
Or maybe somewhere that takes the view that any property used in comitting a crime may be taken from a criminal. Or even simply dosn't recognise an organisation such as Microsoft as an entity legally able to own private property.
The problem is that some of the posts simply had the entire document in it. or VERY large chunks of the document. Thats illegal DMCA or not. Most non-fiction books have it marked on the copyright page that its ok to use small sections of the text in editorials.
./ are to be considered under US law then Andover would be well advised to provide full documentation as to these laws.
It really dosn't matter what a document says. What matters are the specific relevent laws. The complication is exactly which laws are relevent. If all items on
Because it's a company, and it's only because some 19th century fruitcakes in the USA decided that a corporation was legally a person that people think that corporations are entitled to "rights"
Part of the problem here is that these laws only give corporations the rights of people, not the responsibilities. Thus corporations soon become more powerful that real people.
Comments are owned by the poster. Their content is the owner's responsibility. Microsoft should be sending letters to those people, who should then ask /. to remove the comments..if they want to be censored.
Maybe none of the posters are from the US. Thus Microsoft would be at best wasting it's time, at worst risking being sued for libel, by sending these kind of letters out.
Actually, although I own the copyright on my post, there is some legal precedent that, as publisher, Slashdot owns the copyright on the compilation of the comments.
What would happen if either the poster or slashdot were to put an EULA up denying certain organisations permission to read either by name or by a generic term, such as "criminal organisations". If this had been done with the topic in question then Microsoft would be shooting themselves in the foot.
The document is still copyrighted. And you can do anything you want with it, within the provisions of Fair Use. Basically, that just means you can not redistribute it in whole, and almost anything else (e.g. coding a competing implementation, redistributing parts of it along with criticism, etc) is fair game.
Incorrect, you can do whatever the copyright laws which apply to you say you can do with it. Which may well be quite different from what someone in the US may or may not be able to do with it. Documents simply do not retain the copyright of their place of creation when they are moved.
And here's where we can take this:
A loose translation of Motorola's idea is that if you haven't actually sold something for money, then any licensing can be invalidated.
Since Microsoft released this specification for free, then according to Motorola, the licensing on this "idea" is invalid.
Let them fight it out... They can't both win...
I believe the first publisher publish slashdot comment without asking is some lame ZD magazine. It's been done. MS can always pretend to be the anonymous poster in the culombine book and sue /. ass off.
/_____\. .......|
CY
vvvvvvv../|__/|
...I../O,O....|
...I./
..J|/^.^.^ \..|.._//|
...|^.^.^.^.|W|./oo.|
>Microsoft is LOOSING
/. 8^)
Please use the correct words. It makes you sound rather ignorant when you don't.
'Losing', not 'Loosing' is correct. This is a common mistake, but it detracts from your message.
I'm willing to take some karma hits if I can help clean up
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
I must say though that Microsoft seems a bit childish about it.
/. attracts are, for the most part, very technical and the same people Microsoft wants to assimilate. All this is doing is giving Microsoft a chance to try to bring down /.
/.
/. is a thorn is Microsoft's side. It is hurting there business because of the technically oriented content that is commonly posted here, to put it mildly, is severely negative towards them. Not only that it is extremely accurate. I wouldn't be suppressed if there were a couple of tech support calls that /. was brought up in....
/. would be to Microsofts great advantage. It would hurting the community to which Microsoft is competing. Right now they cannot fight a corporation they are fighting an ideal they have to do something to the comment or Linux and the *BSDs are going to flourish in the corporate world killing Microsoft in the process.
Yea my brother when he was 3 would throw a temper tantrum when he didn't get his way or was being bothered.
Microsoft is LOOSING they are going to go kicking and screaming all the way down! Linux and the *BSDs are eating into them. We haven't hit critical mass yet but in a year or two Microsoft is going to be hurting really really bad!
/. is a thorn in Microsoft's side. The users that
These documents are quite easy to find elsewhere. And I don't see how they would seriously be harmed by this. Though they are probably in their right to ask this.
They aren't going to be harmed at all. For all we know Microsoft put the article out there to entrap organizations like
Getting down to the point...
Here is a hypothetical situation...
Microsoft Tech support phone call...
Msft - what seems to be the problem
User - Umm its not working
Msft - what isn't working
User - Realplayer with Windows 95 OSR2
Msft - Umm that is the fault of Realplayer
User - Umm... I have very technical data pointing he finger to Microsoft. You can find it at slashdot.org. There is very specific data and quite a few comments from the experts about it.
Msft - Umm... Umm... Umm...
To take out
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
the disclaimer doesn't mean anything in a court of law. rob could put a note at the bottom saying "all slashdot posters must give andover.net 10 percent of their monthly pay" and it would be as legally meaningful as what's currently there.
it's long-established precedent, in both supreme court cases and common law history, that you cannot be protected from the law, or that you cannot give away your protections, just because you agree to terms that might violate the law in the first place.
i'm not saying microsoft has any sort of case here, but the disclaimer isn't worth the pixels it's printed on. remember the katz book controversy? he was in the right, and the same logic applies.
Mindy: "Well...desserts aren't always right." Homer: "But they're so sweet!"
If the US govt. get their way, there'll be:
One Microsoft Way Two Microsoft Way Three Microsoft Way
~P
Microsoft doesn't lose much by pissing off a bunch of avowed anti-Microsoft Linux-lovers.
The question is - how can we make this yet another PR fiasco for them? Not until the mainstream media take this up as a case of the big corporate types trying to censor the small guys.
I think it is really important, if not crucial, that Slashdot stand up to these bullies. That's what the DMCA is all about: controlling free speech in the guise of protecting "commerce."
I suggest that the Slashdot staff read up on the McLibel case. Mention "McLibel case" to the Microsoft lawyers and watch them pee in their pants.
It seems to me as though many people on this planet have forgottent the simple fact that we are all human -- that we are all of the same race of beings, inhabiting the same planet, which is flying around the same sun. We all depend on the sun to be here tomorrow when we awake. We depend on the fact that no foreign rock has hit us and brought our civilization to its knees...but yet many of us seem to forget these simple facts. It seems almost as if people believe money can make you more than human, but it can not -- money will not bring you back to life if you die, and that's the trick isn't it -- once you are dead it's over and nothing is left but your accomplishments...your life must speak for itself. What is money really? It is a medium for managing the finite resources of this planet which we all inhabit. The simple collection of this medium seems ridiculous in light of the fact that its only purpose is to manage resources. Money is an idea created by man to manage a world which does not care. Mr. Gates and Mr. Balmer, what is it that you really want out of life -- your life, your only life? Giving your riches away will not help you when the only thing left to speak for you are your accomplishments. People will know what your true goal was when they read of what you and your company tried to do to what will become the greatest creation of mankind, the Internet. Please consider in your handling of this and future affairs what is at stake, not the domination of your company, but the very dignity of the human race -- that one man in his quest for money was willing to try and smother the greatest medium of what ultimately sets Man apart from the animals -- the ability to speak, the ability to think, and the ability to do both with intelligence. I know that this will eventually run across the eyes of someone in your company, Mr. Gates, and I would plead with them to pass it on to you, not for to save the site many of us love from facing a damaging lawsuit, but to perhaps salvage what little dignity the human race has left. After centuries, millenia even, of war and hate...the quest for power over others, perhaps it is time we work together, to make the most of our short time on Earth, and to leave something for future generations that will be a marvel of ages to come. The Internet was built on openess and thrived on it, it is the greatest invention in the history of our race (OUR race, for you too Mr. Gates and Mr. Balmer are of the same race I am, and everyone else on this planet...that is something no amount of money can change) and I doubt that you would like your name to go down with a dark connotation as the men who tried to destroy it for profit...the quest for riches can eat a man's soul, or it can be overcome, and the latter are those who's lives will be remembered forever as the greatest men who ever walked the Earth.
The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
Seriously.
./ gives in to M$ on this, you think they'll stop there? You think other companies won't try the same thing? If it worked once, it'll work again. They'll try the legal nastygram tactic on things which are further & further removed from what was originally intended (as if they haven't already) under the DMCA. Down the slippery slope we go!
If
Fact of the matter is, whether it's now or later, this issue is going to wind up in court. Better to fight it now than to set a precedent and try to work your way out of it later.
Just my $0.02
Apple's is better:
Apple Computer
One Infinite Loop
Cupertino, Ca. 9xxxx (can't remember)
-- This space intentionally left blank.
Definitely wait for a paper copy, delivered by US registered mail. It's probably someone pretending to be from MSFT.
As to the ISP letter - my understanding is that the US Supreme Court recently ruled that you can't be sued for posts by your users, so it sounds like you would want to go through the legal process. After all, if the person purporting to be from MSFT is asking you to do something that you don't have to do, one would want to wait until a court properly ordered you to do so.
And the point on filtering posts is very critical - the action of filtering removes certain legal protections which the Supreme Court upheld.
Remember that lawyers acheive 90% of their work by intimidating their targets, regardless of what a court of law would eventually rule.
Will in Seattle
While the removal of the link is prepostereous, and the removal of the work around the protection of the specification is hateful but likely necessary under DCMA, there ought to be no question that copyrighted material ought not to be reproduced without permission.
Even GPL sets forth conditions you have to obey to be allowed the reproduction of the copyrighted material. How can one complain about companies not respecting GPL license when reproducing GPLed code and, at the same time, disrespect Microsoft's copyright?
(8-DCS)
Like the subject of this post, censoring a troll is completely irrelevent to the issue here.
Come on, Gates is as big a nerd as anyone..
YES YES YES!!! I daydream often of starting my own mini nation on an island (or flotation as you've said), to avoid the laws. The only thing I can think of are problems with protecting ourselves, but I'm not sure how much attack we'd be subjected to. At any rate, having entirely extra-national servers would be very useful!! Anyone have contacts with visionaries with a lot of money? Drop me a line: tookycat@nconnect.net
Bearing in mind that Microsoft's allegation is made under penalty of perjury, someone over there's gonna end up in jail if your theory can be proved.
Not true. They are only obligated to remove access to it. Since they also have a legal requirement to restore it under certain circumstances, they can not just delete it.
One last thingy that I noticed. There is no digital signature appended to the message, not any other way to identify the writer of this e-mail. Ofcourse you could make a phonecall. But coming from MS one would expect better use of Outlook
It doesn't necessarily have to be signed. There are six requirements for the notificaiton to be effective, signing it is one of them. However, not all have to be met They only have to substantially meet the requirements. Of course, the word substantially is not defined.
The way I understand the DMCA, Slashdot is now obligated to block access to the material and notify the posters that it has blocked the access. Then the posters can notify, under penalties of perjury, that the material is not copyright protected. At this point, Slashdot must notify Microsoft of the counter notification. At that point, Microsoft has 10 days to file a suit against the poster. If they fail to file suit, Slashdot can legally put it back on the site.
Any that quote the entire text are obviously copyright infringments. But the other two categories: links and descriptions of how to unzip the file, are, argueably, protected under the first amendment. The posters could easily issue the counter notification.
If Andover set up a defense fund for any poster for the argueable defenses and every reader contributed $10, that would be a nice warchest for a defense fund.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
Except for one minor problem. It has not been proben to be an illegal copy. The complaintent has alleged it is an illegal copy. According to the DMCA, a service-provider can claim 'Safe-Harbor' if they merely block access. The DMCA does not require that the actually destroy/erase the copy.
If the poster files a counter-notification that the material is not a copyright infringement, the service-provider has to restore/stop denying access in "not less then 10, but not greater than 14 days" if the complaint does not file suit with the poster.
If your interpetation is correct, then the site loses no matter what the site does. If he doesn't delete it, the complaintent takes him to court for not destroying the copy. If he does destroy it, the poster takes him to court for not restoring it.
This is the exact oppisite of what the 'Safe-Harbor' clause in the DMCA was trying to accomplish. It was trying to avoid sticking a service provier in that exact position.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
I think it wouldn't be wise to leave the text it self in /. , but the links and the tip to unzip it should be leagal (even in the US).
Now I will admit that Microsoft has a somewhat valid point to their complaint, since it is copyrighted, blah, blah, blah. But think about it. If the posts were made congratulating Microsoft on some great new innovation, would they be as pissed? Or as quick to lash out at /.? I don't think so.
And, as most places do, there is that age old disclaimer of /. that reads: "The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say." So isn't Microsoft going against the wrong individuals anyway? Should they not track down those posters themselves, if it is so crucial a thing? Censorship is bad. Always has been, always will be. What ever happened to the free market of ideas and opinions? Does that fall victim to corporate overlords? Perhaps we, as posters need to start disclaiming things by saying "The above information is reproduced without permission...copyright...etc."
That said, the above quote is reproduced without express written permission from Slashdot."
"I used to be an agnostic, but now I'm not so sure..."
It seems like this law provides a way that companies would feel more secure in releasing info, like MS did. If the law doesn't provide protection, it seems like there will be less released.
Seems to me that censorship is the suppression of free speech... copying someone else's speech verbatim is not free speech - and in fact, in this case, it's copyright infringement.
Sponge
Make it clear in your acknowledgement that you are doing so since Microsoft so *kindly* pointed them out as copyright violations and NOT because of any DMCA reasons.
If they think they can make you pull the rest of the stuff then it's a freedom of speech issue that your lawyers can have fun with.
www.sjbaker.org
A lot of people have been writing in saying that the comments which contain extracts from Microsoft webpages are a violation of copyright and should be removed. This is patently false.
Any person discussing/reviewing work contained in a copyrighten document may quote from that source. As long as the reviewer doesn't abuse this priveledge (i.e. 10 page 'quotes' with no content of his own), quoting is perfectly legal.
Ciao
Simon
/-\-/
Um, it seems like a lot of hot air - How can they have "copywrited" info on a STANDARD???
Either it's Kerberos or it's proprietary.
By them calling it copywrited, they're saying it's not kerberos, and that's news - the postings would then be proving this and so should be covered.
I think the question needs to be raised with microsoft....
Get an account, view comments at -1, see everything that's posted, post anonymously if you must, shut up with the damn stupid rant. Thank you... good night.
Alright, this is the first time I've posted to Slashdot.
The trouble with the attitude presented in the rest of this thread that I've seen and in the above is that it completely misses the point.
Civilization, as it has evolved to this point, has protected people's ability to copyright their works, whether they be works of literature or software or even specifications of protocols.
The trouble with this scenario comes when the trend of law to this point runs into a force like the 'net, which encourages broad and expansive dispersal of information. It's this collision that produces the conflict slashdot is raging about even as we speak.
The suggestion that nothing be given Microsoft, not an inch, not a whisker of obedience is, quite simply, simpleminded and foolish. Material owned by Microsoft, duly copyrighted, has been distributed. This is, simply, illegal. It has been for a good couple hundred years--regardless of the medium by which that material is transmitted, the principle is the same. This isn't remotely the same as DeCSS, which others have compared it to. This is a principle of law that's been litigated and upheld for years upon years.
Microsoft is *entirely* within its both moral and legal rights to demand removal of its copyrighted documents.
Now, if you want to argue the morality of copyright law in general, have fun. I'm not gonna get involved in that discussion.
However, Microsoft demanding the removal of commentary on the spec? That's illegitimate, of course, and neither Andover nor Slashdot should agree to it.
I dunno, this seems awful simple to me.
While telling people where to find copies of a document is, arguably, a free speech issue, posting verbatim copies of a copyrighted work clearly isn't.
I don't agree. The point is that Microsoft is infringing on ground that should not be available to them, when they helped pass the DCMA.
You asked if Slashdot should remove a list of 100 stolen credit cards. Of course they would, because it would be unjust to allow those credit cards to be posted. But the DCMA itself is an unjust law, and censoring posts because of that law is also unjust. If you're American (as I think you are), then you're from a country that holds democratic principles. You're supposed to question laws that limit your freedom; you have a court that oversees the lawmakers' wisdom. Use your rights!
Screw them bastards in Redmond!!
From the e-mail, it looks as though there are four which present the specification and only one that is a link.
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The
Rest © 1997-2000 Andover.Net.
------------
The above is at the bottom of all pages on Slashdot. I wonder....
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
Most legal disputes take ~25 years to be settled in India. If you shift your base here, you dont have to worry about court cases. Why do you think MS opened their second R&D centre in India!!?
O this learning! What a thing it is - William Shakespeare
I vote for fighting it till your last breath.... /. if only to piss MS off. However if keeping the full spec. texts in the asrchives puts /. in serious danger of a lawsuit that it will loose, I say remove the texts, keep the links and see how much harder it will be for Microsoft to get the courts to censor that.
That's an interesting suggestion. It's always easy to say somebody should fight till their last breath. I myself would like to see these comments kept on
Ñ'
If there were ever any question as to whether Microsoft was going to play nicely with the other children in the Kerberos schoolyard, we now have our answer. Why am I not surprised?
Clearly, Microsoft has no intention of participating in any open standard process. Someone should develop a cleanroom version of the specification document, so it can be implemented in open source projects.
Embrace: done. Extend: done. Extinguish: underway.
--
My word processor was written by Stanford Professor Donald Knuth. Who wrote yours?
As I understand it, Microsoft is complaining that you are publishing a copy of a technical manual.
,if at some point you run out of money, you can always quit.
Assuming that this is actually the case, I think you have a chance of winning on the merits.
The copyright act protects the expression of ideas that are fixed in a tangible medium.
Whole classes of ideas are excluded. You can't copyright something that is entirely utilitarian in nature.
It is the expression that is protected, not the idea itself.
Works that combine expressive and functional aspects are more weakly protected that those that are purely expressive. So a tech manual gets considerably less protection than a love song.
The "fair use" provision does not have a size limit. The amount that can be copied under "fair use" depends on the nature of the work, and what is needed to accomplish the "fair use" goals. You have to balance the competing interests of the author and the public.
So, considering that (1)the underlying idea, which is described by the work, is entirely utilitarian, and (2)that the work is a fusion of both functional and expressive aspects, and (3)that the work is derived from a public standard, and (4) you can't go down to the local book store and buy a copy of the work, and (5) the underlying product is a tool that Microsoft is using to further an illegal monopoly, and (6)that the whole work is necessary for the discussion of a subject as vital as the security of the global internet, and (7)that the copies of the work are being provided without charging a fee, then it seems like you could prevail.
Go for it !
The upside is great. You get lots of good publicity as long as the matter is before the courts. And you might prevail.
The downside is not bad. You are acting in good faith, within the law, to protect your rights as you see them. There is no possibility of a monetary penalty. Now, in order to maintain your good faith you will probably have to remove the material in the short term. However, even this can be turned to a tactical public relations advantage.
Of course, win or lose, you have to have money to pay the lawyers. But, it would be hard to find a more popular cause with which to attract donations. And
CONCLUSION
Upside potential: HUGE
Downside risk: NONE
GO FOR IT !
A good point that the "Findings of Fact" are published, and this has been used to determine MS's guilt. But I believe that more evidence _can_ be introduced in the punishment phase of the trial. Federal law may be different, but Texas state law does allow this.
This email would be used as evidence that MS is recidivist or habitual violator, and requires more severe punishment.
Censorship is only possible to governments. All else is merely the exercise of property rights. If I delete your comments from my web site, you can post them elsewhere. It the government says you can't post your comments anywhere, you have no recourse. My power ends at the edge of my yard, so to speak.
If its obvious that they intended to get around copyright law with this then yank them. otherwise let the stay! (:
I agree, but if the posts had just a small section of the document, and the section is cited as being from the microsoft document, then surely this is fair use, i do this for research papers for my classes all the time.
In this case, it's just redistribution, and in some messages, just documentation on how to get around the system -- original works.
If Microsoft took the Linux spec, posted it, and documented, and /. was upset, it would be a similar case. What is actually happening here is Microsoft trying to keep the truth from getting out. It's like the Church of Scientology trying to censor pages about it.
Enough with the crap already.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
(perhaps in their place have a link to a morror of somebody else who hasnt yet been contacted by M$) /. that way M$ cannot sue you as you do not have the content to remove and as FreeNet is fully distributed they'll never be able to stamp it out.
What I would suggest it that anything that is removed is copied onto FreeNet, so that the content can be dynamically pulled back onto the site from FreeNet, that way posts stay intact, but the information is not hosted on
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
Like other things happening in our society, I lay the blame at there being too many lawyers. Particularly too many very, very greedy lawyers.
DCMA is a law written by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers at the expense of all the rest of us.
Dr. Frank J. Nagy Fermilab Computing Division Authentication and Directory Services Group
I found the PDF file on a website (which has since vanished) describing the M$ version of Kerberos. Since I found only the PDF and not executable, I agreed no EULA.
Therefore, my publishing the specs is not in violation of any agreement.
You will be able to find them after 17:00 EST at my web site. Tell any Samba team members you know!
If you can't translate 24 hour time into AM/PM format, perhaps you shouldn't read them.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
This part of DMCA makes me nervous. The part that says you must comply with the removal request on faith
/. should remove it. The links or any material that is NOT from
and without proof that the material is legally copyrighted!
Does this seem a little draconian to anyone else but me? This is what The Church of Scientology did to eBay
and the object was NOT under a copyright.
I feel that the requestee should provide a little bit more proof that just a valid e-mail address and a threat of perjury!
My $.02: Provided the material is copyrighted,
the sited work should remain. Including instructions on avoiding the agreement! Let's fight the battles
we can win...
=============================
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
precedent of pulling posts. Once he has done that, then slashdot can
be said to exert editorial control over the contents of posts on
slashdot, which exposes it to libel/slander lawsuits, etc. Bad place
to be.
BTW, wasn't it Rob Malda, not Roblimo?
Well, first I would like to say fuck you Micro-Soft-Dick.
Now lets get down to business. It seems since everyone is suing everyone at this point in time, we should get in on the action. I think a class action civil suit against MS because their monopolistic practices have limited my productivity at work by forcing me to use a product that doesnt work. I think we can use the tobacco suits as precedent and say that MS lied to us about the viability of their products and the upgrade addictiveness. Im sure memos could be found saying things like, "Let's get this crap into schools and hook 'em young" or "If we change the file format again, they'll all be forced to buy more or they won't be able to function." Just an idea as to how we could all join in the fun.
Ben
Don't shill for M$ that way.
- --
There is no way to prove that the data posted here was obtained by someone violating the EULA. The instructions for bypassing the EULA, moronically easy, were posted prior to the supposedly violating information. Therefore the trade secret argument is in-valid.
The copyright issue is bogus. MIT owns all copyrights on Kerberos. Microsoft can't get them by re-writing a spec. Doesn't work that way.
So either you are propagating false information, in which case shame on you. Or you are a M$ shill only posting here to put some propaganda out, in which case "ROT IN HELL A$$HOLE!"
Absimiliard
-----------------------------------------------
Sigs are stupid, but mine's stupider than yours.
Citizen do not have to accept bad laws as being binding. The concept of jury nullification goes back over eight hundred years in English common law which is what U.S. law is based on. Where I first heard of this concept was on Jerry Pournelle's Chaos Manor Musings. I did a quick search of his site and come up with the following quote:
This blockquote is from one item on Jerry Pournelle's website regarding Jury Nullificaiton".
The DMCA is a law passed by Norman barons.
For a more cogent history of jury nullification see here. Or simply enter "jury nullificaiton" into your favorite search engine.
I think, therefore, ken_i_m
Sounds like another member of 'The Church of JC the Lost'. I've heard that if you use babelfish and play this site backwards in Hebrew it says 'Bill Gates is kewl'.
/. setting a 'community standard' that copyrighted/trademarked material will not be posted. If you do, you will be moderated to the bitbucket where your comments cannot be viewed.
:)
Lets get real here. In the first place M$ is writing the letter because copyrights and trademarks require that you defend them. If they don't have documentation of their calling folks on the carpet, they might lose a future case concerning challenges to their holdings.
I see no problem with
I personally could give a flip about M$ but there are some of you rocket surgeons out there that write some pretty nifty stuff and deserve to own your words if you chose to do so. I will defend your right to do so at least to the point of my own inconvenience
Bottom line, lighten up Francis, I don't think Bill G really cares what we think. He is just having his well paid legal nimrods perform due diligence on his property. Have a smurfy day.
Just my .0002 cents.
(appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
My advice here is to just use delaying tactics and keep them in court until Microsoft is not a company anymore, or until they are devalued to the point where Andover can buy them. (Ooh the irony.)
"There's one born every minute." - Steve Case
I like your idea here and I agree with you 100%. However I suggest taking it one step further. Perhaps all parties currently in litigation (your above-mentioned 2600, Napster, mp3.com, et al) and Andover.net should instead challenge the legality of the DMCA _DIRECTLY_ in regards to freedom of speech and such. Is it possible to go directly to the top (Supreme court), you know "Andover.net et al, VS United States?"
.02
Obviously M$ has a case if their "Specification" was truely a trade secret. My question of course is how can one post a "Trade Secret" on the internet? Part of that phrase is "secret." You can't post a "secret" on the internet and expect it to stay that way. I assume M$ _KNEW_ someone would illegally post their "secret" and prolly knew it would get posted here (/.). It sounds to me as some sort of scare tactic and a feeble attempt at quieting the geekish masses who are about to overthrow their market domination. If M$ follows through with legal action against Andover.net, you can be ASSURED everyone will watch, those with alot to lose with the overturn of the DMCA like MPAA, RIAA, Metallica (:p), M$.
Just my
Bob
I like your idea here and I agree with you 100%. However I suggest taking it one step further. Perhaps all parties currently in litigation (your above-mentioned 2600, Napster, mp3.com, et al) and Andover.net should instead challenge the legality of the DMCA _DIRECTLY_ in regards to freedom of speech and such. Is it possible to go directly to the top (Supreme court), you know "Andover.net et al, VS United States?"
.02
Obviously M$ has a case if their "Specification" was truely a trade secret. My question of course is how can one post a "Trade Secret" on the internet? Part of that phrase is "secret." You can't post a "secret" on the internet and expect it to stay that way. I assume M$ _KNEW_ someone would illegally post their "secret" and prolly knew it would get posted here (/.). It sounds to me as some sort of scare tactic and a feeble attempt at quieting the geekish masses who are about to overthrow their market domination. If M$ follows through with legal action against Andover.net, you can be ASSURED everyone will watch, those with alot to lose with the overturn of the DMCA like MPAA, RIAA, Metallica (:p), M$.
Just my
Bob
As for linking to sites hosting a document illegally...go talk to the person owning the site...not the person linking to it.
This community needs to put on our cryptographic thinking caps *right now* and figure out a way to store high-risk documents on the web, immediately they are brought under attack.
Boundry conditions for the algorithm:
(1) Any document can be recovered in N tries, with increasing certainty for each iteration.
(2) The probability that any of the N sites was "responsible" for delivering the document can be shown to be (a) reasonably doubtful [criminal], (b) less than 50% [perponderance of evidence], or (c) vanishingly small [for high risk].
(3) It is computationally infeasible to figure out which site did the dirty.
=Googol=
You can see the headlines now...
"Small startup Andover bullied by MicroSoft monopoly."
"MicroSoft uses monoploy powers and DMCA to censure media."
The stupidity is amazing, the damage caused by the release of these documents is done. It's been more than a week, I had completely forgotten about it. Now MicroSoft stirs up the ants nest again, who's side is this Mr. Weston on? Laugh.
This is going to be a tough spot for Slashdot - the main defense sees to be saying there will be bad PR for Microsoft if they press on.
I sincerely doubt that this will be effective, because most of the bad PR will be directed at people on Slashdot that never liked Microsoft anyway. The rest of the world will probably hear carefully spun news about stopping piracy, etc. Microsoft has very few customers to lose in this situation, so there is really no financial reason for them to not sue 'till its done.
I can only hope Slashdot treads carefully in this.
I say we dust off and nuke them from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
k.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
How long will it be until it becomes illegal to mearly speak a single word in a conversation because some power hungry corperation thinks that they are above everyone and everything? Has m$ realized that they are in court for illegal activities themselves? are they aware of the almost hypocritical tone that they are sending through these requests? Stop the s*#t m$, no-one likes you, and you cant stop people from merely disscussing various subjects, whether or not it concerns your company or not. this is beyond pitiful
~~~ They call me Little John, but don't let the name fool you...in real life I'm very big.
The third level of hades is opening a new wing.
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
Dear Congresswomen:t ml". Since, by Slashdot's user agreement, the posts belong to the individuals and are reprinted
I'm not sure how much you follow the copyright issues in the technology sector, but their importance is ever increasing. Due to a law commonly referred to as "DMCA", companies are censoring popular news sources. Specifically, Microsoft has threatened to sue Slashdot (a user-moderated "newsgroup") because of certain "URL links" INDIVIDUALS have posted on the service. The link to the story on Slashdot about this issue is "http://slashdot.org/features/00/05/11/0153247.sh
by their permission, cleary Slashdot is not personally responsible for copyright infringement. They have good faith that the reprinted material
is legal.
Yet, the DMCA makes Microsoft's litigation potentially successful. Should they win, any such website would need to censor every user's comments--which is impossible, due to the shear number of comments posted. Thus, hundreds of useful, informative websites would have essentially been deemed illegal.
This is just one example of the many examples of how DMCA can ruin the best aspects of the web. I ask you to consider rewriting the law--or eliminating it altogether.
Thank you for your time,
Dobromir Montauk
Hmm... You could argue that the term "unzip" is undefined...
Nevrar
Not under the DMCA - under the DMCA if you provide an outlet for people to commit copyright violation, whether you know you are doing so or not, you are in vilation of the law, too. Shouldn't we all know this by now after the big Napster-Metallica dispute?
Every bastion of free speech seems to be getting attacked these days. In the UK, freedom of speech died years ago. We go out of our way to host our own sites in the US, and now those are being gagged also. Big Brother, Corporatism, Police States. Whatever you wanna call it, it frankly makes me sick. I think countries like China/Libya/Iraq/Afghanistan (choose any name on the state departments lists) et.al. could make big dollars by hosting contraversial websites.
/. should take this all the way. If this kind of gagging succeeds, then Freedom of Speech is truely dead on the internet as we know it.
It is the main reason I came to love the Internet in the firstplace. Whether or not you agree with it, like or hate it, people had the right to say what the wanted, and people could read what the wanted. They could choose their teachers as oppossed to being forced to listen to whatever CNN told them.
So much for Utopian ideals!
Keep the Internet Free!
-- "To ask a question is to show ignorance; Not to ask a question means you'll remain ignorant."
The posting that contained the entire Microsoft document (including the Microsoft copyright and "trade secret" notices) should be pulled as it is an unauthorized release and a blatant violation of copyright. The messages that link or offer hacks are legitimate speech and should not be censored. That's my common sense assessment, not what the DMCA says.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
Too bad the username wasn't "ScrewM$"
Actually, it would probably be better just to remove the specific sections, and insert something like
[ this section has been removed for legal reasons. It is available in (section whatever) from (some document), which is available (some place) ]
Of course, the best solution is to leave them all alone...
Oh dear.
Yet another example of Microsoft sticking the boot in and happily allowing the "freedom of speech/expression" thing that, I beleive, America was founded on to fall by the wayside.
I would love to know exactly how Microsoft can claim to be the world's saviour (opening up computing to the masses etc) when all they really want is control.
Does anyone else smell Big Brother and room 101??
Teamwork is essential. It gives the enemy someone else to shoot at
I just had a wild thought. Not that I would ever do such a thing, or would even be capable of (I don't know jack about VBS), but what would be the effect if someone wrote a VBS virus that had as an attachment the copyrighted or trade secret documents? It would end up using Microsoft's own security holes to propogate their own claimed copyrights or trade secrets. Surely someone who wrote such a virus would be liable for the damage caused by distributing such works, but if Microsoft is "giving away" the text themselves, what real harm has been done?
Just a wild thought, which I don't condone at all.
As far as I understand it, it's fair use as long as you're using it for commentary and critique. If they're just on here to distribute - and frankly, anyone here distributing the full text for Microsoft Docs would probably be sent to -1 mod hell - it should fall under fair use.
The DCMA has *not* revoked our right to say what we think about Microsoft. I think I speak for a large majority of the crowd here when I say I'll fight tooth and nail to make sure that my right to call Microsoft a corporation of royal jerks & amazingly bad programmers is not taken away.
Tell 'em to go to hell, Rob.
doones
Whatever you do... don't read this.
I know disclaimers don't help much anymore, but
What ever happened to that? Comments are owned by the poster....that meansThose amendments:
My unprofessional, unqualified legal analysis only, don't put any weight to this.
Most if not all these posts fall under 'fair use' and /. readers DO NOT own their posts, MS will *rightly* argue. Katz's book is proof enough. Using whole posts without giving credit in a commercial book sounds like /. owns the posts. /.'s own hypocrisy is gonna catch up with it.
to legally plunder any closed-source/info Microsoft wouldn't want the world to see, hand it off the DeCSS ditto-monkeys to make endless copies.
Here's an idea: know how check-kiting works? I write you a check for $100, you deposit it and immediately write me a check to cover my $100, which I deposit. Back and forth it goes...
Apply the same principle to "trade secret" info like Micro~1's phuked up kerberos thingy: a script which automatically keeps copies of the "illegal" data zinging around the net, always a step ahead of the law, never at rest.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
You know, you mention the freedom of speech here. In the past, the supreme court has upheld never really made *any* decisions based on 'Copyright Violation Restriction' of speech. They don't seem to have made any claims that speaking in a factual manner about a copyrighted thing would constitute an unprotected form of expression. The closest thing I can find is a 1964 defamation ruling which involved several factual errors. *Factual* errors. Which implies 2 things. First, that I can always say "Fuck microsoft, they suck [figuratively] donkey balls, so does their stinkin software". I am expressing opinion. I can also say "CmdrTaco is one ugly fella". Again, expressing an opinion and the burden of proof is not on my shoulders, as it would require self-censorship and too great a restriction on speech. Secondly, that I can *always* say "I've had Windows 2000 crash on me 7 times in the last 3 weeks", if I have in fact had it crash on me. (And, in many situations, even if I haven't)
I could not, however, state that: "Microsoft chairman Bill Gates steals cars. I saw him do it." unless I could back that up. I could claim he does it without saying I had seen him, thus chalking it up to 'journalisitc factual error' which the supreme court grants happens from time to time.
It is of great intrest as well, that the supreme court has always looked to limit speech and expression in as few ways as possible. That is to say, if you've commited some act of expression which presents a "Clear and present danger" to the general peace, you can be stopped. If, for instance, I were to hold a rally in which I ordered those at said rally to... say.. blow up a building, then the cops -could- rush in and stop me. But, they could not stop me from intimating this without directly saying it, because it would be an unreasonable and too-large restriction on speech. See the supreme court descisions on the first amendment by topic at: Findlaw's constitutional descisions page.
Given that all of this is true, I'd say you should wait for it to go to court, see if you win in the first court (you probably won't) and then instantly get a writ of certiary for the Supreme Court based on first amendment issues. Bust this badboy before it goes any further. Anyway, as an act of Civil Disobedience and rejecting Microsoft's right to tell me I can't say it, I would like to now say these things:
1> Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 is, in my opinion, a badly written piece of software, based on no evidence but my opinion that Microsoft produces nothing but badly written software.
2> Microsoft produces nothing, in my opinion, but bad software. Excel is the only exception to this opinion. Microsoft Windows 95, Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows NT, Microsoft Windows 2000, and MS-DOS all suck. They are all, in my opinion, bad software and should all be deleted from every machine on earth.
Those are constitutionally protected statements. If they want someone, let them come for me.
--Sagev, Freedom Fighter vegas@my.bomis.com
Disclaimers do not have the force of law, you know. I just pulled the trigger. Victims bear all responsibility for dodging and consequences resulting from failure to dodge.
You can disclaim all you want, but that might NOT release you from responsibility by itself, barring some kind of contract with whomever might hold you responsible.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
You hardly need the DMCA for this -- I would think that ordinary copyright law suffices for criminalizing non-fair-use.
Keep in mind that Slashdot is a business as well -- or rather, it's owner is, and one that I'm pretty sure is for-profit.
Fair use does not include simple duplication of entire texts, even for non-commercial folks. Try asking Kinko's to photocopy an entire dictionary.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
They still have an obligation under the DMCA, it appears, to remove the posts within 48 hours of notification.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Hardly. Recall the Katz book controversy, which used Slashdot posts without requesting permission?
They apparently act like they have full copyright. That disclaimer might be about as legally meaningful as one that requires all readers to dye their hair blue.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I know this topic has been talked to death, but here's an analogy that illustrates the situation I think: posters to slashdot.org are authors/publishers and slashdot.org is a bookstore.
If I write and publish a book that has copyrighted material who should the lawyers come after when it's discovered? Me. If a bookstore sells (or gives away in this case) copies of my book, is it their job to police the content of my book? I don't think so.
what should slashdot do? Nothing. They aren't editors, they're service providers. The service is providing a medium for people to post their comments.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
Q: What year was DMCA passed?
A: Public Law 105-304 was passed on 10/28/98
Q: Who could have vetoed this but didn't?
A: President Clinton?
Q: Who was the VP at the time?
A: Al Gore, Mr. Internet.
Are the Republican's necessarily better? No. But lying partisanship is sickening.
The House passed DMCA via voice vote. You can't sort out who to blame.
The Senate passed it by unanimous consent. There you can just blame everybody.
In either case, committed members who loved freedom from either party could have at least forced people to identify that they were passing this travesty.
DB
Theoretically, you could post an entire novel by doing just that, and gathering enough users. Where do you draw the line?
make world, not war
Seems to me that this has no bearing on the WinZip recommendations. They are not a "technology, product, service, device, componenet, or part thereof". Merely an explanation for the use of a product.
(Winzip itself also would not be affected by the quote, because it is not "primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title")
And besides, if telling someone how to break the law/circumvent someone else's rules was illegal, 2600 would have dissapeared a long time ago! Knowledge is not a crime! Acting on such knowledge _may_ be a crime.
('Course, it's a lot easier for Microsoft to find people with knowledge on Slashdot than to find one's who have actually broken the law.)
-Slackerboy
Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
Nice thinking. :-)
But if they didn't "see" us post it, wouldn't it be hearsay? :-)
werd ;-)
P.S.
We ain't no Internet Service Provider
I bet one reason is the sheer amount of traffic. I don't know much about netnews/NNTP, but it seems that the insane amount of traffic would be a big issue. Also, how would you handle the hierarchy that /. already has- articles, polls, etc? You'd have to do some interesting things in the header or something along those lines. It seems to be a lost cause to me.
Ahh, but slashdot is a new source, and fair use does cover reporting.
:)
Also, it's the end users posting this stuff, Slashdot is acting only as a conduit for infromation flow. (where have I heard that argument before?
Snaggy, there IS such a thing as too much self-promotion.
--
This post made from 100% post-consumer recycled magnetic
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Don't give in to the unreasonable requests of a poor-quality-producing monopoly such as Mirco$oft.
BTW: I created the current Windows Kerberos icon for the folks at MIT some years ago, and I am extremely curious whether Microsoft is using it. Something to check into...
Between US and DMCA law, I choose US law.
Where is DMCA on the globe? It seems to be really close to Hitler and Naziville.
-- TigerSmile
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
I'd be glad to volunteer for this but feel that the UK would not be the best choice of location. Where exactly would be the best choice for "some country" be? Presumably somewhere with no copyright agreement with the US I guess. Any ideas?
Remember kids! Guns don't kill people - Americans kill people.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Full text of conduct code pasted below:
MSN Web Communities Code of Conduct Respect Others Keep it Legal Play Nice Don't Spam Take Responsibility Uphold the Code Protect your Privacy As part of Microsoft's commitment to making MSN a great place to meet and interact with others around the world, you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Your commitment to this Code of Conduct in all bulletin board services, chat areas, news groups, forums, communities, personal web pages, calendars, electronic mail postings and/or other message or communication facilities designed to enable you to communicate with the public at large or with a group (collectively, "Communication Services"), ensures a positive experience for all our users. Specific communities, chats, and discussion groups may also have additional guidelines which govern your use, so be sure to review them in addition to this Code of Conduct. Microsoft is not responsible for the content or activities in any user-created, non-Microsoft managed Communication Service. The Communication Services' Web sites are general purpose sites and are designed for use by individuals that are 13 years of age or older. All activity on MSN.COM (including the Communication Services) is also governed by the MSN.COM Terms of Use. To read the MSN.COM Terms of Use, please click here. Respect Others We encourage everyone to treat each other with mutual respect. Do not use the Communication Services to threaten, harass, stalk, or abuse others participating in any Communication Service. Refrain from all expressions of bigotry, racism, hatred, or profanity. Microsoft encourages our users to create their own chats and communities. The creators of these areas act as Hosts. Hosts may eject or ban a user from their area if a participant violates one of their guidelines or this Code of Conduct. By participating in a user-created area, you agree to be bound to the rules of that area. Managers and/or Hosts who manage the Communication Services may eject or ban users, as well as remove postings, that violate this Code of Conduct. Keep it Legal Microsoft does not allow any illegal activities. You cannot use the Communication Services to publish, post, distribute, or disseminate defamatory, infringing, obscene, or other unlawful material or information. Do not upload files or post messages that contain photos, software or other material protected by intellectual property laws, rights of privacy or publicity or any other applicable law unless you own or control the rights thereto or have received all necessary consents. Microsoft is not responsible for any use of anything you say or post. Do not post any materials (including software and other information) that could harm (or is designed to harm) other users' computers or would allow others to inappropriately access software or Web sites. Play Nice Microsoft does not tolerate disruptive activity online, such as persistent off-topic comments and postings or statements that incite others to violate this Code of Conduct or participate in illegal activities. Our participants want to chat and post on the Communication Services in a positive environment. Microsoft does not allow posting or use of computer programs that contain destructive features such as: viruses, worms, Trojan horses, or bots for the use of scrolling, showing multiple screens, and other activities that can be disruptive to online communication. Falsely impersonating a Microsoft employee, agent, manager, host, or any other person with the intent to mislead or cause harm to others is forbidden. While we have provided you with the ability to self-rate and categorize the user-created areas of the Communication Services, Microsoft reserves the right to change the rating or re-categorize all user-created areas. Don't Spam Please don't "spam" through the Communication Services; none of our users like it. To spam includes sending identical and irrelevant submissions to many different discussion groups, mailing lists or communities. Usually such postings have nothing to do with the particular topic of the group or are of no real interest to those on the mailing list. To spam also includes misrepresenting the source of anything you say or post. Spamming is a serious violation of online etiquette. Microsoft reserves the right to ban a user at any time, without notice, from any or all Communication Services for spamming. The Communication Services areas may be used to provide supplemental information regarding your own business (provided you do not use spam to provide this information); however, the Communication Services areas are not designed to be used as the primary mechanism for operating your business or providing core information about your business. Any use of the Communication Services for commercial purposes is solely at your own risk and Microsoft has no liability for such use. Any space provided to you in any Communication Service is for your own personal use. You may not sell, license, exchange or barter any space provided to you within any Communication Service for any purpose including, without limitation, selling, licensing, exchanging or bartering space for advertisements. Take Responsibility You are responsible and liable for all your activities while participating in the Communication Services. Remember, you are responsible for anything you say or post. Microsoft offers our users the ability to create their own Communication Services areas (e.g. chats, communities and personal web pages). Microsoft takes no responsibility for the ratings, content, nor any activities resulting from the content or otherwise, in these areas. The creators or hosts of these user-created areas are required to agree to and uphold this Code of Conduct before creating their Communication Service. The Communication Services areas are not designed as the primary places to store any materials; you are responsible for creating backups of materials you post to any Communication Service such as photos, documents and software. Microsoft is not responsible for loss of access to, or deletion or alteration of any materials included in any Communication Service. Microsoft reserves the right to remove at any time, without notice, any user-created Communication Service (or any particular posting) that violates this Code of Conduct. Some Communication Services may post Internet website links in their area. Please be advised that Microsoft is not responsible for the content on the websites associated with the links you may view. Some content and links on the Internet may contain adult content and may not be suitable for children. We encourage parents to join their children as they surf and explore the Internet. You are responsible for any actions you may take based on advice or information you receive online. Use your own good judgment when evaluating information provided through any Communication Service, remember that the information provided could be from people at any age and experience level. The decision to conduct transactions with anyone is your own and you should conduct your own research prior to making any decisions. Uphold the Code In helping to make the Communication Services a great place to meet and chat, you must do your part to uphold this Code of Conduct. Microsoft reserves the right to immediately terminate or suspend access to any Communication Service for violations of our Code of Conduct. Microsoft also reserves our right to amend or change the Code of Conduct at any time without notice. You agree to periodically review this document to ensure you are doing your part. Protect your Privacy We caution you against giving out personally identifiable information (such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, names and addresses, driver license numbers) to strangers online, which may be used for illegal or harmful purposes. Some personal information you provide to Microsoft may be stored outside of the country in which you reside. To read the MSN Privacy Statement please click here. Thanks for following this Code of Conduct and joining MSN Communication Services! August 1999
It's scary to see some things like this pop up every once in awhile. I personally like the fact that they are asking you to let "Anonymous Coward" know that he/she has posted comments violating the DMCA. I thought it was kind of funny anyway. Then again, I am tired and just got done with my last final for the year. I wish you luck in this, and whatever support I could give. This has got to be one of the worst communities they could have ever thought to pick on on this topic - I don't think they have any the can of worms they just opened :-)
Doesn't MSFT have more important things to do (like try to avoid being broken up into Baby Bills in a few months) than try to harass /.?
/. is responsible for the information posted in an unmoderated forum, then I'm sure this could be turned around on MSFT. How much copyrighted material do you think flows through their Hotmail and MSN servers? They could really have this thing crash down on them. Wouldn't then they be responsible for information passed along in their Instant Messenger? Or chat rooms on MSN? What about Netmeeting? Even all of MSFT's money couldn't pay out all those potential lawsuits. They'd not only have to shut those services down but wouldn't it force other providers of those services to shut down as well?
This is a very interesting situation. If
This is a very interesting situation and I'm a bit anxious to see what happens from here. Either way, this will be a pivotal point between the "freedom" of the Internet and corporate Greed.
By the way, I agree that MSFT should no longer be allowed to use the term "Kerberos" but should instead change it to something else (along with all the other changes they've made to it).
Nothing wrong with citing unless it's determined to be for the purpose of deliberately circumventing copyright law, but this MS document is considered a "trade secret" and you are expressly forbidden from distributing it at all.
No, you can't reproduce something without breaking copyright.
If you sneak a camcorder into a new movie, record it, and sell bootlegs videos of it on the street, whether you claim to own the material or not is irrelevant: you're still reproducing it illegally.
That is what you posted, look at the times!
Its not the times that matter, but the comment number. The comment number is 86 is both of the posts, the times differ depending on what time zone you have slashdot to show.
K]ÏMWý©±Îï$ [½5>VÎG Û 1 ر/M îåMA$ÚT
Man, just when I was starting to think that maybe M$ deserved just a little bit of a break, they go and do this. They are the Borg. How freakin' blinded by their corporate mantra would someone have to be to ask a forum like this to engage in blatant censorship. How repugnant!
/. will have to take, but I know M$ will never see another dime of my money, and I will evangelize the evils of that God forsaken company to all who will hear me.
For Gods sake, this is the Internet, in America.
Perhaps they really think this is just an extension of MSN, in MSAmerica (or MSCountry, marketing hasn't settled on a name for the shipping version yet).
This is just obscene!
Well good job M$, you just created another Anti-M$ zealot, and I will tattoo that on my freakin' forehead. Time to start deleting some FAT32 partitions.
I don't know what actions
Definitely, I say they start slashdot island. Then they can sell vacations there! Just make sure you're out of us waters...
WooHoo!
___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux
hyperpoem.net
As in Kerberos....
M$ extensions for Kerberos: embrace, extend, etc. Please note the Halloween Documents.....
Researching the issue, one finds a model wherein Micro$oft wishes to take Kerberos, embed in it proprietary extensions, and, via the Web (BTW, another Open Source invention) offer for download the "secret" specifications they've used to extend the technology. "Help us make this open technology closed......"
To the arguments that this is a trade secret, and, covered by such laws, I would suggest a careful consideration of how a corporation can take open technology, extend it with a proprietary implementation, and, thus own it.
To those who argue that trade secrets disseminated on the Internet can remain trade secrets, I offer: give me an example.
I would expect any secrets you wish to keep to yourself won't be found out here. >:)
Linux rocks!!! www.dedserius.com
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
Here you go from zdnet. Not entirely at odds with the free speech argument that seems to be prevailing in the /. responses.
Anyone else notice the prevalence of dissenters in the "free speech" argument that post AC?
At, least SlashDot allows them to. *sigh*
Linux rocks!!! www.dedserius.com
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
"I sincerely hope that Slash is doing, and has been doing, the right thing and simply not keeping any records of anonymous posters."
Well, what is the answer to this one? Do I need to read the FAQ?
How to Download YouTube Videos
This is toltaly nuts. No one's first amendment rights the the freedom of speech should be denide because of copy right law and here's why:
Copy right law comes from Article I, Section 8, Claus 8 which states:
[The Congress shall have power] to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
This gives congress the powers to set up copy right laws, but does not protect copy right laws or say that any copy rights laws are leagle.
The first amendment stats:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This meens that congress can't make laws that prohibit the freedom of speech.
One more thing, the ninth amendments states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Which meens that once people are given a certen right by the constitution it can never be taken away.
What does all this meen? It meens that the copy right law that was passed by congress cannot be construed to be sencership law.
Mai Too Sense
Truth to tell, even though IANAL (I did take a couple years of High School law, but that obviously doesn't count), or even an American, I don't think there is a precedent for this. Is (at law) /. a service provider, a "portal", or a genuine news service with one stupidly big reader feedback section?
/. :).
I would take the stance that everybody was well within their first amendment rights. However, you may still be forced to take off the comments that post the document verbatim - that does seem to be a copyright violation to me. You should be able to keep the links - there have been precedents there. You should also be able to keep the comments that tell people how to bypass the EULA - after all, opening the EXE in WinZip and extracting the file could be abstracted to allow Linux users to read the document.
Mind you, M$ has a trump - the patent on the concept that is
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
Andover and Slashdot are in an interesting position here , they can remove the offensive comments and all of the sudden be responsible for every comment EVER posted on slashdot and go out of buisness in a big hurry considering that the last time I looked commander taco has post close to 5000 articles , all of which have comments posted to them , so removing those comments is not an entirely good idea in my opinion, so what they will need to do to stay in business is figure out how they can keep the comments at whatever cost , because if they don't then you can bet they will lose this site forever and set a precedent that all content can be cencored and say good by to free speech
Jon
Rares Marian
rmarian@linuxstart.com
Waterbury, CT 06708
// This comment may published in its entirety as anyone wishes. Rights to edit reserved.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
The GPL does not.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
The observation you make is a point that the courts have recognized when applying to print media. The key phrase of what my observation is that the copyrighted material needs to pertain to the topic BEING discussed. If, as apparently the Free Republic site did, a piece of copyrighted material is posted and then people are asked to discuss it, the actual postage of the material was not used by the poster to add information to a prexisting debate.
When did /. become an ISP? Did I miss a meeting here or do I just not understand the DMCA? Can Microsoft actually ask this of /. if they are not deemed an ISP?
/. can comply. Otherwise MS can pound sand; especially when it comes to links to copyrighted/trademarked information.
/. and Andover had to comply.
/.
I agree that printing a copyrighted work is not a good idea, but shouldn't this be something for MS to take up with the individual users? I know that one of those users is an AC and that may have to be handled differently but I would suggest that MS take this up with the users. If the users fold and ask for their comments to be edited/removed then
If you were to comply with MS's request I would hope that you won't just remove the comments, but instead remove the offending text of the comments, or even a link or copy of the message from MS and an explanation of why
I am really disappointed with MS's short-sightedness in using a law like the DMCA when they have some large organizations that may get hit with similar 'requests' in no small part from the precendent they may set with
forge
As I understand the DMCA, Microsoft is fully justified in requesting the comments containing the specs be removed. However...
/. (as well as a large percentage of their readers) have made statements that indicate they believe current copyright law -- the DMCA in particular -- is wrong and should be revised. If they truly believe that, then they should not remove the posts and they should fight this to the bitter end. They certainly have my support if they do...
:-)
The editors of
One other thing... it's programs like Winzip & Winrar that allow people to circumvent the EULA... According to the DMCA, shouldn't Microsoft be suing them?
human://billy.j.mabray/
"Every good system has a backup." -- Dale Hanchey
Would Andover have any standing, I wonder, to represent the Open Source community, specifically the users of Kerberos? Would not a lawsuit against Microsoft alleging consumer fraud be called for here since they have a product they represent as being fully compatable with Kerberos but contains proprietary extensions? Or is it contrary to the license under which the Kerberos protocol is specified to attach proprietary extensions, and a lawsuit possible on those grounds? Would not the wise thing for MS to do under the circumstances of such a lawsuit be to drop any further procedings against /. and open up their extensions, in exchange for the lawsuits against them being dropped?
Do I have any idea what I'm talking about? Are these meaningful questions?
And the brethren went away edified.
Why can they even call it Kerberos in the first place? It's not Kerberos anymore, it's some wacky proprietary authentication since they hacked it all up.
Um cause it is?
It generally works ok with other kerberos servers, and the method of adding 'extensions' was within the kerberos spec.
Um, didn't picard like conceed to lily and the entire crew after that? :P
And wasn't that line attitude to be 'bad' and vengeful? ala ahab.
Because the GPL represents Free Speech
Um, how exactly?
Whether or not a court would order the television networks to erase their tapes, they would surely order the networks not to broadcast them.
This is, in effect, what /. are doing. It seems clear to me, regrettably, that Microsoft have a pretty clear case of copyright violation, at least as regards the posts of the original text. /. should, following their legal advice, remove those posts that violate the law most egregiously, but retain as many borderline posts as possible.
Yup. Much though I loathe Microsoft, it seems to me that they have a pretty clearcut case of copyright violation, at least as regards the postings of the original text. Arguments of ownership are irrelevant, as Slashdot are now knowingly distributing material in breach of copyright.
Slashdot should, following legal advice, remove those posts that violate the law most egregiously, but retain as many borderline posts as possible. At every step, Slashdot should be as obstructive as they can be and remain within the law.
This should not be seen as a loss to free speech, as Slashdot provides an open forum. There is nothing to stop people anomymously reposting the information. If the Microsoft legal department has each time to find the posts, and write to Slashdot, which then waits 48 hours to remove them, then this information will essentially remain in public view.
The great strength of the Internet is fundamentally not its lack of censorship, but in its sheer size and diversity. Once information escapes, it can be copied and permuted so far and so fast that there is really no chance of closing Pandora's Box.
XOX DOM
Can we call our local Senator to have the DMCA repealed?
CleverFox
I agree with you on one point; I would've liked to see a response from Taco or Hemos. However, the MS letter was addressed to Andover, probably because of the fact that it is the parent site to slashdot. So seeing a response from Robin isn't that strange.
-Jay Laney
"On my command, broadside from guns one through 3, FIRE!"
Pick any country in Europe. This DMCA is worthless.
Time for me to nibble on some crow. I hadn't realized when first reading this article that the data was available from MS's TechNet. Once I read an article on The Standard's site I saw that it was pretty easily obtainable document. It does seem like the inforation could be put to use by the Samba team for talking to Win2000, though.
Of course, the fact that it's not so secret makes one wonder why MS has their panties all in a bunch. I guess they believe in absolute enforcement.
-carl. We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
Folks need to start volunteering to mirror that info ASAP. While Andover.net has clout, the position they're in is legally tenuous given the insanity of the DMCA.
Would Freenet be a good place to put the disputed info? If the spec were distributed widely enough, the genie would be out of the bottle and MS would have nothing to gain from further legal action against Andover/Slashdot.
Information wants to be free.
-carl
. We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
If nothing else, the Internet has changed my views on the world and made my initial belief in truly free speech even stronger. Stick it out, they aren't really that big and they aren't really that scary.
Until the day Bill Gates gets a penguin tattooed on his ass, Make Mine Slashdot.
Lapsan
I think that zipping a file does not constitute a technological measure to effectively control acces to a work. The work is still there, it's just smaller.
Joost
I must say though that Microsoft seems a bit childish about it. These documents are quite easy to find elsewhere. And I don't see how they would seriously be harmed by this. Though they are probably in their right to ask this.
The problem here is, I think, that unlike patents, copyrights are not selectively enforceable. That is, I seem to recall that if a copyright holder does not notify violators of the copyright that they have, in fact, violated the copyright, then the copyright is no longer held.
-User
Emacs is for experts. Pico is for beginners. VI is a disease.
They should sue the posters. Any obligation /. has should be limited to giving the IP address and date of the poster.
/. is nothing more than a common carrier.
/. comments that make up his book. He has a defense of 'fair use' however...perhaps the people who feel offended they were taken advange of shoudl in turn use the same law and attempt to go after/reach a settlement with Mr. Katz.)
The posters broke the law, and
(obJonKatz Comment: The flip side of viewing the world this way means that Mr. Katz MAY HAVE violated some copywrite laws WRT the
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
MS said had a full copy:
MS said had a link:
MS said described methods of circumventing EULA:
Of the above posts, only #197 would be on shakey ground, in my opinion, as it is the only one to actually include any copyrighted material. A particularly disgusting suggestion on MS's part is the removal of post #86, which merely discusses the legality of the use of this information.
You will notice that MS is almost completely wrong about which posts actually contain the text of the copyrighted material.
I do not think that MS is in any way justified in describing information concerning the properties of MS's self extracting CAB files as an "attempt to bypass the EULA" - the information presented (using WinZIP) would be widely known to anyone in a position to make use of the information.
Since /. has a limit to post length, I'm unsure if even the contents of post #197 are in violation. If they are not complete, could they be considered an exerpt? In any case, /. is not responsible for that post - the AC in question is.
Slashdot should not remove any posts without being forced to by a judge. And even then, I'd want to find a way around it.
Disclaimer: any of the above may be false, IANAL, YMMV. Although I did check the listed post contents, /. has slowed to a crawl - which makes rechecking too much of a pain in the ass.
Pardon the rant, but I just gotta...
Breakup is not enough for them; Microsoft's punishment should be quite similar to that which was dumped upon Kevin Mitnick. They should be barred in engaging in any computer-related activity whatsoever for a period of years.
The EULA they refer to is part of their effort to embrace/extend/extinguish the open Kerberos standard, an activity that should not -- and must not -- be protected by any form of legislation.
If any legislation needs to be written to cover this sort of thing, the only thing that would be appropriate would be a law stating that only open protocols may be used on the public internet; anything else contributes to a lack of interoperability. If interoperability is compromised, that's akin to seizing a public venue for private profit...
By the way, when will MS be sued over the ILoveYou virus? The zillions of dollars of damage, after all, was due to their misdesign. It even slowed down the net and limited services for people who have taken the effort to avoid using MS products!
Okay, I think I'm done ranting. For now.
No, no. According to Microsoft, those should be -1 's :-)
Mickeysoft can't e-mail the original authors of the comments because they can't decode the anti-SPAMed e-mail addresses :) moc.mocten.xi@rab.oof is just way too complicated. And don't even think of p.u.t.t.i.n.g. p.e.r.i.o.d.s. i.n. y.o.u.r. e.m.a.i.l @.d.r.e.s.s. It just makes things unreadable. -Pete
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
The DOJ's case just got a bit stronger. Joe Klein should hear about this. This does relate to their monopoly case.
Since I am a Canadian citizen I don't think I am the appropriate person to submit this information to the Justice Departmant.
This action is clearly strong-arm tactics. Fight the power Slashdot.
I'm more-or-less playing devil's advocate here (I'm no fan of copyright laws or editing the past), but can this really be considered a call for censorship?
Microsoft is claiming that people have posted works copyrighted by them here. I haven't looked at the specific posts, but unless they are small excerpts (which might be fair use), Microsoft is quite within their rights to ask that the offending materials be removed.
If it becomes necessary to edit the archives, perhaps you could only removed copyrighted portion of the posts (replaced with [deleted at Microsoft's request] or something) rather than the entire post.
As for posts that merely link to copyright material... does the DMCA make that illegal??
Come to Europe. (Cut to a still shot of a beatiful sunset somewhere in Southern France.)
______________
______________
OTTERS RULE.
"by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, May 02, @03:37PM EST (#197)"
etc...
"forward our complaint to the owner of the referenced comments."
Wow... MS has reached a new level of stupidity.... not only do they release buggy software, but now they can't even understand the concept of anonymous posts... explains a lot...
fsck -t goldfish
hey everybody, lets get the hell out of this country and move to finland. We can always huddle around our linux boxen to keep warm!
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
Rob, Me and the rest of the geek community is standing behind you on this one. The moment is coming when companies (and the government) can censor speech simply because they find it undesirable, and somebody needs to take a stand.
http://chrismetcalf.net
Man, roblimo - I knew you had a scoop but I didn't dream of this. I'm incredibly angry. Microsoft are turning into Big Brother... and it's way past 1984. Wow. (ChrisUK/thoric)
How would this affect them? I mean they OWN the MSN website, and since they own the text how would posting it to another one of their sites affect them? How would this be hypocritical. If you said post it to ZD net, or something like that it would be more feasable
when does the boat leave? I wanna sign up
and I'm 100% certain that you'll front their legal fees, right?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
MS is of course going after their copyrighted content posted online. However, I expect that we acted exactly as they suspected we would.
The intent is to get rid of the SMB/Kerberos interoperability in Linux and other competing OSes. How to do it?
1. Ignore the spec on Kerberos.
2. When you take heat for this, release the spec using the tried-and-true EULA model. Since it's available "For Free" and in a source code form, it looks and smells to the general public like open souce. Only developers (slashdotters come to mind) will know the difference.
3. You wait until someone on Slashdot or like forum publishes your copyrighted spec against the license agreement; you predictably sue them when it is online.
4. Now, when someone does reverse-engineer the MS-hacked networking protocols, you've got a perfect place to point to where they gained the content- Slashdot - and can sue that it not be included in new distros of Linux, et al.
All of this ensures the nasty MS-OS monopoly continues without any recourse for the Open Source community. Freedom to innovate my ass.
-Ouija-
-Ouija- poke 53280,11:poke 53281,12
that's almost funny. slashdot is as much a forum for free speech as anything we have these days. i guess microsoft is all for closed source in everything, including speech. the fact that microsoft would try and dare to get people's comments (again, not owned by slashdot, owned by the poster) removed is laughable. they are not slashdot's to remove. if microsoft is pissed about what people are commenting, why don't they talk to the people themselves? and if they can't get in contact with them, well, oh no. they lost twelve dollars maybe out of their billions. give me a break, guys.
We shall fight in France. We shall fight on the seas and oceans. We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill, to the House of Commons on Dunkirk, 4 June 1940.
Mmmmmmm. Floor pie!
Lets see....
Microsoft, the "evil empire", is asking Slashdot, the "rebel alliance", to censor what its users write.
I bet this will get more posts than ANY other slashdot article in history.
Thank goodness the new servers are in.
I bet there will be close to 4000 posts.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
Legaly, a publication can be held fully responsible for what it publishes. The question is whether Slashdot is a publication, or simply a medium like your telephone._ ____________
_______________________________________________
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Is there any action that we can or should take?
_ ____________
If this is a political issue, should we write our congresspeople?
Should we send a message to the mainstream media, appropriatly phrased for lay audiences. (people may not understand tech, but they understand theft, legal wrangling, censorship etc.)
In short, while this problem does require an immediate solution, what can we do to help change the system. I know of one online group, the center for democracy and technology, which may be sympathetic and could be helpful, but I'm not sure just what we should ask them to do. My impression is that their user base is less technicaly astute than slashdots ( and less likely to be obsessed by grits, thank god ).
_______________________________________________
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
now this story is almost dead i would like to have my userid placed here to record my protest to microsofts action for all time.
Once precedence has been established, we could then request Microsoft to remove all Linux bashing comments from their sites.
someone in Redmond is reading Slashdot.
J.
P.S. I don't care about DMCA, if you erase
the comments, you somehow restrict access to
the "past" as it really happened (it has a certain
"revisionistic" sound to it, dont't you think).
This makes me mad beyond words...
if \. folds in to this one, what will be next?
What law will some other powerfull lobby get
voted? (and let's get real that's how these things
work!)
This must be THE line, the one we shouldn't fall
behind. Goddammit, if you break a law, and that
law is bad, are you evil 'cause you broke it?
(read this question carefully! I don't believe
in "the law is the law". If a law was voted to
gas all jews, would you be evil if you broke that
law?) The law is there in order to protect the
people, not to help some megalomaniac in control
of a giant firm get it his way.
P.P.S. F*CK THE M$-DRONE READING THIS!
I am very impressed with the calm response from Roblimo. I think that this story needs to be released to the world of microsoft users. Perhaps we can each find the email or real mail address of our elected officials and let them see this attempt at censorship. I am duly frightened by this microsoft letter and there is no way that I am going to bait them. BUT I think that all of these censorship letters should be kept on the net somewhere. I think it should be a regular feature. I have new respect for Roblimo.
Where the only monopoly we support has a Boardwalk and a Baltic Avenue.
Why not host your web site in another country that has more respect for free speech.
I bet you could find a country that would allow the comments to remain there. Ironicly that country probably doesnt have such a culture enshrining the peoples right free speech.
Or you could take the tact that Microsoft is trying to be nice about this- send a polite warning, before sending in the swarms of lawyers to make an example out of andover.net.
Although it is not the case currently, what if the messages, technically, could not be deleted. Say that /. used CD-ROMs for all archives and had a CD-ROM server to access them. In this case there would be no direct way to remove the posts. Of course coppy the CD, minus the offending material, could be done but that is roughly equivelant to a paper magazine recalling a issue.
Alternatively, what if the ./ code did not have delete functionality? Would the legistration require reprogramming (costing time and money) in order to comply?
I'm not suggesting these are ways to get around the problem I'm just considering the possibilities.
--Qythyx
I dont think the DMCA applies outside of the States, even though many laywers seem to think so....
Errm, konstant works for MS, but he's certainly not a propaganda machine at all. I certainly don't think who he works for has anything to do with reading /.
It depends on whether or not MS can prove that /. is respsonsible for what gets posted on this site. Sure it says "Comments are owned by the Poster" at the bottom, but MS are going to have some good lawyers on the case. It's certainly not cut and dried at all.
It's a simple exercise in logic. Slashdot is hosted in the US. The US now has the DMCA. People posted copyrighted material to Slashdot. Slashdot is not an ISP, just as Ebay, Yahoo and Napster are not ISPs. It logically follows that Slashdot is in violation of the DMCA as far as actual text copies of the M$ document go. Those articles should be censored. Links are not the responsibility of Slashdot, and M$ should take that up with the owner of the individual site. If they do not know who that is, there are legal channels for M$ to go through to gain that info. If it comes down to a subpoena to Slashdot to find out who that user is, then that is what it takes.
The plain, sad fact of the matter is that a couple of people thought they'd be smart asses and post the document, blatantly violating the copyright. To them, I say: Have fun in your lawsuit! One person, I apologize for not remembering who it is, said he was a law student, and that it is his belief that once that information hits the public domain, it is no longer a trade secret. To M$, I say: Shouldn't have posted it on the web if you _really_ wanted to keep it a trade secret! There's legal precedent set to back this up.
As for Slashdot censoring articles, no we do not have the explicit capability of removing comments that we post. That's why there's the Preview button. If you have something to say, say it. I do not know if it is true or not that we still own the comment once we post it to Slashdot, but if that's the case, then we have the right to email the maintainers of Slashdot, and request that a comment be removed.
"May the Code bless you and keep you until the day of your Compiling." ~Requiem
So, im my book, only the first set of posts should be checked on whether they transgress copyright law, the other two I'd leave as is.
Stefan.
Again: IANAL.
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
Would it have been illegal to post the contents of that document in its entirety, rather than just linking to it (as was the style at the time)?
How is it that the press can get away with reprinting such documents in their entirety, but AC's and /. posters can't? The Pentagon Papers (which were top secret), the Halloween memo, internal tobacco company documents, etc. are all examples of news organizations publishing restricted material. And the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NYT in the Pentagon Papers case.
Also, does this mean that as long as I put an installshield wrapper with a EULA around my documents, that I can start to exact DMCA revenge in these cases?
How about website materials? Would I be forbidden from posting an item from the Microsoft Knowledgebase[sic], because it says "copyright MSFT"? Or that's okay because it doesn't have a EULA around it?
Penguinista!
You will be un-assimilated. Resistance is just plain stupid.
It is my understanding that the comments are owned by the Posters, so it is not Slashdot's responsibility to remove or censor the posts.
I do not find The Hanged Man. Fear death by water. -TS. Eliot
I'm not sure what whoever moderated that comment down as flamebait was thinking, but it is a reasonably informative response to previous post and the other remarks are not without relevant insight.
(IANAL but pissed) What this sad mess points out is the regretable effects poorly written & designed laws have on those who are (deliberately or not) amoral. Microsoft, having been caught out in another of their typical shady deals to disrupt someone elses buisiness, is using the extremely flawed DMCA to bullyboy what is essentially a content-carrier (venerable /.) into removing content _that under other conditions might very well be free speech_. The DMCA allows for amoral corporations to strong-arm those institutions governed by the DMCA into dropping whatever content they object to. In fact, carriers of information are held liable if they do not bow to the slightest whim of the bullyboys in removing the information. Posting of information legally held by Microsoft is wrong (just because they are slime doesn't reduce their rights, unfortunately) but the person who should be held responsible are the posters. To make the information carrier or site provider (as /. is) responsible for what is posted by people in a free and open public forum is monstrous. To create the legal obligation to remove said content before a proper court hearing is simply wrong. Worse, it incites corporations to continue in their habitual practice of strong-arming those who cannot afford fancy lawyers, though hopefully /. has enough powerful geek backing to have the wisdom and the deep pockets to shrug M$ off.
In July O7, I got a mac pro. There's no punchline. Just endless joy and wonder.
Personally I think slashdot should fight this tooth and nail, however if they are to loose or be slapped with an injunction then I think some creative server configuration would force microsoft to drop the case. Im sure that Slashdot runs as a distributed app on at least one server farm right now. I bet that with a little creative configuration discussions of questionable nature could easily be hosted by countries that place more value on free speach or less value on copyrights. Then the DMCA would not apply and microsoft would be forced to sit & spin.
We have the best government that money can buy.
Well, of course we can't rpeoroduce copytighted works without permission. But nothing's wrong with linking to them
:)
We mustn't abuse free speech! It's a rightand a responsibility.
Actually, I'm kind of disturbed that Microsoft has lackeyes combing through our posts like this...
===
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
It seems to me that Microsoft is operating in an all-or-nothing manner with their authentification stuff. Doesn't their modified Kerberos only work in Win2k? It would seem to me that if that is the case they would appreciate people wanting to add Linux/BSD support for their modifed kerberos so that Win2k desktops could work on a network with Linux/BSD servers. Flexibility like that would sell more Win2k. The last thing they should want is people to go to another company because Win2k can't work with a non-Win2k server
Who's seen _The Insider_? Remember 60 Minutes's objection to taking on big tabaco? They thought that if Tabaco won the suit they were planning to bring against them for airing the anti-tabaco story, then 60 Minutes itself and the network it ran on would be so finantialy deprived that Big Tabaco could buy the station and the program out-right. Microsoft has this kind of power, and /. is the single biggest thorn in its side on the web.
/., but /.'s continued existence -- even with continued "minor" censorship such as is in evidence here -- will be a far greater blow to Microsoft and the unfair laws it hides behind in the long run.
They have likely been waiting for an oppurtunity like this and now they are baiting us. Stand up to them. You may even get your day in court and a chance to strike down the DMCA. BUT LISTEN TO YOUR COUNSEL AS WELL! Your lawyers may advise you that MS is on the right side of the law on this one (as f#@$ed up as that law is). In such a case, you may have to turn the cheek so as to have the ability to fight greater injustice in the future.
REMEMBER: censorship -- especially censorship initiated by Microsoft -- would be a blow to
--
Josh Emmons skia@skia.net
--
I think we have finally reach as far as we will bend, and it is time to start pushing back. The early attacks threatened a few individuals working on building an application to fully utilize a technology which they had been blocked before. Then came the very focused assault across international boundaries. Recent attacks have people beginning to question the methods to their madness, and the most recent assault on a public news builiten is where the buck stops.
For there is no difference between someone taking a printout of intellectual property and attaching it to a light pole, and posting the information electronically. One would not sue the power company for providing the pole in which someone attached sensitive information.
The conglomerate of Corporate America and their legions of money and fame hoarding attorneys has overstepped their grounds. The DMCA was authored over a four year period. In internet years, that is twenty years, or according to Abraham Lincoln, 1 score. The current legislative system and the campaign feeding lobbyists have put their pocketbooks in front of the betterment of technology and society. Instead of inovating, and challenging current methods, they chose to place damns and hope to restrain the flow of advancement long enough to fill their pockets until they were spilling out.
The advancement of technology has been the single most influential aspect of the growth of the global economy, the US economy, and the efficiency of society. Trying to limit expansion and the natural exponential growth of this industry hampers everyone in the economy, and in society. It is very appearent that these companies can not keep pace, so I say,"Get the hell out of the way."
Matthew R. Pavlovich
Free music from Jack Merlot.
I read the May 2nd posting and I am going to borrow an excerpt from it. In the refernced post Hemos includes this portion of the Licence:
"b. The Specification is confidential information and a trade secret of Microsoft. Therefore, you may not disclose the Specification to anyone else (except as specifically allowed below), and you must take reasonable security precautions, at least as great as the precautions you take to protect your own confidential information, to keep the Specification confidential. If you are an entity, you may disclose the Specification to your full-time employees on a need to know basis, provided that you have executed appropriate written agreements with your employees sufficient to enable you to comply with the terms of this Agreement"
I ask you readers: How many of you would take "at least as great as the precautions you take to protect your own confidential information"; by posting this confidential information on a web site that is accessable to the whole world. MS as an entity has distributed this file to people who are not their full time Employees!!
I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that MS should be going after MS!
Mark my words...The next world war will not be fought with bullets and bombs but with leagal briefs.
Hey what can I say i'm weird
I'm going to take a wild guess and say no. I believe that to "own" a copyright under US law, you have to be the one who issues that copyright notice. Even in cases where you sign a copyright over to another party (e.g. sign your copyright on a Emacs patch over to the FSF), it's a two-way transaction: you waive your copyright to another party who accepts it.
Were Microsoft to acknowledge and accept the role as copyright holder for all of your slashdot postings, then you might have some grounds to argue that they didn't enforce it.
43rd Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr
NUTS!
t
Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:
"by smartin on Tuesday, May 02, @02:20PM EST (#86)"
What? Read the smartin comment for yourself :
What happens to the people that implement it (ie. the Samba guys) even if they obtain the information without intentionally breaking the license. Are they exposing themselves to expensive litigation? Are they endangering the project?
Where does that "Contain A Copy of the Specification"?
Education is the silver bullet.
Making /. do censorship is not something they can demand, at least not on the non-anonymous comments.
I agree that /. should remove articles that contains copyrigthed material, and do it as soon as Microsoft can prove their claim that they are holding the copyright to the material. But trying to take the law (or constitution) in your own hand without a judge actually giving consent is bad, and can cost you more - unless you want a legal system solely run by big companies.
Destroy the virus by getting comic the insult triumph to poop on all the lawyers. A poop the likes of which our small minds can not fathom. This poop would be so big that the bacteria and other microrganisms living in the poop would devour all the lawyers.
I am into the copy and paste.
Slashdot never agreed to the EULA, whoever posted the code did(or maybe didn't at all, just extracted the files). Microsoft doesn't have a legal leg to stand on as far as I can see. They're just trying to strongarm slashdot, something they're suddenly not very good at anymore.
Thats just Jon Katz I guess. It may be copyrighted material but its fair use(this is an editorial site, Microsoft would be stupid to sue them over it and try to prove its not fair use, they'd probably lose). I think slashdot should leave em right where they are. Jon Katz used other people copyrighted work(according to the slashdot legal mumbojumbo) and could probably be sued over it. Of course nobody here is so tightassed to actually do that(at least i dont think they are)
Fair use, "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say. ", etc. Slashdot has legal stuff to say too, if Microsoft didn't bother to read it it's their own fault/problem/stupidity.
I just posted a rant about not removing posts but another thought occured to me. Slashdot should remember to only be a conduit. The moment they remove offensive posts they become liable for policing the rest of em(at least it would seem lately). Of course I'm not a lawyer but it would be a bad thing considering the "controversial" topics usually posted here. I'm getting really sick of all the companies hiding behind the DMCA and the day I turn 18 is the day I call my congressman and tell him how much i think it stinks. That is of course assuming it isn't overturned before then.
"I must say though that Microsoft seems a bit childish about it. These documents are quite easy to find elsewhere. And I don't see how they would seriously be harmed by this. Though they are probably in their right to ask this."
Well, their request is a legal one to make, and might actually be enforcable with the DMCA. However, they would be completely out of their moral, ethical, and constitutional rights to try to enforce this.
They are allowed to say anything they want to, no matter how unsupported it may be - by the same token, so are Slashdot posters. The government has no right to get involved on either side, yet.
"But many of those posts were blatant copyright infringement and MS has every right to want to have them taken down."
Legal right? Maybe, depending on what you think of the constitution. Moral right? Absolutely not. Any law that supports censorship *must* be repealed, or I live in a totalitarian USA already. Everyone must be free to speak, even hate speech, even cult preaching, even speech critical of certain companies.
Does this case not relate to a recently set precedent whereas ISP's are no longer accountable for their user's content on their site?
Being a user of many Microsoft products, I respect their feeling of discontent directed at anyone who would want to tread on their little monopoly. However, the right of Internet users to speak their minds in an intelegent and appropiate manner shall not be infringed under the law. To make Andover censor the posting put on Slashdot is not only insane but an obvious breach of the First Amendment.
The problem with your analysis is that Slashdot moderates comments, MSN does not. In effect, /. is controlling the content it carries. So it is not simply an ISP or carrier.
DAILY ROTATION
You can find software here , that will open you machine up to malicious VB scripts, randomly lose data through crashes and cops you alot of money... Please DON'T use this on your friends or ENEMIES, as it is highly illegal to do illegal stuff.
Made you look :)
Now that I have your attention:
If microsoft were just good slahdot readers, and posted good things sometimes (like, actually give something good back to the comunity), they would have had enough moderator privelidges to moderate all those articles into oblivion.
Why not add a moderator option : "millenium copyright act violation", only able to be overriden by slashdot internal staff.
Just a tought... a better option than : "Gee, I've got alot of money, let's get lawers and sue someone" (c) Microsoft.
:)
The reason I named the signing of the document was, because I think it would be good if corporations would sign such e-mail. Spoofing is easily done.
Use Adsense for Charity
You are a freak.
Since supposively the user owns their posts (as written in the fine print on the bottom of every page), add a function somewhere that would alow each user to remove his/her posts. That would clear /. of any responsibility, except for the anon posts, which /. would have to clear up.
Th
There's a big difference between removing posts people create, and preventing them from posting troll spam. I don't know of ANY post that's ever been removed once it's been submitted to slashdot.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
IMHO I would like to suggest that Slashdot not remove the actual copyright infringed text, but that they put a link to reach it that is a notice that it is copyrighted material and that Slashdot takes no legal responsibility for the information contained therein. Also in big black letters that the posts are owned by the poster.
I'm confused on one thing here.... How can M$ claim that they copyrighted this? isnt it nothing more than the use of the empty field in kerebos's header? thats definatly prior art..... no copyright == no legal ground
Hrm loving these
What is important here is that the Slahsdot community recognise that a precedent will be set by whatever action is taken, and that it will be difficult to go back on this precedent when similar situations arise in the future as they inevitably will. Consequently the response must be especially well considered. Here's what I think should be done:
A general policy statement from Andover/Slashdot should be authored and made available on the site, describing in lay terms how the DMCA applies to Slashdot posts, and what might infringe other individuals'/corporations' rights as copyright holders. This may include a statement detailing any objection to the law on the part of slashdot, but explain that nevertheless as a company, Andover must abide by the DMCA.
The copyrighted material should be removed from the servers and replaced with a post explaining why it has been removed. ie. under what section of the DMCA etc, and possibly linking to the general policy on such infringements at Slashdot.
A decision must be made as to whether links to sites that contain information that could not be posted on /. are allowed. I suspect that given the nature of the community, this will be supported on the grounds of freedom of speech.
"The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
An excellent idea. AC don't really have ownership anyway.
I'm wondering though... If you had complete control and ownership of your posts and then decide to give Microsoft the mooning, what's to stop the lawyers from going after /. anyway?
My guess is that /. will end up with the same defense that Napster has and we all know how their fight fares.
IANAL.
I happen to run a free-speech messageboard at http://www.rapedangel.net. If the allegations at hand were to stick, small sites like mine would be open to similar fate. I hope that you guys at andover/slashdot follow through on rebelling against any censorship campaign, especially Microsoft's.
hmm, the best was to test idealism is to test it.
Let's find out, anybody got a list of CC#s? (just curious, a simple yes or no will do....)
No, but I could by tommorw, seeing as how I work for a major un-named retail outlet that has a huge data base of card numbers, not to mention the number of people who just hand me their CC's every day.
not that I'd ever do anything with the numbers (including posting them on /. as a test).
1: You win. Sit and drink champagne, become famous. Your readership trebles overnight.
2: You lose. You get a fine. Oh dear. You get huge publicity, people buy into you for this publicity and your readership trebles overnight.
Come on, this is outrageous. It's an offence to the ideal of free speach, and not only that, it's an attempt by a commercial corporation to control the flow of information. Stand against it, or it won't be long before even usenet is censored. And that will be the death of the "Old" internet. We'll be left with the commercial websites and QVC style adverts. Whoopee. Do not let them take over our net. We built it, they want it. Tough. It's our community. They can come and sit in as long as they play by our rules, but they cannot jump up and down and demand to take it over. The internet is not for sale, we won't be run by a commercial organisation. /. of all groups should know this, and stand by it. If you fight, we'll ensure that you get more than your fair share of media coverage, I'm sure. Think of the headlines "MS in anti-free speech blunder", "Gates to censor what you read", "Big Bill is watching you". Do NOT let this go. /. is great as it is, and I'm sure you'll fight to keep it this way.
Full-copy text by AC. - kill
Full-copy text by named poster. My opinion is "kill" but a lawyer or ethicist may disagree.
Link by AC. Keep
Link by named poster. Keep
Instructions by AC. See discussion.
Instructions by named poster. See discussion.
There are three issues here. Copyright applies to the full-copy text. I have no real concern here on whether a medium must comply with after-the-fact removal on request. This does not establish a precedent for requireing media to censor themselves. The copyright belongs to MS. Posting all or a substantial portion beyond what's needed for critiquing violates that copyright. If we decide to let MS take it up with the original poster, then we need a mechanism where MS could compell slashdot to reveal True Names. I think that removal of the actual content of Microsoft's content is a reasonable request. It is a separate battle than the DMCA thing.
The links are simple reporting on an issue of public interest. I believe that first amendment issues could gut the DMCA if a court was asked to rule on this. Get Microsoft into court on a censorship issue at the same time as they are trying to buy a president who is running for office. Let the polls decide on THAT one! (grin)
The instructions to subvert are a different issue than the links. Again, I think it is a battle worth fighting, but it would be fought on different grounds. I don't know if it is as clearly a freedom of the press issue. I would like to see it fought in court, but it doesn't make as beautiful a political disaster as the links issue does. I would comply with removing the instructions, under protest, and only on request specifying each indifidual comment. This would separate the two battles. And I'm sure that there would be enough links to instructions to preserve the freedom while they fight the easy battle first.
If I'm not mistaken, there's something called "Good Faith" that says "Hey, we think this is wrong, and we're pretty sure we'd win in court. We want to give you the oppurtunity to make things right before we bring the courts into it."
Slashdot doesn't have to remove the comments right now, but if it does go to court, and Microsoft does succeed in getting a court order, Slashdot might be in a bit more trouble, especially if the judge determines that there was absolutely no doubt that the content was illegal.
I think Slashdot's best interest would be to censor the blatant illegal copy, and fight the links and EULA circumvents if it feels like doing so.
Microsoft is trying to stop copyright infringement, this is the first step. If this doesn't work THEN they go to the judge and get the court order.
In short: Microsoft's request holds no obligation for Slashdot, but Slashdot can put themselves at risk should it be found later that the content is illegal and Slashdot could have done something about it, especially when it was brought to their attention.
I ANAL, but I also like missionary.
I used to work for Microsoft and I'm not writing this because of that, I'm writing this because I believe what you wrote is completely irrational. I will only address one paragraph, I don't have time to analyze the entire thing.
1) Microsoft is not asking to have any posts that solely criticized Microsoft taken off. There are a great number of posts that criticize Microsoft, and some that can even be considered slanderous that Microsoft hasn't touched. In this case Microsoft is attempting to enforce a valid Copyright that it owns. The parts having to do with the DMCA are sketchy, but the post that copies verbatim the document (including the numerous "(c) 2000 Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Confidential" are definately in violation of Copyright laws. Regardless of if the document should be free, wants to be free, or whatever. Even if the spec is "wrong" because it breaks Kerberos (or whatever others are claiming), it is still Copyright. The National Enquirer holds a copyright on whatever they write, true or not. Microsoft is defending it's property, not it's image.
2) Gates is not a tyrant, plus many would say that his rise is over.
3) I would hardly call Slashdot "Critical Press." a) They aren't a newspaper or any other sort of newsmedia, they are more of a digest (although not even that since they link). b) Slashdot, unlike the standard news organizations, doesn't even pretend to be biased. You can't have good press if you are completely biased.
4) Microsoft nor Gates has ever killed anyone, even those that strongly oppose them.
As long as Slashdot continues to maintain an illegal copy of copyrighted mateerial on their servers they can be sued. Free Speech or otherwise (BTW, as far as the law is concerned (AFAIK), the government is the only entity not allowed to take away your right to Free Speech, individuals and corporations can do whatever they want. Slashdot is completely within it's rights to censor comments, ZD Net does in it's talk back as do many other online forums. Now, free speech as a matter of principle, that's different), those documents should not be on Slashdot and only Slashdot has the power to remove them, that makes Microsoft well within their rights to ask Slashdot to remove at least the duplicated document post.
Your post is nothing but Anti-Microsoft Propaganda, and completely unfounded as well. It's like if someone backed into my car in the parking, we got a brawl, and I took out a gun a shot him. If he were black (or any other minority) *BOOM* it's a hate crime or racially motivated. Regardless of the real reason (I'm a dearranged psycho-path with an itchy trigger, short temper, and misplace hostilities) it becomes racially motivated. You are taking a valid complaint (your site is mirroring copyrighted documents without our permission) and turning it into a suppression of speech. You are using this as a Call to Arms.
Read something other than Slashdot for a change, and no, I'm not impressed that you know Sir Winston "SuperTyke" Spencer Churchill's middle name. If you knew his mother's maiden name, that'd be dope (but no fair going to Encarta).
(The only reason I'm replying is because I don't have moderator points today and I can't -1 you down)
Take the posts in question, encrypt them using the ultra-leet propritary encryption algorithm (that's ULPEA, a.k.a. ROT-13) and put a little note above each one saying, "Warning: If you were to decrypt this and read it your eyes would catch on fire and burn in the socekts which would also cause your eyebrows and possibly the hair on your head to catch on fire, after which you would be left with this smouldering mass of charred flesh where your head was previously. All because of MS. But don't stop buying their software." Yup, that'd be cool. Oh, and exploding CRT bombs too. I AM THE DIGI BOMBER!
This is extremly interesting. All i can see in that post are some basic instructions for opening an archive file in Windows. Someone want to explain why that post violates the DMCA in anyway? Does this also mean that if i write this:
How to kill a person with a gun
Load the ammunition into the chamber. Ensure the safty catch is off. Point gun at victim. Pull triger.
I can be considered as a criminal (Possibly for insighting violence?) If i remember US law (I'm from the UK), arn't things such as the above actually protected by the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expresion (I.E documents such as the Anarcists Handbook?) Why did this crazy law ever manage to get passed?
Syllable : It's an Operating System
O.K, i accept the criticism of all four (At the time of posting) comments above. All are quiet correct when they say that i cannot and should not have posted on behalf of all Slasdot readers. In hind sight, a better opening phrase to my original post would have been:
:) Sorry if i upset anyone with my rather general statement.
I'm 100% certain that when i say this, i am saying it for most of Slashdot's readers:
I am still 100% certain however. If i were only 99% certain of my post, i would not have posted it
Syllable : It's an Operating System
But they can have the posts removed from Usenet once they find their way to a UK server...or i'm i thinking of another type of censorship? I'm confused...
Syllable : It's an Operating System
As if removing the postings here would keep that info. from going public...or being transimitted through hotmail mail servers.
Come on M$...get a clue!!
Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas
[May God give you double that which you wish for me]
Nevermind the fact that M$s request smacks of censorship (and /. did censor the messages quoted in the email) The logical conclusion of this is that tomorrow I can publish my 'For Loop Specification, Version 1.0' and threaten to sue anyone who implements it and possibly win under the DMCA.
But for loops have been here long before my spec. so I can't do that. So why does M$ think it can take Kerberos, shift a byte and copyright it?!?! The mind boggles.
If they have a legal leg to stand on, God have mercy on America because it's the beginning of the end.
I also have serious doubts about the legality of their 'license' barring implementation of the spec. but I can't quite put my finger on it. Anyone else have that feeling too?
Can minors be held to click through licenses. If a minor downloaded a file and decided to ignore the click through and spreads a trade secret around what is the result?
Microsoft could still give people a hard time for forwarding around the copyrighted material, but I don't think that the license restrictions would be valid because Microsoft should not have entered into a contract with the minor. I asked someone who was studying for the bar exam and he wasn't sure if there were any laws that made software licenses different from any other contract.
My two cents : remove the copyrighted material from the posts. But make *them* say which posts are infringing (they apparently have done this in their EMAIL to you). This minimizes the work that SLASHDOT maintainers need to do.
Well, we're up to 1200 comments... and moving on up to 5th place in the slashdot hall of fame. Only 822 comments left to go to pass up The Star Fraction... cmon gang, keep the Hot Gritz and Natalie Portman posts coming!
Circumvention itself is not illegal until next year. Currently, only offering circumvention
devices to the public is deemed illegal by the
DMCA.
Also you're right that the legality of DeCSS
has not yet been decided; the court date is not
until December. Importantly, there is
a preliminary injunction barring only a small
number from posting it (maybe just 2600.com now),
not any old site.
http://cryptome.org/
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/
are good sites to keep up on this case
Oh, and I liked the mention of Microsoft-owned message boards, but I get the impression they would have no problem censoring anything they dont like.
I doubt that posting as an AC waives your responsibilities. It's a healthy avenue for whistleblowing or disagreeing with the Slashdot continuum or anything else that might bring reprisals.
It is not, however, a license to break the law. Slashdot should remove AC posts of an illegal nature if they are truely 'anonymous'. Obviously, they cannot go looking for the stuff, but when it is brought to their attention, they really have to comply as there is no poster to point the finger at.
--
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
what dicks. Sounds like the mentality of a 5 year old. "it's my toy you can't play with it"
Best of luck kicking M$'s ass Slashdot. They've taken one step too far. It's time to fight back.
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
This is not quite true. You do not agree to the GPL by merely looking at the code or even modifying it. However, if you do not agree, you are still bound by the laws of regular copyright, which are stricter than the GPL's rules.
I can see it now: Roblimo is on the stand...
M$ Law-talking-guy: So you can't pull the posts because the comments are owned by the posters, right?
Roblimo a-quivering: Yes.
M$LTG: But what about the book?
RLAQ: Book?
M$LTG: The one where you used posters comments without their permission, doesn't that mean that you really think that the posts are owned by you?
RLAQ: DAMN YOU KATZ, YOU'VE SUNK US!
A) mv $topic /dev/null /dev/null /dev/null /lawyer /non-us
B) mv @bad_posts
C) mv @code_posts
D) mv $slashdot{$}
E) mv $slashdot{server}
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
With regards to this entire issue:
1 Must Microsoft prove that they did not control this entire scenario simply to bring about the legal position they desired (i.e. they just used a zip.exe and then posted the comment on how to circumnavigate it)?
2 Does the 48 hour removal time apply as the email is erroneous (the article #86 mention perjures them by their own affirmation!)? I realise that the email probably is worthless anyway, but I am also assuming that the paper copy is on its way or has arrived!
Finally, if Andover removes anything other than the verbatim code quotes in the referenced documents I think it is time for slashdot to leave both the US and Andover!
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
I think MS doesn't have a leg to stand on with regards to the latter two issues they raise. I don't think, and I believe it has been backed up by court case(s) (I trust fellow /.ers will advise me if I'm wrong or right), that linking is not illegal. Similiarly, telling someone how to do something is generally not illegal either. Search long enough and you'll find specifications on how to make bombs, tap phones, etc. Things such as these are illegal when done but not when discussed.
The only thing I believe MS has a legit gripe with is the posting of the copyrighted work. I realize how unpopular this is going to make me around here, but what is the difference between this and if I posted the complete text to Tom Clancy's The Hunt for Red October? Each is a copyrighted work, and just because this is an open discussion forum doesn't give me the right to reproduce the work as a whole so that anyone may get it.
Hell, down at the bottom of the page there is the copyright notice for Andover.net. What do you think they would do if I started a website called Slashdotdot.org in which I did nothing but reproduce all of Slashdot picture for picture and word for word? Do you think Andover would just let that go?
mr.nobody
--Don't you wanna go where nobody knows your name?
+++
+++
NO CARRIER
Even if you were forced by order of court to remove the orignal posts, we, as loyal slashdot readers and free speech defenders would no doubt make it our sacred duty to post exact copies of that comment to every available forum at our disposal (Usenet, IRC, New Slashdot articles, any and every place where can post it).
What Microsoft doesn't get, is that this sort of censorship never works. Look what happened with DeCSS. Websites are forced to remove it, and suddenly it starts popping up everywhere. Microsoft can only hurt themselves with their request.
Mmmh, I don't think it a good idea just acting as someone else does, specially if it's Microsoft we are talking about, I mean, what if they did remove it (which is very likely, by the way)?
This signature intentionally left blank
I consider this to be poop rolling down hill, and Microsoft is looking for someone to shove around because they're having a bad month. Tough. The posters own their posts, they have freedom of speech, and they have exercised that freedom. Slashdot can be considered a news organization (News For Nerds), and we have freedom of Press built into the Bill of Rights, and Slashdot has exercised their right. Anyone who's upset about it needs to get a life.
I mean, frankly, we demand that food companies post their 'source' right on the label, and I have seen every year Andy Rooney comment on the scary or dumb contents listed on labels. That's an editorial. is Frito-Lay going to go after him for reading their contents on the air?
pfffttt, bunch of namby-pamby whiners in Redmond....
What is up with Microsoft, i mean the internet is all about free speech and they can't ban what people talk about. That is censorship, and what is up with that. Although Microsoft want's censorship over the internet. It ain't going to happen as they have no right to pry into other people conversations! Who do they think they are?
what's that textart sig supposed to be?
a pokemon creature sitting by a lamp with a rabbit by it's feet?
4467518648335004 09/02
4467550488980488 09/00
4467984846249876 08/02
4467958993481151 02/01
6011878132364224 01/02
6011878177845686 01/02
6011985664619515 12/00
6011899745189448 07/00
374159875421551 01/03
375642178655564 12/02
This text inserted to bypass Slash's new lameness filter. This text inserted to bypass Slash's new lameness filter. This text inserted to bypass Slash's new lameness filter.
J
We are not breaking copyright because we are not trying to claim that their material is ours or anything close to that. The readers were engaged in a discussion of said material and any related issues that it raises. If discussing the legalities, morality and our own opinions of a copyrighted material is illegal, then Microsoft truly does run this country. Rick Terrill
It seems to me that reader comments are a little out of bounds. What's next, unlicensed thought?
--- "1.21 Jigawatts!" -Doc
Surely a company with such a bad name in the press right now isnt out trying to make things worse?
SiKO http://stephenm.doherty.net 'echo fgrcuraz\@qburegl.arg | rot13'
I hate both of you! Screw you!
Any law is based on the basic idea that, we are all responsible for our actions. That is why the law can hold people account abel for things they do . In affect this means that we all have a choice either to support the law or break it. In some cases we come to the point were we can no longer accept the law and feel the need to break it for moral, political or religious reasons. Democracy is was built by people who refused to accept the system they lived in, and they broke the law.
This is why we must accept that some people break the law
Obviously having people braking the law is something that is bad for society and that is why democracy is such a great thing. Because freedom of speech, touts and religion gives people less reason to break the law to change society. germans who opposed the nazis broke the law but what they did was right. The judges that sent them to consternation camps are accountable for their actions. No one can say that they just followed the current laws and are there are not liable. every one accountable.
I understand if slashdot doesn't what to get in to a legal battle with MS but don't ever think that what you have done is wrong just becouse the current laws may happen to think so.
Me in john cage mode
That was my first thought also. But then I got to thinking: How many large corporations would love for slashdot to die? If we boycot slashdot then we loose our voice and they win.
I would be seething with anger if slashdot removed the posts without a court order, however if that's what they have to do to stay in buisness then I am all for it.
By the time any comments can be removed from slashdot they'll be mirrored all over the place. So long as linking to it isn't illegal we'll still be able to click through to the information. And so long as reporting isn't illegal we'll be able to see the URL where we can get at the information. So long as we have google and deja we'll be able to search for archives of the information.
Fight it. We have to fight it. But if we loose, slashdot has to take it down. Slashdot must survive at all costs. We'll still have our copies, and we'll still have it in our head and they cannot take that.
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
Internal Microsoft Memo:
From: Bill Gates
To: Legal Dept
Date: May 10, 2000
We need to clean up our image if we want to create a public outcry against breaking up The Empire. Start by silencing our greatest detractors. Our top priority should be www.slashdot.org. Once they go down those Linux bastards will be disorganized and unable to communicate.
Matthew Miller,
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Better yet, why don't they spend time hunting down all the bugs in their software and looking for original ideas.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." ~Confucius~
   (if (= n 0)
        total
        (fact_i
(define (fact n)
   (fact_it n 1))
But that's just me. I haven't done any lisp in so long :). It makes me feel...free
And for those of you C/C++/perl people who look at this and think it is *still* defined recursively, well let me just say that lisp is a true tail recursive language. That is to say if a function returns the value of a recursive function call (without doing anything to that value) then it will take up no more stack space than a function call that was not recursive. In fact the function definition above is not actually recursive (technically speaking) since it does not do those things. I suggest you read The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (and hopefully you will become enlightened).
Phear my l33t homepage.
A friend of mine pointed out that the US Supreme Court ruled that ISPs are NOT responsible for the actions of their subscribers, but the subscribers themselves are. J. K. Weston's mail even began "Dear Internet Service Provider:," and while refering to Andover.net, is /. an ISP, or a product? The position is arguable, but I don't believe it would hold in court. While "unauthorized reproduction of Microsoft's copyrighted work" may hold legally, it's not the responsibility of /., but that of the poster. Even if you argue that /. is responsible, there are only four real posts that are even questionably violating copyright law on the site itself.
Nevertheless, this type of legal bullsh.t and gross abuse of the DMCA is sickening. While the DMCA is, conceptually, a good idea, the habitual abuse of it outweighs the potential benefits.
Help the Nerds stop abuse of the DMCA. http://nerds.yi.org/
-------
-------
"don't smoke, don't drink, don't fuck
at least i can fucking think"
Minor Threat
I would like to point out that being automatically reduced to -1 karma isn't censorship seeing as the message is not deleted and you can still click on it to read it even if you don't browse at -1.
Just a little rant I've had for a while.
Project Steve
What I mean is that if I took text from someones post, included it in an e-mail to a friend, am I not breaching the copyright of that person?
Should M$ have sought the permission to do so before sending the e-mail and what rights do the posters have in sueing M$ for breach of their copyright?
'Your playing with the big boys now', Prince of Egypt, Dreamworks (c)?
c0rarc
This kind of action from Microsoft, while understandable and even expected, completely puzzles me. And yet, when I look at the company's defense in its anti-trust trial, the one common thread is an arrogance bordering on a complete disconnect from reality.
/. community should be well known, if only be reputation. Who knows, perhaps The Company has been looking for a reason to slash out at /. for quite some time. They certainly seem to have been doing a lot of clutching at straws lately.
/. article, shaking my head at Microsoft's "perversion" of a perfectly good open standard, and moving on. Reading J. K. Weston's email, and already feeling affronted at his referring to /. as "Internet Service Provider" (what's wrong with Dear Andover.net or Dear slashdot?), I can't help but feel that the whole issue is speading a la deCSS. Something that I had read, and forgotten about, is now foremost in my mind again.
/. for your stand. Don't pull the postings. I for one am enjoying watching the wounded giant fall over, kicking and thrashing as it goes down. Actions like this only accelerate its utter fall.
I keep asking myself, what do they want to accomplish by this, and can they really be so stupid?
I'm sure that slashdot, while actively read in Redmond, has few friends there. Still, the somewhat volatile and reactive
One can probably safely assume that Microsoft's goal is to limit the spread of its "Specification". This is understandable, and certainly their right. But I can't help but think that if limiting its spread is what The Company wanted, the best strategy would have been to simply do nothing. Remain quiet. Pick battles wisely, if at all.
I remember reading the
Threatening in a oh-so subtle manner with the DMCA act is right up their with other MS legalese brilliance (the forged court-presented video footage of a "crippled" non-IE demonstration comes to mind).
I won't make comments on the legality of MS's attempts here. I keep telling myself that surely The Company can't be so utterly clueless... there *has* to be some ulterior motive behind "stirring up a hornet's nest". The bubble of invincibility that The Company thought it held about itself has burst in such a dramatic manner that surely even J. K Weston's office must have at least felt some of its spray.
Anyone interested in getting the "Specification" (sadly flawed and stereotypical as it is) can easily get it from The Company's site (at least that's my understanding). Does it really matter at all whether the "Specification" is now "out there"? What possible good (for MS) can come from making it an issue now, in this manner, and with this community? More importantly, what impact at all does having the "Specification" out there have on The Company anyway?
I'm sitting here typing and shaking my head. I almost pity them their sad posturing... MS reminds me increasingly more of a panicked, albeit still powerful, child that simply can't understand the world would be a much better place without another brat.
Bravo
But too bad. Under fair use, IMHO, it is legal. No one agreed to the license agreement before posting it. You didn't secure it well enough, it was available to be extracted by a demo program without agreeing to any license agreements.
And any comments I made I refuse to have censored, removed, edited or changed. They are copyright ME (C) 2000. They are also subject to the laws of the country I was in when I posted them, which has no form of DCMA, thank God! And sending me a note as to your objections will only be good for a laugh! Sendto: Anon_Coward@hotmail.com. Ha!!
Sorry MS, but your options are limited. Andover and Slashdot didn't post those comments, it was us, and we refuse to be silenced!
As for Cmdr Taco et al, someone has to take a stand! Someone has to fight DMCA. There must be a test case! Why not this one! All the rules were followed, IMHO. Slashdot did nothing wrong, but they are being made scapegoats anyhow. Didn't some court somewhere already absolve ISP's from the content of their users??
You guys know the community is behind you, in any way you need us, right!?!
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
So what if 10 individual users collectively post the whole thing by "citing" only 1/10 of the document each? :)
-- jaf
"By email: jkweston@microsoft.com" Scary.. I'm afraid to think what his inbox will look like tomorrow morning. I think I'll add this to my outlook contacts, so the next time I get a virus like 'ILOVEYOU' Mr. Weston can see just how much Microsoft's security model works.
So, in a nutshell:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.
means nothing?
Or am I missing something?
http://crummysocks.com
So what I want to know is, am I protected under the freedom of the press (as a "journalist|reporter") by virtue of posting my commentary on /.?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
The guy below your post is better.
Munky_v2
"Warning: You are logged into reality as root..."
Jay
I agree. Posting the whole or significant part of a Microsoft-copyrighted work would be illegal, DCMA or no. It's like posting the text of that Stephen King digital short story without permission.
However, comments about Microsoft, the specification (including illustrative segments), or where it can be found would all fall under fair use and be protected by free speech.
~chris
Read the full text my book Perl for the Web
but what does this mean to others? are we forced - even if we're not part of the contract - to enforce this contract between the user and microsoft by removing comments violating this agreement? this enforcements means adminstrative work/effort/tasks to us (first reading mail, verifing that the comment is actually violating some contract in this universe and removing it, if so). we don't get pay a cent for this work. we're not qualified to judge, if this is a violating. and even if we were lawyers, it'd hurt my ethnical feelings to be the judge for censorship.
i recommend to refuse microsoft's request.
In light of M$ offer to remove the IE icon from the desktop as their punishment for violating Federal Anti-trust laws, perhaps /. should offer to remove the "Bill Borg" image from their banners as compensation for any alleged violations.
The whole point is that it is not censorship when something infringing a copyright is rectified. It was not just "speech critical of certain companies." Some of those posts were actual copyright infringements. Some weren't. The ones that were need to be taken down. It's not censorhip. The other ones need to be left. This is not a censorhip issue people!
It's not at all unusual for large corporate complexes to have streets named after them. Can we please stop trying to bash microsoft about every little thing and stick to the real issues?
Oh my god, I read this part of the thread "and having a link, to a link, to a site outside of this country is illegal" and I thought, we're turning into communists, WHAT next? killing cyber criminals like the Chinese did? I think the internet, while having some of it BASED in this country, should NOT be governed by the U.S government, imagine, one day waking up in 1984? Think about this, and think about Martin Luther King Jr's quote "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice anywhere" Free speech is an unalienable right of EVERY United States citizen, this in turn covers a freedom of NOT being censored? What is more inportant, a billion dollar corporation, or the Constitution which made all of this possible? Our rights are being infringed upon, and LEGALLY at that matter, the DMCA is a shining example of something like this. Can I sue Microsoft if I copyrighted this comment and they posted it on their site without my permission? PROBABLY, another thought, did they ask the posters of the comments they quoted in their e-mail to have their work used (in essence) against them? I think that if Microsoft is such a "compilation of brilliant minds creating exciting innovations" that they would not attempt to STIFLE innovation
"This is the value of a summer spent and a winter earned"
-coyo
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
-Man cannot survive except through his mind. --Ayn Rand
Fuckin' A, man. This is bullshit.
I am not a bleeding heart crunchy birkie wearer.
But this gates/aol/music/movie bullshit has gone far enough.
I am tired of being bullied.
I am tired of being considered part of a blind, amorphous consuming mass.
Fight them.
Fight them every step of the way.
"The line must be drawn here!"
---a fictional starship captain.
"Nuts!"
--Gen. Anthony McAuliffe's response to German demand for American surrender at Bastogne.
Ein Volk
Ein Fuhrer
Ein Reich
--- A. Hitler
Greatest Hits 1933-1945
Ubermensch Records
One operating system
One net
One Microsoft way
--- W. Gates, S. Ballmer
How To Bully The Planet Without Even Trying
Microsoft Intergalactic Media Overtrust, A.D. 2000
And again, no. The only reason to remove those comments is if the owner of those comments wants them removed, or by some kind of government action. And, although, IANAL, even the entire text of those comments is PERFECTLY LEGAL because they are NOT COPYRIGHTED, they are TRADE SECRETS which if I have a copy of them and have not formally agreed not to disburse them, I can make a bajillion copies and tack them to every tree on the continent. Trade Secrets are only as secret as any agreement which has been reached, and if I simply unzip the silly proprietary microsoft information without agreeing not to distribute more copies of their trade secret, I am under absolutely ZERO obligation to keep their trade secret confidential. ZERO. If they let me have their trade secret, I can give it to WHOMEVER I want. It is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to protect their secretive information from falling into the wrong hands.
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
Again, the only people that win this argument are the lawyers.
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
I do not know much about laws and lawyers... but.. M$ is actally asking /. to read ALL the comments posted and filter them. And If /. say no, they probably sue you saying that YOU are responsible of the contents of the posts. It makes sense. But. The twist that I DO NOT LIKE (and hate) is that M$ ask us to agree (installing any product of them) that any problem we have we are on ourselves. Making the long story short... They can sue you for something the dont like, but we can't sue them if I do not like something of them (like is just a word, something worse could happen)
"what goes up, must go down". Ask any system administrator
last time i saw Picard, he and Bill were getting along well.
Slashdot should not be directly involved in the censorship, but the microsoft people should just sign up with Slashdot and moderate.
If Slashdot is directly involved in censorship then Slashdot will be liable/responsible for the stuff it censors or doesn't censor. You do NOT want to go that way, go the Telco, Dejanews way.
As long as you refuse the power, you can argue you do not have the responsibility.
Maybe as concession Slashdot should have a moderation type like "Censored by Microsoft", or just plain "Censored".
e.g. instead of +5 Funny, -1 Offtopic etc. You could have -3 Censored.
And then let the moderators do their jobs.
Cheerio,
Link.
I think any posts which contain actual source should be removed, as they are breaking the law (and to anyone who says make a stand and keep them up, it's a nice idea, but none of us would be paying for SlahDot's legal fees :))
Any postings which don't actually contain source should be left up though, IMHO, as they don't contain any information which is protected in any way. Even people who have suggested ways of avoiding agreeing to the licence (as I was planning on doing, until I saw someone had suggested the same thing) should be left up, as (I assume) they don't break the law either.
Andy.
--
--
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... Oh, no. It's just an eyelash.
I suggest that everyone reading this who is a U.S. citizen and objects to the massive abuses which the DMCA has allowed write to their legislators and demand that this oppressive law be repealed.
After you do that, go get involved with the Freenet Project. One of the first things that project needs is for someone to get it away from Java. The protocol hasn't been fully implemented and still has some holes, I think, so that needs some help too. Then it needs a better interface. (They don't have much of one right now because it's still prealpha.)
If we all make Freenet really secure and implement it, this will really be a thorn in the side of the intellectual gestapo. If you're able to code on it, do so. If you aren't, comment (intelligently) in the fora. Set up nodes. Write user interfaces. Look over the protocol and see if you have any suggestions. If even a fraction of the coders on Slashdot worked on this, we could have an implementation up very quickly, either as Freenet or as a separate project.
The censors of information can go find other jobs.
No, I was not the one who posted it to Cypherpunks.
-Elendale (Thinks the one post of the whole specs was a bit overboard tho)
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
-Elendale (And during the DOJ trial too!)
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
The letter didn't look sworn or written to me. I'd ignore it (and talk to the lawyers in preparation for when they do send the written and sworn under penalty of perjury copy). Then you gotta remove, and hope that the users that aren't in the wrong have the balls to appeal. Of course, if it _is_ clearly illegal content, you should remove it immediately for moral as well as legal reasons.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
I'd say that you should email back claiming that those messages are an integral piece of Slashdot and to remove them would mean a great deal of work.
MS has the same right to ask for their copyrighted work to be removed as Douglas Adams would if someone posted the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy on Slashdot.
kwsNI
The "lawyers and extortion" post makes a really good argument! . . . where are my moderator points when I need 'em?
I have no
It's sort of like Microsoft playing the schoolyard bully and picking a fight with the Linux community...
Or maybe like a stool pigeon crying to the teacher?
No, more like a mobster.
Eh...
What would the New York Times do if someone had taken out a full page ad with the spec and it went unnoticed by their reviewers into the national paper distribution?
.. On second thought maybe just making MS lose money on their free offerings is a good protest technique...
Would the NY times be forced to destroy all their archived hard copies? Would libraries that keep the hard copies of the newspaper available until they get their microfilm copies be forced to rip out that page with what ever content may have been on the flip side?
Slashdot should think "what would the NYTimes do?" and follow accordingly.
My childish dream: All Slashdot readers sign up for one free month of MSN and post the full text on our web accounts there. See how they deal with their own customers... After a month they have lost money on tens of thousands of free 30 day accounts and the customer service calls when we find our websites deleted.
--Aaron Greenberg
Ooops. Ddin't think of that. Although by telling people where they could find the posts with instructions on how to circumvent the EULA, Microsoft has breached the DMCA, and should therefore sue themselves. (I came to a similar argument in UK Libel law as well, whereby if you could sue a remote ISP for libel, then you should also be able to sue your own ISP, because it is part of the delevery system, and therefore you could sue yourself, as another part of the delvivery system.
Yeah. Its not like slashdot ever comaplains about Microsoft.
Orginize a mass mooning in the direction of Redmond, WA on July 4th.
--
Star Trek vs Star Wars.
--
Star Trek vs Star Wars. Take a look. You may like it.
What you should do is: Leave all posts; excpet for the ones that have the full copyrighted. Move these to some serve far off in the middle of nowhere, and have a link in place off the post. Also, you should develope a way for users to remove their posts. One other thing you need to add to /. is the each days "user freindly" comic as one of the boxes off to the side. -------------------------------------------------
Yes, but Microsoft is doing it with what is suppose to be an open standard by leveraging copyright & 'trade secret' law to its own embraced & extended version. MS has no patent.
It is really disgraceful the way Microsoft parades around doing stuff like this while its anti-trust trial is underway.
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
Well, slashdot has to defend itself. If it loses and complies, I'll just have to stop reading it.
This may sound harsh, but that's one of the things I respect slashdot for, nothing's ever been censored, that I know of.
---
script-fu: hash bang slash bin bash
[ approaching AI ]
You really should quit comparing MS to Nazi's. Sure Hitler was evil, but he was no Bill Gates.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
EULA: Employees (and there families) of Microsoft and its subsidiaries, are forbidden to read this comment.
If you agree with this continue reading.
If you do NOT agree, STOP reading NOW!
This will be enforced to the fullest extent provided in the DCMA!
OK, I've been decreasing my MS products for a while, but I always had some of their products for my game machine. I also program for the MS environment.
I will no longer purchase anything by MS for any reasons.
When I get home I am going to format MY MS disk, I have Linux on one disk, not sure what I'll replace MS disk with, but I'm sure I can find something.
As soon as my daughter is born (July), I will find a programming job that doesn't involve me having to use MS products.
Enough is Enough.
Slashdot can contact me at anytime they have a problem arise from anything I post. I give no permission to Microsoft to contact me.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I wonder If i can write an interface to dialpad, to dial (425)703-0001 then increment the number by one and dial again?
better yet, I wonder if we ALL could do that..muahahaha.
I wonder if they can trace dialpad if you hook up to it with dsl? perhaps I should use my masq to change my IP. hehe
When legal recourse will no longer hold up our freedom, it's time to fight.
For those who don't know dialpad allows you to make free longdistant phonecalls via the internet. They where talking a while back of allowing international users, but I don't know if they have finished writing it yet.
So here's to MS and the horse they stole to ride in on. --!--
better post ac.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Of course, you realize that if Slashdot complies, we should be expecting an email from Natalie Portman any day requesting that Slashdot remove all those "hot grits" articles.
Segfault
segfault@bellatlantic.net
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
Let's not pretend this is a 1st Amendment issue. Unless I'm mistaken, Slashdot isn't a government entity and is not bound by the Constitution to protect free speech in this forum. The fact that it does is admirable.
Mambo dogface in the banana patch
Why not fight M$ with their own methods?..
I propose that from now on (using a click-through agreement of course) slashdot readers/posters must agree not to persecute slashdot in any court american or non american and that no material posted on slashdot is allowed to be used in any legal way to fight slashdot, it's owners, it's readers, it's posters, their friends, pets and whatever.
It's partly a joke, but so is M$'s EULA. So please give it a thought...
Thank you.
//Frisco
--
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." -Goethe
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
I am Henrik Teigen and Web Designer. When I hear this I will stop using Windows in Norway.
My SiteI've never experimented with this (I've only had moderation points once), but I am willing to bet that if I moderate a post, log out completely, turn off browser cookies, and come back in without filling out the login information, the servers will not know who I am. If I never had a login, the servers sure don't know who I am, or if I use a different Netscape profile the servers won't know who I am. The only way the servers really have a chance of knowing who I am is if I check the "post anonymously" box. I really don't know if they know me then (I've never read the slash code), but there are alot of other ways to post AC.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Sharp pin + balloon = 'Pop!'
This is going to be modded Redundant, and fair enough, but...
Please don't say it on behalf of this Slashdot reader. Microsoft's letter appears to be a single threat based on several issues. I entirely endorse the comments above about linking being fair use. I furthermore endorse the comments about use of properly referenced snippets being fair use (My degree was in Librarianship [yes, i know...] so I do have some grasp of fair use issues).
But regardless of DMCA, copying large uncredited chunks or the complete body of a copyrighted work is a breach of long-established copyright laws recognised both by the US government and many others. As someone said, it's exactly like posting the whole of that Stephen King e-book.
Basically, don't present yourself as a spokesperson for others without their consent.
TomV
It'd be nice to see M$ go open sourcing without any legal junk - but they're being such babies over something that has been open-sourced for a very long time (and I'm a student at MIT!). Me
The Microsoft site that provides the specification states that, "Microsoft invites third party review and validation of this implementation...". Note that they do not invite implementation of the specification. The EULA states that the specification is provided "...for the sole purpose of allowing review of the Specification for security analysis...". Note that this again excluded implementation.
I believe that in order for Microsoft to be able to meet 17 USC 512(j)(2)(B), they will have to state, in court and on the record, that the harm that they are subject to from the publication of the specification is the implementation by others of this "industry standard" that can interoperate with Microsoft's implementation. By preventing interoperation with their operating system, Microsoft encourages a monopoly position in the operating system arena, and thus increases their revenue.
Unfortunately, the DMCA has a "reverse engineering" provision for interoperability, not a "end user license agreement circumvention" provision. By publishing the Specification in the manner in which they did, Microsoft will now be able to claim that anybody who reverse engineered the Specification actually read it, instead. Therefore, anybody who actually does reverse engineer it will be in for quite a court fight. By this method, I belive that Microsoft hopes to make the DMCA reverse engineering protection worthless.
We assemble at Slashdot. What we discuss should not be limited by the constraints of what Andover can publish. Move the content of the discussions to Freenet and its kin. Slashdot becomes a portal to the distributed net gaining the protection of freedom of speech while maintaining a common gathering location. Write the code to intelligently connect Slashdot to Freenet and others will follow.
May I suggest you sell slashdot and slashdot comments copyrights to Microsoft? Better selling them than removing them.
Slashdot doesn't own comment copyright; see the fine print at the bottom of this page you are reading. OK, maybe you were just trolling.
As to what should be done, it's about time /. establishes formal guidelines on dealing with copyrighted stuff posted here, and makes these known to all readers, whatever they be. The site is growing by the hour, getting more and more exposure and becoming easier to spot and attack.
Now, Roblimo, "forgetting" to remove Mr. Weston e-mail address would have been a nice touch...
Interesting how MS translated "News for nerds, stuff that matters" into their asseptic lingo: "topical issues of interest."
I stand by the quote. It takes courage and character to stand up to Microsoft, and you need loyal friends supporting you.
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
No right is secure if there is no one willing to risk exposure to defend it. No right has ever been retained in the face of a threat without a champion.
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Tell that guy to piss off. Who the hell is Microsoft to talk about copyright infringements? Somebody crack MS and steal their Win32 API source and we'll show them REAL copyright enfringements. We the users of Slashdot can say whatever the hell we want about whoever the hell we want. This is America. We have the right to say any product sucks if it does suck. FUCK YOU MICROSOFT!
Heh. It comes to me as a surprise that Microsoft cares about PR.They clearly do not. You would think that they believe the trial the DOJ has brought against them is a big PR nightmare, where they'd be losing customers left right and center, and that in order to avoid this, they would be scrambling to fix what they've been accused of doing wrong. You know, kind of like what IBM did when they were put under pressure from the DOJ for pretty much the same thing in the early 80's.
The problem is that we already know that about 60% of their customers hate them and would prefer never to do business with them again, if they had the choice. Microsoft knows this, and only sees the next two years or so of litigation by the DOJ as a ripe opportunity to rape their customers and "business partners" several more times, mocking the law as the gears of justice grind slowly to a decision against an industry where two years is longer than some of the most successful businesses are alive.
---
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
This has not been the case in the US for many years. Only trademarks work that way now.
Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
They think the MPAA is right because of the judgement in California, funny thing is that I am on the other side of the Atlantic.....
And I plan to fight this till my last breath. (Or until they disconnect me....)
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Are there special excemptions to DMCA to press organizations? Doesn't "news for nerds stuff that matters" qualify /. as a news organization? Traditionally, courts have upheld that the first ammendment is sacred, but that the freedom of the press is the Holy of Holies, and even if DMCA was lame enough to violate the freedom of speech of individuals, the idea that it would trample over the freedom of a press organization is unimaginable.
Embrace and extend... Always the same thing from M$. Sounds like the tobacco vs. CBS scenario where the media organization has to make a choice b/c as some one said in the movie, "The Insider", (I'm paraphrasing here..) "The more truth he tells on TV, the more liable we are and we could be sued for billions!". How can Microsoft own a DESCRIPTION of a standard they do not own? Doesn't make sense. M$ just wants to prove they own Kerberos b/c they couldn't come up with their own login/authentication system. Like they ever created anything. Keep up the good job slashdot. BTW, the guy from Samba who actually kicked off this whole fiasco is a political genius in my book.
Why doesn't the next slashdot poll deal with this issue, rather than having the andover folks wade through 1000's of posts on the topic?
this sounds a bit to much like big brother sticking his nose where it should not be. Unless Microsoft is going to start funding open source projects, then they should not try to stop us and our opinions, because that is what they are, opinions, something that MUST NOT be cencored. If Microsoft feels threatened by us, then they should make a better product, something that wont crash ever 2 and a half hours. Also, if microsoft continues to plauge us with its needless banter, we should take action, not in a violent way, (YES, IN A VERY VIOLENT WAY, HACKERS CRACKERS, WHITE AND BLACK HAT's!! THIS IS YOUR CALL TO BATTLE), but in a civilized way, through court or just an overall boycott of MS products and servers. Okeee, my 2 sence, C yea, seth
Beer.
Is it just me, or was it not a trade secret that was publicly posted on /. ?
/. responsible, since at the same instance the person posted it, the trade secret ceased to exist, and therefore MS has no claims to remove it. Or possibly, they could have that copy removed, but any copies made from that one would/should be considered public knowledge and thus out of their reach.
If it was, I do believe MS can kiss that trade secret goodbye, since once exposed, it enjoys no special protections from the law, and is considered public knowledge (afaik).
However, the person who posted it is most likely responsible for copyright infringement, and can be sued.
Still, that does not hold
Do correct me if I'm wrong... these days it seems like a coder needs to be a lawyer in order to be able to write anything!
the public license under which keberos is published should strictly keep all proprietary extensions to the software out of the reach of the digital millenium act. we need to incorporate the digital millineum act into all free licenses!
On a related note, perhaps people will copyright their submission to /. if they don't want to be compiled into a book.
While your response to Microsoft was excellent -- restrained, balanced and firm -- I hope that Slashdot/Andover/VAlinux fights this tooth and nail. The pendulum of IP rights has swung too far in favor of corporate interests, and its time to start pushing back!
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2000 Andover.Net
/. logs and take the poster themselves to court. It wouldn't be impossible to track them down, but it wouldn't be worth the effort. Even then, if the poster covered themselves with "this is just information, us it to break any law and it's your ass not mine" statement they might be ok. MS is being stupid. This would lead to even more bad PR if they took /. to court.
Since this is at the bottom of the page aren't they not responsible for pretty much anything said in this forum? I don't know much about the law, but I would think that about the worst they could do would be to get the IP of the posters from
Anyone who utilizes an API that has been published under these conditions is in danger of having to defend themselves against an accusation of breach of contract, and having to prove that they did not see the poisoned API document.
Um, I was under the impression that, at least in the US, that we are innocent until proven guilty? So wouldn't Microsoft have to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that we did indeed see the specs?
Actually, a poll is what should be done, but for once, one without CowboyNeal as an option.
I'd suggest:
A. Remove ALL posts in question
B. Remove only posts that contain the actual document, not just links to it.
C. Do nothing at all
NO CARRIER
Oooo... Slashdot gets closed down, linux flownders... all thouse people who used to think linux was l33t find real unixes, and the world runs faster with greater stability. Ok, perhaps with out support for Bobs graphics card pro, but its for the better. :)
True true.
That's well over half the readers of Slashdot. Rob used to post statistics on this. Who knows why he doesn't anymore.
Hilarious! It's so typical of the attitude on Slashdot: I volunteer your life to the Cause! And I will cheer from far away, sacraficing nothing!
Slashdot rules. Micro$oft can suck it.
Why delete anything, it has already been posted. If it was incorrect, print a retraction. That's how print media would work-- print media would never do a recall on an issue for a 'bad' article in an editorial.
---
Actually slashdot.org is meerly mirroring content. You need to go after the original poster of the alleged 'trade secret.' The original poster posted the 'trade secret' to the Internet as a whole (which if this person had the right to do would immediately invalidate the 'trade secret' as you just can't have a secret with everyone, that's just plain silly), and had no EULA that I saw (as it was a pdf file in a compression wrapper). The original poster's parent company is currently having a severe problem with the government over monopolistic practices. Perhaps you should contact the feds and have them go after this multi-billion dollar company (www.microsoft.com).
---
or rather, tell them to go back to hell.
---
With the rumors of M$ doing a DDOS attack on slashdot, maybe we can hire NetPD to use their 5000 chimpanzees software to find the culprit?
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
And don't get me started on the way the #%$^$%#$ gov't of Texas does things, with criminal charges raised by private groups who fund their witnesses with bribes, ahem, fees... $#%#@... And don't provide access to consul... I won't be caught dead (by lethal injection) within 50 miles of that state, as a foreign nat'l...
____________
He who fights and runs away,
Without a doubt, the actions that the posters undertook was illegal. They were reciting to an audience things that they had, under the terms of the law, agreed not to relay. The only people whose case I'd plead were those a) publishing instructions (no-one said you weren't allowed to work out how to try to circumvent the EULA delivery system, if only as an intellectual exercise), or b) publishing links. (The worst these people are is grasses, whom the authorities love, or slanderers, whom the authorities love even more if their defaming communists!). But here's the rub: b) includes SlashDot. Slashdot is a public forum. It is right under the law to punish crimes. It is wrong to supress what someone said in the course of public discourse. That is censorship. This is an issue of censorship.
Of course, the difficulty, in the case of Slashdot, is that, normally, a certain amount of responsibilty goes to the speaker: their voice, as it were, is recognisable. (In turn, the state is, generally, prevented from instituting a reign of terror by various safeguards). But SlashDot guarantees total anonymity. The state, the Powers That Be, have a hard time with this concept. In the past, free speech has been allowed, but crimes using the voice punished. In a way, it is the almost parableistic nature of this which protected free speech: you stand up, and you are speaking on your own account, and will here you. Your sincerity alone (that you will risk arrest if you do do something unpleasant, like fascism, in your speech) is your talisman. Now, for the first time ever, society is really coming to terms with total free speech, abstracted from the people themselves, and on a large enough scale that a bucket of whitewash will not only fail to solve the problem, but make a lot of people very tetchy.
In short then, society is committing an act of cowardice here. The Powers That Be are hoping that this can be quickly and quietly settled by a few spins of the stators and a current to an electromagnet. In reality, they should be deciding what to do about SlashDot as a whole; what to do about this freespeech freed of personal cross-identification with life and work; what to do about the prospect of being unable to punish criminals. This is not an issue of whether someone should be able to walk out of his house and hand out pirate copies of Dune to everyone he meets; that was and is being settled elsewhere. It is a matter of whether society will continue to accept the principle of SlashDot and freespeech, now it is nearly platonically realised, and how we shall decide to go about curbing those who seek to use it to commit crimes. I personally would simply punish the electronic persona, and find ways of catching the actual person(ae) in the real world be conventional methods. But to pretend it is merely a matter of appropriate redress to Microsoft is pure cowardice and a sham, sacrificing the idea of the public forum to the gods of political expediance. Perhaps, in the end, we shall decide to end the kind of forum we see in Slashdot, and, to a far, far lesser extent, in certain immunities. But we must decide, not acquiesce to a corporate legal fiat.
__________
He who fights and runs away,
+5, Microsoft©(TM)® Bash
What's the matter? Your server can't keep up with all the hits you're getting? Posting some Katz is a sure-fire way to reduce the number of hits you get, but isn't that a little drastic?
I think /. should remove the text of the comments that have the explicit code and replace that text with a note why. Comments about unzipping the file and such should not be left alone. I'm not legally astute but from reading comments and such it would seem that the actual license would qualify for entrapment...its a setup to try and get someone to incriminate themselves. Being a dog lover I have the following thoughts: 1) If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch 2) Show them that your bite is worse than your bark
Microsoft wants to freedom to innovate. This latest tactic is hardly innovative.
They are using the cover of DMCA to keep people from disseminating information about their proprietary extensions to an open standard. Distributing the specs in a way that prohibits other software developers from actually using them is insulting to say the least. And I am willing to bet that the portions of the DMCA that make end-running the EULA illegal will not stand the test of judicial review for very long.
I've seen some really nice commercials on TV lately that show a happy, relaxed Bill Gates or a happy, relaxed Steve Ballmer telling me how Microsoft is going to continue to try and bring valuable software to me.
Given the way the company behaves, wouldn't it have been more honest and straightforward for them to say that they are going to try and find ways for Microsoft and NOBODY ELSE to bring valuable software to me? Extending a protocol so that only Microsoft OSes can use it is an attempt to break other software.
If you want our support and respect, Microsoft, concentrate on building really good software. Write lots of books that disseminate your software engineering acumen. Give us tools that we can use the way we want to, and we'll sing your praises. Continue using heavy-handed tactics to stifle competition and we'll keep turning our backs.
I'm sorry, but that statement was just out and out ignorant. They are still the top dogs, whether you like it or not. I love linux, but I hate linux snobs.
This whole situation is pissing me off, but the open source community should not get up in arms over this. The posts should be removed, and the matter should be resolved. Fight "the man" through other channels.
OK, I'll try not to get too serious here. Let's do some thing about this. I am working on a political Web site that focuses on Internet issues, such as DMCA. We need to be efficacious in the political process. If government, at all levels, continues to attempt to come up with stupid laws and regs that will allow Microsoft to exert themselves as a hegemon, we need to organize and quickly communicate with lawmakers as to what they are to do. The site that I am working on will allow people to act quickly and decisively in directing public policy on important issues. If we don't do something, Lessig's warnings will come true, as evidenced by this crazy response by MS. What's next, Congress will be regulating the MIME types your browser can recognize? Legalize Napster! c0wp13
Time to move to another country where the protection of the individual is just as important as the protection of giant companies. Unfortunately we're running out of those. The EU is trying it's best (VW got their asses seriously kicked for ripping off UK and German consumers recently), but it's hard to turn down those bri.....er....campaign contributions.
Microsoft's End User License Agreement states "...you must take reasonable security precautions, at least as great as the precautions you take to protect your own confidential information..." Isnt this how the open source community protects its trade secrets, by relseasing them for all to see? Can't the execs at microsoft read the Art of War and learn to be flexable and think like the enemy. They would be so much more successful.
-Grant
|grant.henninger.name|
'Redmond, Washington'
for Penguin Computing."Good evening, Mr.Gates,","I'll be your server today"
How the hell did Slashdot get such appropriate advertising - especially where the penguin squashes down on the Redmond campus. :)
Richy C.
--
The documentation is included in full in a post by 'bill' on MSN. check out the hypocrisy here.
So its OK to post the kerberos specs on MSN?
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
Slashdot cannot allow itself to eliminate open analysis, page references, or discussion about widely available material (or even not-so-widely available material). One can download something from Microsoft's site, do some research, and make comments. There's nothing wrong with that, even if the research indicates how to circumvent committing to an EULA.
Microsoft pressures it's own business partners--what would happen if it is successful at doing so to the anti-Microsoft's of the world?
First off, I believe this is a direct quote from Slashdot:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.
Put bluntly for Microsoft:
1. Slashdot is not responsible for what people post.
2. Responsibility of posts is not Slashdot's.
Therefore, I believe it would be in Microsoft's best intrest to go cry about it. I realize I haven't really put much intellegence into what I have said, but then again, neither has Microsoft. Thank you for my time.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Does the DMCA make it illegal for me to quote a document as part of a term paper, thesis or other academic paper? I would hope not. These posts were properly quoted (in that all it should be obvious to all readers that the quoted material is owned by Microsoft). When I quote Toni Morrison in a paper I do not expect her or her attornies to contact me to remove the quote from a paper, even if I post it to an online archive that I do not have 'moderator rights' to. As for the remainder of the posts, which contain links to the full content of the license, Microsoft has no right to ask that these be removed. This would be akin to prosecuting a person who gave a bank robber directions to the bank.
"Fifth, Slashdot needs to move offshore."
Both excellent points. I think the trade secret no longer being secret would be an excellent ground to stand on in defense of this. Also I hafta say, THANK YOU MICRO$OFT for submitting such a convenient reference for all these posts! Let's git to work archiving these offshore, eh kidz?
Microsoft, along with the rest of the idiots trying to keep their fingernail grip on an outmoded worldview, needs to be SHOWN that all their efforts to censor the internet are ultimately futile.
Props also to the GeekCulture.com kidz on that fabulous Slashdot Gladiators bit!
"Dear Internet Service Provider:"
Under what definition does Andover qualify as an ISP? Aren't they more of a content provider? I'm curious about why MS chose this salutation. It seems to imply some status for Andover that makes the DMCA invokation legit, but is Andover really an ISP under some definition in the DMCA?
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
You know what, I'm not gonna stop telling people where to get the .pdf, I'm not gonna stop telling people how to open it without agreeing to the user license, I'll tell every one in the office, I tell everyone at school you know why ....... Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. And i did not studder when I said that...... they call me cowboy, I'm the singer in black throw you finger in the air, let me see where your at......
AK
Copyrighted? It's not copyrighted, no matter how much they want you to think so. Do you even know what it is? Hey its Kerberos, it's supposed to be an open specification! And since this document is supposed to prove they didnt alter it in any way... yeah.
Even if you look at it from their side, they label it a "trade secret". Afaik, you can't copyright a trade secret, and they have little legal protection.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
This is goning to be huge :)
I guess they're (MS) just flexing their muscles to see if slashdot will just roll over. (Of course this is not going to happen.) But their case can have no weight (possibly apart from those posters who submitted the actual information).
Telling people that it's just a zip file isn't a trade secret.
wrighty.
"Desire, ambition, faith - without these life is simple."
Microsoft can't be as stupid as they seem to be...so what's the real deal? If it's an attempt to confuse people, they're suceeding. They have Washington D.C.'s Mayor Marion Barry's level of arrogance -- something that is not easy to pull off and wins no wars.
Nothing they've done has completely passed the sniff test...and the abuse of Kerbos seems too bold and reckless. Why mangle it to make it propriatory, when the standard isn't thiers?
They must think they can change the "standard" regaurdless of what others do, and then it becomes thier own. It's just thievery, and amazing that they feel entitled to call thier mangling a "Trade Secret". Please!
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
When they can make a profit by them.
On a more interesting note, this finally makes sense to why they 'released' the source in such a funky and strange way.
They have offered to 'release their source code' in return for not getting broken up.
They're looking for a way to release their source code, without actually releasing their source code. This actually needs to be brought to the attention of the Judge (Jackson, or am I misremembering) in the MS vs DoJ case, as evidence of intent to act in bad faith.
This was planned. Stupid, but planned.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
The only way to lose a copyright is for it to expire - i.e. life plus 70 years
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Trade Secrets are only protected as long as they don't become public knowledge, and the corporation and associated affiliates must take 'proper precautions' that they don't get out.
So if I break into 'The MS Vault', steal their source code, and publish it on /., I've broken the law. If Bill forgets that I've not signed an NDA, sends it to me, and I publish it on /., A- I haven't broken the law, and B- It loses Trade Secret protection. Nor am I at fault if Bill leaves it on a park bench, and I pick it up and read it - even if I know it's a trade secret. If I haven't signed a NDA, and it reaches me without my committing corporate espionage, I'm not at fault.
By claiming it as a Trade Secret, and then publically publishing it without adequate protection, any reasonable court would say that they've lost all protection.
So why would they do this? So they can set a precedent. They want to be able to publish 'source code' publically, without it's actually being useful to anyone. Makes being forced to open their software by Judge Jackson *much* less painful, if no-one can actually use it.
I'd like to see Slashdot and Andover fight this on the principle of it, but there is a good, practical reason for them to fight this as well.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
OK, it goes something like this:
.sig .sig
1. Embattled by the DOJ, GNU/Linux, etc. M$ is being pushed to open their source and APIs for all the world to see.
2. M$ dusts off the ol' embrace and extend trick to add a proprietary extension to an open specification.
3. Open source advocates go, predicably, nuts.
4. M$ publishes said extension in such a way that it appears to be open and useful, but really isn't.
5. Open source type folks grab up copies of spec documentation and attempt to discuss it in an open forum. In the process parts of the proprietary spec get published.
6. M$ cries foul and attempts to get the genie back into the bottle.
7. Open sourcers balk.
8. DOJ asks M$ to open source code and / or APIs as part of remedy in anti-trust case.
9. M$ says "Are you nuts, we tried that once... look what happened!!"
Hmmm..
Joe Wells
the no
the no
So this is what it's coming to... Things like this shouldn't happen. Microsoft shouldn't have been able to fiddle with the Kerberos protocol to begin with, So now Slashdot's in a bind.... if they don't bow down to Microsoft, they're gonna end up with a lawsuit, that may just put an end to Slashdot.
So where does the problem lie? In Slashdot users for posting the copyrighted information? For Slashdot for allowing the information to be posted? The laws that allow Microsft to publicly post a trade secret? Mirsoft for coming up and getting away with that legal slight-of-hand?
I"m eighteen... just finished my freshman year of college... and i'm wondering what kind of world i'm going to live in when i graduate... and what can i do now to make it not suck.
When a corporation has enough power to influence people (MSNBC...), government, and now even Slashdot.
I guess i've writen a bunch of words without much meaning... what i want to say is, that this is wrong... it's not supposed to be this way... and we should do something about it... today. Just what that something is, i don't know.
//radiotakeover.
You know, these days never cease to amaze me. When will they learn that Freedom and Truth are to be embraced?
"The way NT mounts filesystems is something I'd expect to find in a barnyard or on a stock-breeding farm." -Mike Andrews
Interesting point. If you believe /. is allowed to keep the Micros~1 posts available then you logically must also conclude that they have done nothing wrong in republishing the Hellmouth posts w/out asking permission.
Similarly, if you are one of those crying foul over the Hellmouth book then you must support Micros~1 in their fight to have their copyrighted material removed from /.'s servers.
If Microsoft were really out to protect itself, it would ask Slashdot remove all comments and links regarding Linux. :)
If this is another point on informing how to overcome technology's limitations, then I have an opinion that could be relevant. I am not good enough to understand the technical details or bothered to going into legal arguments. The point is that msft doesn't want users to understand the 'mystique' of technology. Why? No idea. Money is the ultimate answer however. So, give b-gates what he wants - break into systems and show how weak stupid msft technology is. No logical and reasonable user wants to pay for stupid technology. Do they care if users are protected? No. Having billions cannot justify stealing - sad but true. And the truth hurts.
Do you think this could get them mad at me: (Bill Gates SSN) William H. Gates III 539-60-5125
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
Desire is not an occupation.
Need we remind Microsoft that they have made some of the biggest infringements on other people's software. Lets see where did windows come from?? How about their writing code into Outlook to block e-cards from certian vendors. I'm sure there are a whole hellva lot more infringements that I am not aware of or can't think of right now. They really should think before they speak.
Ok, this looks like it is a part of the new MS only good news stragety. The main problem I see is that Slashdot is not an ISP. This page would have never been found by M$ lawyers if they would have kept it "slashdot.org" Neil
It's too late for MicroSoft to stop it. If they pull one link to the PDF down 20 more will spring up. It's like what happened with IRCNews.com and the GeorgeK mirrors. Once it gets out in the open they can't squash it.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
I can't open the link to the old story. Is it just me, or did Slashdot just Slashdot itself?
Corporate America has learned something they have more money than anyone else to sue with. Microsoft dose not expect to have to sue /. The expect you to shit you pants and do what ever it takes to stay out of court. If you do what they want they will be back. I say the best solution is to go somewhere else to host the service. Get out of the US and its LAWS and its court system. If I remember right Linux was almost sued by Bell Labs the then owners of UNIX but it got no where in the court system in Finland here they would have probably won in the US. I know the staff at /. May not like moving to a different country but it may find it a much better solution to fighting big corporations in the land of big corporations. The Internet is international and no one country has say. If you are not in the US and you do not have any major access in the US there is not much they can do to make you do as they say. Find a nice place that the DCMA does not have jurisdiction. Or get use to being harassed by the man. This time they may have a good case next time it will be because you make them look bad It cost them almost noting to do it and Even if they lose in court it is like a drop in the bucket to them It will eventually drain you. GOOD LUCK
Just a word of warning slashdot, US courts have held that if a service provider censers ANY content on their service, then they are liable for ALL content on their server. Legally, you dont have to take any content down from your server without a court order demanding you do so -- and that can also be appealed -- please note the below, as it cites cases where services providers have been found NOT liable for third party posts, as long as it is uncensored:
.(3) Accordingly, any lawsuit attempting to hold "service providers liable for information originating with a third party user
B. In several recent cases, the United States Federal Courts of Appeals have ruled that providers of service, so long as they don't edit content, aren't responsible for it:
C. Section 230 of the CDA states that "[n]o provider ? of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider." 47 U.S.C. 230(c) (1)
of the service" is barred. Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 2341 (1998) ("By its plain language, 230 creates a federal
immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service").
D. The Fourth Circuit has also held that 230 precludes courts from entertaining lawsuits that seek to hold an interactiVe computer service liable for failure to exercise
traditional editorial functions of a publisher such as deciding "whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content." Id. When enacting 230, Congress made a policy choice
not to attempt to deter harmful or defamatory online speech by imposing tort liability on interactive computer services. Id. at 330-31. In essence "[Congress] made the legislative
judgment to effectively immunize providers of interactive computer services from civil liability in tort with respect to material disseminated by them but created by others."
Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 49 (D.D.C. 1998). Section 230, on the other hand, in no way restricts the accountability of the party who posted the defamatory messages
in the first place. The above was the US District Court dismissing claims against L-Soft, co-defendent in Truelove v. Mensa. However, in this case, L-Soft exercised no
editorial control at all. 230 was a direct response to the "Prodigy decision", it's clear that Congress intended it to and other laws (such as the DMCA) contain even clearer
provisions.
This is not the fight to take to the public. The issues are too esoteric to inflame public opinion. Networking standards and licenses and somesuch. The core issue of freedom vs control is not easily discerned by the casual reader.
The correct time to fight will come.
my other post is +5 insightful
Perseverance is a strong will; obstinacy is a strong won't.
Not much to be said as most thing had been said.
I don't live in USA and i my country so stupid laws
does not exist YET.
I would not censor anything,,, but if MS would
sue they would probably win.
And if it would come down to that why not move Slashdot servers to another country!
That would solve everything, sad but if that is what it takes...
Is it possible to create a third party app to replace MS's kerberos authentication protocol on Win2k machines?
How about clearly and calmly sending copies of the DMCA provisions for fair use, and the First Amendment of the US constitution to microsoft over and over again, until they get a clue. Failing that a greased, sharpened stick and a game of hunt the lawyer could help improve matters.
ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,ø`ø
I completely agree with the position that it is not the ISP's position to maintain the legality of content. It is clear that the attempt to force service provider's into policing their own content is gaining a stronger and stronger foothold on the Internet. The DMCA places the legality of allowing copyrighted material to exist on a site directly onto the service provider itself. There is something wrong with this. Shouldn't the end user be responsible for what they write. They have the freedom of speech and if they post something illegal they have the right to be prosecuted, not the owners of the server. Laws have been enacted that force the "policing" job onto the service provider. The providers are responsible to remove copyrighted material from a website. My question is how long until the providers are forced to check their sites for copyrighted material. That is the next logical step if laws such as the DMCA do not get repealed or shot down in the supreme court. The copyright holders want the providers to be responsible for content when they really shouldn't be. What we need now are a few really good providers to say NO and refuse to honor the clearly unconstitutional aspects of the DMCA. This would force a lawsuit between the provider and the holder of the copyrighted work which would be appealed to the supreme court and shot down.
Legal defense funds are more than just keeping poor businesses on their feet, they're speech (if you believe the supreme court.) And being speech, every dollar I spend at PayLars is a dollar I use to say "HEY LARS! YOU SUCK!" not to prop up someone. So, if there is going to be a defense fund, to whom do I write my check?
;)
/dev/soapbox
Secondly, any for as long as we legally view a corperation as an individual, we have the right to expect them to behave like individuals, and follow moral concepts. In fact, since a Corperate "individual" is technically immortal and functionally irrepremandable, what do we as a nation do? Well, eventually, the ball is going to hit the wall, and we'll have Concord and Lexington again. But I like being short, fat, and sitting down and not hiding in the bushes with a gun fighting for my rights. So lets stick them with the responsabilities that go with the priveledges that corperations have. They have more freedoms than the individual in persuing their goals, and can do so with a terrible efficiency. Its about high time we've held them accountable for their actions. REMOVING DMCA is one of them. And there are three ways to do so:
1. The by far most radical way is to storm the Redmond Vill-- er, Bastille, and fight for our rights violently. (um, see tidbit on being fat and not wanting to shoot people earlier).
2. The Ghandi way is to ignore it and suffer the consequences(if any) non-violently until Congress has no choice but to repeal the law or risk not having a people to govern; this includes boycotts, blatant infringment on superfluous copyrights, etc. This is by far the most morally upright way to break the law, btw.
3. Lobby, advocate and VOTE VOTE VOTE. It works. It has for 211 years.
umount
Those that know it least, know it loudest (and I'm heard in Bangkok)
Lef forvrin, that furious feline.
IANAL (of course)
It is my understanding that by naming your post Microsoft has sworn, under oath, that your post violates the DMCA. If you can show that your post has not violated the DMCA then i would have thought that Microsoft will be open to being found in violation of purjury laws...
Can this be used against them?
Typical Microsoft.The powers that be are beginning to realize that they are no longer Lord of all they survey. As for myself,I quit using Microsoft products recently because of the constant security bugs,sloppy code and general crap that Windows encompasses.Bill Gates & company will never see another penny of my hard earned cash. The dirty tricks that got Microsoft convicted recently won't stop short of killing off Microsoft entirely.Maybe /. should send it to Judge Jackson.;-)
Geek Hillbilly
In the end, I wish there just be a global boycott of Microsoft that would hurt them, financially (Mission Improbable), Unlike other companies Microsoft's product is so widely used that it is almost impossible. DO they care about free Speech, no, they do care about profit. This whole issues should have been expected, it was only a matter of time. My thought is What has them looking at Slashdot????? Why are the looking at the news sites????
If we refuse to be flexible, we are in effect opting out of the game of life. The world moves on without us.
If I say "I hate (companynamehere)!", will that too have to be removed from a "public" posting/archive? What happens if there were a way to get the slashdot archives via email? Would everyone that recieved those posts have to remove them from their own email? How far does this continue to go before we are just drones that don't have a voice and cannot change what has happened? Jeez.. Freedom of Speech is what America was founded on. Is it illegal to link to content on the internet, because "Comments Containing Links to Internet Sites with Unauthorized Copies of the Specification" does not seem to be illegal to me, nor does posts about how to bypass the EULA. If there is a way to bypass the EULA, then MS needs to fix it on their end, someone saying how you can do something illegal does not mean that the comment is illegal, it only means that the act of doing it is illegal. Sheesh! Just annoyed and aggravated about this.
Jay Kramer"What's this script do? unzip ; touch ; finger ; mount ; gasp ; yes ; umount ; sleep Hint for the answer: not everyth
Don't fly them to Russia. Slow lines and pay-for-protection (which you would not get anyway if your favourite corporate entity can pay more than you).
It's becoming painfully obvious now that we need independent, metanational off-shore/in-orbit server platforms. Not one, but many for redundancy. Preferably equipped with enough SAMs, Harpoons and nuclear tipped missiles to deter any Microsoft/RIAA/MPAA sponsored taskforce.
eat shit and die
You understand my concerns; if they have already printed and sold a book made from comments why hell wouldn't they sell the copyrights of the comments to microsoft?
:->
Have you read 32bits online comment of Katz book story?
Quite interesting indeed, they do what they want with what we post.
Therefore I say "Go Microsoft!" maybe this will help slashdot improving his intellectual property policy
May I suggest you sell slashdot and slashdot comments copyrights to Microsoft? Better selling them than removing them. -- Do not remove me !
Take out one of the "did not"'s out of the sentence, your choice.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Innovation is to Microsoft what reporting is to
CNN. Where slick packaging forms an illusion of
innovation, selective coverage and editorializing
form the illusion of reporting. Both
organizations work hard to maintain an image
composed more of illusion than reality. On rare
occasion both organizations accidentally stumble
upon the real thing. In these highly fluid times
nearly everything is leveled. Consequently, the
bazaar takes on the characteristics of the
Cathedral, as with RedHat Software's IPO and the
Cathedral takes on the characteristics of the
bazaar, as with IBM heavily advocating Linux to
the point of developing a high performance Linux
JVM.
Time was when J. D. Rockefeller controlled an
overwhelming share of the nation's oil market in
what was then a relatively small pie. Much of what
he controlled came from ruthlessly focused
business practice; ruthless enough to motivate his
competitors towards the even more ruthless
practice of legislating him out of what were,
arguably, his legitimately gotten gains.
Nevertheless, Rockefeller's contributions to the
process of refining and distribution remain with
us to this day. He is not remembered for the best
oil drills or the best petroleum refinement
process any more than Henry Ford is remembered for
the best cars.
Nor is J. D. Rockefeller remembered for contract
violations like Microsoft's against Sun
Microsystems JAVA license agreement. It is this
kind of peer to peer contract violations that Reno
Justice should be pursuing. Instead, they attack
violation of public trust in which Microsoft never
claimed to be working. Rarely does one get power
without knowing how to use it effectively. Rarer
still it is to keep power in that circumstance. It
seems, though, that the days of Microsoft's wisest
use of its power are behind it. Unfortunately, the
mechanism by which Microsoft is being
deconstructed is far more dangerous than any of
the most ruthless business practices engaged by
the software seller.
Microsoft's mendacity of using paten protection
laws to protect it's attempt to weaken kerberos is
both incomprehensible and breathtaking for anyone
who believes that truth exists or that facts
matter. But those people number fewer each day.
The once shocking argument that the verb 'to be'
means whatever its speaker desires has made itself
commonplace on this side of the looking glass.
That argument and its offspring, make intimidation
the coin of the realm. Microsoft uses that coin
against Slashdot the way Reno justice uses it
against Microsoft. Slashdot is an excellent
publication in an unenviable predicament. It is
protected by an increasingly elusive rule of law
on one side and by Microsoft-haters not terribly
averse to that law's corruption on the other.
I don't believe that "capitalism run rampant "
describes Microsoft's business practice. Rather,
it is its desperate attempt to maintain waning
control of a process it's leaders no longer seem
to understand. IBM was never dissolved, yet,
Microsoft rose to the power it has today.
Microsoft did to Netscape's browser what Linux
will do to Microsoft's OS. The cycle, if not
eternal, is quite reliable. Meanwhile, Exxon and
Mobil are back together waiting for a chance to
reunite with Sunoco and few even care.
I don't believe censorship is the core of what
Slashdot confronts. The internet is arguably the
least censored and most free publishing medium in
human history. This is why CNN is so relentless in
their demonization of Matt Drudge. It's not that
he lowers the bar to news reporting -- they
lowered it much further than he has. It is that he
is revolutionary and they are desperate to
maintain the status quo. Slashdot, Linux and
Drudge are agents of revolution. Microsoft and CNN
are agents of status quo. Reno justice is a wild
card with the power and perhaps even the
inclination to utterly destroy the joy of the
game. The number of us dwindles who believe there
is and should be a distinction between truth and
illusion; a distinction between reality and
perception. Slashdot is part of that dwindling
number. If Microsoft secures a court order against
Slashdot to pull the correspondence from the site
Slashdot should comply. In any case Slashdot would
be well served by a comprehensive legal
understanding of their position. Don't take a
strong stand on weak ground. If Slashdot gets
buried, the illusionists will have scored another
victory.
--Peter Korman
C372 4AB5 1E89 36DD FF72 E0C3 2BE6 22E9 ED0F A822
I have an idea!
Maybe if you want to read that spec, you know, "Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v.1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems" (trademark) well, then you can download it from their site. Hmmm, it appears there is a program to run.
I have an idea, don't run it! Looks like a self-extracting zip to me. Maybe winzip would be able to extract the information from it...
License agreement, I don't see any license to agree to. Ahhhh! Wait, don't look, con...fi...den...tial in..for..ma..tion, must avert eyes.
too late
Dang, I've just pissed MS off.
(If this post is deleted, do I lose my karma for it?)
The DMCA says: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title"
It the defines "a technological measure that 'effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work"
This is odd, I guess extracting the spec with Winzip is a "process", but so is opening a PDF with Acrobat. And it doesn't seem like you need the authority of the copyright owner to bypass the protection in this case. Does that make the copy protection not "effective" and thus not covered by the DCMA?
It seems that you would have to make some attempt at reasonable copy protection to be covered by the DCMA. MS didn't really do that.
Oops, I did it again. I posted how to extract the spec without accepting the license.
Damn.
I seems to me that this tactic of attempting to remove copyrighted material from the internet has the opposite effect. DeCSS was unknown to me before the attempt to "remove" it from the net. Now, not only am I aware of it but I can find it at multiple sites with little effort. This tactic not only draws attention to the to the material in question (thus making it the most popular download on the net)but it's also rude in a bully like fashion. Microsoft, learn from other peoples mistakes. Here's and example. Look at wazzup_elian.swf and the attempt by the Associated Press to remove it. It is NOW probably the most popular mirrored download on the net. I ask my self "did AP use this tactic on purpose to make wazzup_elian.swf this popular as a political statement?" Because IMHO they should have anticipated the results of their action. For a first time post I seem to have gone on long enough. My point is this tactic just makes things worse... try to find another way.
While I am sure MS doesn't care if your readers Piss, Moan and Cry about the Kerbero's Issue, they do care when you allow links to the copyrighted matterial. Take some responcibility. If the Open Source community wants to be taken seriously they better respect other peoples property. I agree with Free Speach but I still think it is illegal to yell Fire in a crowded theater too. Grow up! Toddler
Under the provisions of the DMCA, we expect that having been duly notified of this case of blatant copyright violation, Andover will remove the above referenced comments from its servers and forward our complaint to the owner of the referenced comments.
/. necessarily prohibit all anonymous postings to satisfy the DMCA in cases of liability? That seems like it would detract from both one's freedom of speech and one's privacy.
Is the owner of the "referenced comments" known in all of these cases? I know I saw Anonymous Coward on the list once. Does this person have to be notified, and if so, must
That DMCA is one great law!
-L
Why not go ahead and jerk it. We all read it the first time, right? Slashdot needs to do what will keep Slashdot in business. As long as /. only takes reactionary measures to such complaints, they can't be sued. They can't keep US from putting up the next story. Personally, I vote for another class action suit against M$ for price gouging everyone who has any M$ products on their machines. Let's take the offensive side of the law.....
if it were only that easy,we could do:
kill -9 aol
kill -9 mpaa
kill -9 riaa
kill -9 fredmoody
kill -9 slashdoteffect
kill -9 gwbush
If anybody from Microsoft is listening,I want to tell you something.Did you take the steps to ensure above all doubt that it would be extreemly difficult to obtain the offending material?If not,it's your own damn fault and you can't use the DMCA to defend yourselves.You can't claim that your copyright was violated if you took minimal steps to protect yourself.(as an aside,IANAL)
Ok,my rant for today is over.Goodbye.
shutdown -h now
-----------------------
Etot "sig" byit pisyat v Russki!
(35.0% Slashdot nezdorovi.)
------------------------
Thus Spake ComradePenguin
The answer is simple. DCMA does not apply in Canada, and no such legislation exist in Canada. And by the way, lawyer fees are 1/3 those in the US ... great deal I tell you ! Move your server and business up north. We have LOTS of space for you !!
News programs all over the world are starting writing about the Microsoft email but also about Kerberos modifications made by Microsoft. They posted a "trade secret" freely and easily available on the net which has already been ruled as not been a trade secret. You fight for the freedom of speech against them as they are defending their freedom to innovate, which is really demonstrated in this case by extending a MIT developed protocol to their own use.
You just can't talk about not knowing what you will do next. You will fight till death against that, right ?
--- Bouh !!! ---
The way I see it, Microsoft is actually asking for three different things from /.
/.
Remove Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:
Remove Comments Containing Links to Internet Sites with Unauthorized Copies of the Specification:
Remove Comments Containing Instructions on How to Bypass the End User License Agreement and Extract the Specification:
Three different requests, and each one should be handled differently...
Remove Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification: I actually think you should. After all, to get this you would have to have (in theory) signed the agreement to get the information, and I doubt you'd be able to convince a judge that the posters post all their confidential information to
Remove Comments Containing Links to Internet Sites with Unauthorized Copies of the Specification: *shrugs* Don't. You're not responsible for the info at the other end of the link, and it's just stupid to expect you to check every link for quasi-illegality. Besides, I post all my confidential infomation to the internet (seriously, I don't own my own computer).
Remove Comments Containing Instructions on How to Bypass the End User License Agreement and Extract the Specification: Again, don't. You are providing a valuable service to microsoft in pointing out bugs in their program (you'd think they'd be use to it by now) and the hack itself isn't restricted by law.
just my so called thoughs on the matter.
Ok.. Lets try! MC 5191 2300 4381 4333 AMEX 3733 702088 32014 And I won't say who'se they are either!
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
I can see it now, *another* letter from Micro$oft complaining about *this* thread and *its* links...
On a clear disk you can seek forever
Don't the comments constitute "fair use" by their respective authors?
On a clear disk you can seek forever
Well, hear I go, spilling my guts for all to see. I have spent hours following these comments. I have nothing new, or different to say. Well, not much....But this is honesty time. Copyright Schmopyright. I don't know where most of the crap I collect comes from. The fonts, themes, programs, games, pictures, music......and on and on. I don't even care. I unzip stuff, and toss out the read files....My computer doesn't have enough room for that extra garbage! If you put it on the net, it's gonna be shared. Some folks have actually gone to the trouble of making it hard to copy their stuff. Kudos for them, I don't steal it then. Someone commented on not loosing their couch. Well, then don't leave it on the sidewalk. When you put something on the net, it's like leaving it on the sidewalk. I do not believe you can control what people do with your "stuff" after it leaves your hands. If you don't want to share your toys....keep them in your toy box!
And many men were wearing codpieces in the shape of rocket ships, in honor of the Big Space F*ck-Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Nice to see /. talking about censorship so soon after implementing the lameness filter, which is an automatic sensoring tool. does this seem hypocritical to anyone else?
Don't be mean or my friend Oog will smash your head
"You have the right to free speech providing of course your not dumb enough to actulally try and use it -- The Clash "Freedom Of Speech, better watch what you say" --Ice-T No doubt there will be another legal fund soon, where do I send my check. I do not belive surender is an option here...Is M$ going to get up set with EVERY anti M$ comment out there..... Then they can get upset over this M$ SUX BIG TIME. Sue me asswipes.
Yes I can not spell...Wait....for a second there I almost cared.
What is argument about? Censorship vs Rights? One viewpoint says microsoft wants to Censor people for its own gain. They took an open standard, did their Microsofting too it, and now want to shut up anyone who realizes that this is outrageous. On the other hand, you've got Rights. Microsoft's produced something that they made available through sketchy means as a trade secret. That copyrighted material has been violated. If you don't defend their rights, who's going to defend yours?
Micro$oft will push W2K to anyone willing to listen to their sales pitch. Some will be stupid enough to listen. Companies that depend on W2K servers will demand programs that use the new features, such as the "improved" Kerberos. The proprietary Kerberos snowballs into a real standard. That's a bad thing.
Micro$oft is trying to seize control of an open standard and replace it with a proprietary one owned by them. In the process, they are ignoring the natural rights of people everywhere. This may seem small, but it can easily become a major problem. Micro$oft is trying to control distribution of their "standards" based on legally questionable assertions.
If they can stop people from reading about their software, or telling others how it works by distributing the spec, could they next target, say, Word Perfect? After all, they use something that a hallucination exec might call a "trade secret" in their program. It can read the Word file format. Imagine where this could go even if the Kerberos spec isn't widely accepted. You better not publish a review they don't like: it might violate the "Use and automatically sign on the dotted line" agreement required to even look at the program.
Speech was also intended to remain free. The day a large corporation takes away my constitutional rights, especially that one, is the day I pack up to leave the US.
I found this quote one day in an article by RMS, and think about it a lot: "Millions for defense, but not a cent for surrender." Sounds brilliant to me. It wouldn't take much money to remove the comments from /. and "solve" the problem. But what is the real cost of that "solution"?
The final cost is terrible: an act of censorship. Censorship==BAD. Call me extreme if you will, but I think it's dangerous to just let things happen. This is wrong. What is wrong must be opposed.
Your rights are in danger. This is not a drill.
Thanks for taking the time to read by boring rant.
it's green.
That only got a score of ONE?!?!?! That is one of the best comments i have read on /. yet (take that as you may) Every thing he said is very very true and he deserves our respect Thank you Anonymous Coward A.M.
Watch yourselves, the Angry Midget might bite...
That's it! Run multiple flotillas in international waters, tapping into the Internet via satellites? Completely extra-national servers.
Hmm...
ourpla.net is your planet
Heck yeah. If I cannot post something on slashdot just to express my opinion just because of some BS software giant is preventing me from doing that, I'll sue him for preventing me from exercize my right of free speech. Besides, the disclaimer here is that our opinions as a reader is not associated with us, so why not M$ ask us with permission first to remove the posts?
You can't just wait for a law to be thrown out. There has to be a case of somebody actually breaking the law, which makes it to the supreme court, (and clearly demonstrates why the law is stupid) for them to declare it invalid. So if we all think a law is invalid but we all go around following it it will never get declared unconstitutional in any official capacity and we will be following it forever.
You have to decide that a law is wrong, and that you are going to go against it, for it to change.
Because the GPL represents Free Speech, DMCA represents Corporate Censorship. big difference.
Oh, so if I was some big company, and you were some developer of GPLd software, then I would be expected to respect your rights, while you should be allowed to tramp all over mine? That hardly seems fair. We can not claim protection from the law if we don't respect the law ourselves.
Yeh, but censorship is unconstitutional and free speech is the most important part of the 1st ammendment. So how does your argument about following the law go again?
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Way to go Roblimo!! I was very relieved to see that Slashdot was not going to yeild to MS. At some point Microsoft has to learn that not everyone is going to bow down and heed their every desire because of who they are. I imagine now MS will respond with copyright violation lawsuit threats to get Slashdot to conform to their requests. Don't back down now! I could see MS taking the Slashcode and claiming it as their own then creating an MS. website to cover MS news.
The DMCA specifically deals with this. In return for no liability for copyrighted material posted to their site they must remove all copyrighted material in something like 48 hours after being officially notified.
Ohh and yes i am pretty sure rob would remove 100 stolen credit card numbers
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Uhh why bother you can go ahead and download it from microsoft anyway.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Several thoughts on this manner. First until copyright is finally replaced with a superior system websites must bow to this pressure. For instance if someone posted a cracked copy of quake3 on this site or something similar it is quite reasonable (if you accept copyright law) to suppose that the website will take it down once notified.
However, it is interesting to note that this doesn't seem to be a copyright law issue. This is specifically a liscensing issue. No sale was ever made (it is availible freely) so it is possible a convincing argument could be made that slashdot is not violating copyright law. However to undertake such a position in court and win could very well undermine the GPL (as it doesn't have a sale either). Although I don't think it would be that terrible a thing (most companies are open sourcing their material because of public opinion not because they are traped by the GPL)...BSD isn't dying because of their liscence.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
One (expensive) solution would be to remove the offending comments from slashdot and set up servers outside US juristriction. This gets round the DMCA, though there may still be copyright issues wherever these servers relocate to.
Wherever it is, MS won't have the lobbying power it does in the US. If the US can't allow it's citizens free speech there's nothing stoping them seeking it elsewhere. Mexico anyone?
The way I see it Microsoft just wants to maintain its utopia software company. With the courts tearing them apart and denying them some pleads on how to handle the case they are getting scared. So what do they do when their scared? Sue Slashdot.org, hey why not. If they can get a way with it then hurray for them , its just another one of Microsofts victims that have been pushed around by a corporate giant. Maybe though, this being a basic freedom of speech, Slashdot will have every write to not censor whatever is put on their web page. The bottom of the line is drawn and there is no need to try to distort it with some new ACT the government throws into place. Thats all Microsoft is doing, twisting whatever law they can, and bending whatever rule they will just to get their way. It makes me sick. I'll be in the bathroom!
If smurfs hold their breath, what color do they turn?
On this issue, even if it might be technically illegal, I say /. should fight it!
Well, I for one think that posting the contents of the spec might be an actual copyright infringement. But since you aren't making any money off of the spec, that one is up for grabs with the lawyers, but for the other terms I think you have no worry... Linking: for the linking issue, instead of posting an actual hyperlink, just post the text version of the text ;) and indicate for the readers to go to those addresses. That is pure free-speech right there :) Comments on breaking the licence: well, that is still free speech. It is the exact same as telling someone how to build a bomb or similar issue, it is still protected by free speech. The actual breaking of the licence may be bad ;) but not the mentioning of how to break it. McKay
The difficulty is knowing exactly what the law is. I'm pretty certain that the wholesale posting is a copyright infringement. I'm not sure about something like this link, although clicking it will cause a copyright infringement. I'd say there's a fairly strong but still debatable case there. I state for the record that I'm operating under the assumption that it isn't an infringement to do this. The case is even weaker if I comment that the URL is http://free-dvd.org.lu/kerberos.pdf without the tag making it clickable. Again, I operate under the assumption that citing an URL is not an infringement.
If I comment that one can "circumvent" the EULA by opening it with winzip, I think the case for that being copyright infringement is pitiful, and on the verge of frivolous.
If I quote the specification as saying "If you have not downloaded the Specification from Microsoft's website and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, you are not an authorized licensee of the Specification" and then go on to state that this is some pretty silly shit, and the sort of nonsense that gets Microsoft a reputation as a bunch of morons, that is within Fair Use.
My personal advice to slashdot would be to remove the direct copyright infringements, such as this. The links are up to their legal counsel. As for "circumvention" instructions like commenting that you can open the damn thing with winzip, I'd say they can go blow.
Alternately, one could test the counternotification provisions of the DMCA by yanking everything they ask for, then waiting for counternotifications. I'm not sure how well this would work, as most people seem to be more interested in whining about the law than using it.
Recall that before the notification/counternotification provisions of the DMCA, a copyright complaint would result in material being yanked without any provisions for getting it replaced, no matter how bogus the complaint. The DMCA at least allows the ISP to be taken off the hook in the case of copyright infringement, so long as they follow the DMCA provisions relating to notification. Further, once the counternotification card has been played, the complaining party has nothing to do but put up or shut up.
There are a lot of questionable provisions in the DMCA, especially the parts about circumventing "devices," which are pretty vague about what these are, but the liability limitation parts of it are good, or at least better than what we had before.
By Microsoft's reasoning concerning the links, if I comment that slashdot has copies of this Kerberos material, and that the article in the front page has discussions which contain links to it, and to discussions of how to "circumvent" the EULA, such as by opening it with winzip, then I have violated their copyrights by mentioning slashdot.
You cannot have discussions without news and news always has discussions. So I would suggest a reply along the lines of "Sorry, but the news stories and comments are inseparable as Windows 98 and IE"
-J
Somebody please moderate this down. The poster obviously failed to follow the provided links regarding the DMCA.
The DMCA _makes_ content the service provider's responsibility.
This post is well thought out and accurate. Therefore, it cannot reflect the opinions of the SlashDot moderators.
Microsoft has no right to be complaining about copyright violations to Slashdot or any other website. For years, Microsoft programmers have shamelessly ripped off pieces of Linux, the MacOS, and other great computer OS'es and applications. If anything, we should be posting source to Windows 2000, not a simple spec sheet. Sounds to me like M$ is merely looking for excuses to nail a Linux news site. Why don't they spend their time hunting down software pirates? Are we really that big of a threat? The answer: Yes.
My dad once said, " if you can't say anything nice about someone..... don't say anything at all"
Well that was ok until "Greedy Bill" and his Microsloth Execs needed an outlet from their "Browser Monopolization Problem." Bill you and your cronies can bite me. How dare you act on such a petty issue. Here's a tip, stop bitching about non-essential things and put out an OS and software that actually works without the use of codine! Arrrrrggggghhhhhhhhhhh. I want a refund Bill.
can it be true? has slashdot been slash-dotted?
sweet!!!! So move the M$ posts to Canadia ;-) then if the lawyers try to come there and remove them, we can break their legs, then we can laugh while they stand in the hospital line for 3 months (or longer). Changing my Nick to "Skrew Micro$oft"!
Comments are owned by the poster. Their contentis the owner's responsibility. Microsoft should be sending letters to those people, who should then ask /. to remove the comments..if they want to be censored. This is part of the continuing trend to jump over the responsibility of individuals and make their actions the responsibiility of someone else (i.e. their ISP (Internet Service (i.e.News) Provider). The Internet makes control of digital media impossible, deal with it.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I did not mean to post the last message, I quoted the origonal then tried to put a space, unfortunatly the submit button was highlighted.
Anyway I meant to say that I think that an argument like this is very unreasonable after the president set in the napster case. I somehow think M$ has a whole lot more mony to waste on grinding innocent peoples faces into the pavemeant the Matalica does. /. probably should remove those posts (perhaps in their place have a link to a morror of somebody else who hasnt yet been contacted by M$). I think M$'s standing here is even better then Matallica's because it is a trade "secret" and they have more money.
Of course maybe comprimising without a court order is a foolish stradegy too. Does anyone remember the optimism a few months ago when there were a few rulings favorable to personal rights (code as frree speech for one)?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
maybe the posting users should be banned from slashdot and moments later recreate their account.
that seemed to satisfy Lars as far as i know.
Since i first saw the DMCA I always thought it contradicted the Fair Use law...enough said.
"spare the lachrymosity when the fulminations have inveighed"
"spare the lachrymosity when the fulminations have inveighed"
-madd
> Why did this crazy law ever manage to get passed
Two words, Corporate Greed. Us over in the states seem to be more and more at the mercy of large companies which make more money in a day than most of us will ever see in our lifetimes, combined. And if you know a good (read expensive) lawyer, you can do damn well whatever you want (OJ Simpson, anybody). Perhaps, though, this makes it perfectly obvious that we need to start putting "controversial" internet servers in countries such as Mexico, which, at least for now, don't have idiotic laws governing these actions.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
EXCELLENT POINT!
The threat of lawsuit is generally regarded as a no-no in this country. It can result in the disbarment of the offending attorney. Lawyers really like to hang each other more than they like hanging everyone else, since giving the masses actual proof of unethical behavior is much different than the usual hearsay. ;-)
And yes, Andover needs to ask for just this letter, citing that it is a news site and that the information provided was for news/editorial/educational purposes as related. Also, I believe that the laws covering newspapers would apply to online magazines with the publication rate of /. and that it could readily be demonstrated that /. is such a news organization.
Remember that M$ controls a major media outlet(MSNBC), so they probably think they can embrace and extend their way into everybody else's news outlets.
And always, raise a stink with your Congressman, your local paper, and anybody else you can get the attention of. DMCA needs to have a legal challenge at some point. It's just a question of who is going to do it.
Oh, and get the guy doing the case for 2600. He likes fighting the man.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
To quote from yesterday's Washington Post article about the ./ gang: ****** quote starts here ********** the boys do have some adult supervision robin miller managing editor of all andover sites makes sure that slashdots articles are grammatical and libel-free and not spelled with the numeric-letter mixture (d00d!!! lets rip some warezzz!) that charac' ************end quote************ (ugly copy job...) So it seems some (sane) editing does occur; its the right of the site owners to do so. I cant wait for some TOP SECRET EYES ONLY stuff to come out on ./ !!
I flee dead people.
Say he photocopied the enire document so his class could get a sense of how such a document was structured etc. How wrong would that be?
Would Microsoft have sent a similar letter? If not, how is that class different from this forum?
Is this really true? Since Slashdot and its parent are (I assume) incorporated in the United States, and since the offending page is available in the United States, wouldn't American law apply?
i would take down the outright copies, but everything else should stay. there will be plenty of a legal battle with that. FREE SPEECH!!
is it time to break out the colored ribbons again?
do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, they are subtle and quick to anger
Advice:
Hrm... Here's one of the things that makes me unhappy about larger corporations. Is the 11'th commandment "Thou shalt not piss off Microsoft"? I think not...
When the pack animals stampede, it's time to soak the ground with blood to save the world. We fight, we die, we break our cursed bonds.
Chris 'coldacid' Charabaruk Meldstar Entertainment
i bet M$ paid people to make those posts just so that they could instigate a lawsuit to supress peoples rights to freedom of speech. does bill gates have a bald cat he pets while he broods over who to destroy?
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
If your going to assault Microsoft, there is advice from UserFriendly here. --Use the Snurf
When Beos placed Bruce Pierce's Open-sourced, Gpl'd code in their OS, Slashdotters were in a fit of rage. Now, slashdot does the same thing to microsoft, and now are pissed because Microsoft wants to protect their property(part of their rights).
In both cases it is wrong. Slashdot was wrong for leaving copyrighted code on their archives, and Beos was wrong for leaving GPL'd code in their closed-source OS.
the GPL is just as much a protection of property as the copyright is, but linux zealouts only see one side.
Freedom isn't a one-way street
I can't see what is the point with this.
If you use a non-Micros~1 OS, you have no other oppurtunity to open the archive than to give unzip a trial. Wich clearly means that you won't see the EULA, and with no intend!
After all, it can be brought down to the following points:
Which means, not everybody who can access the archive's contens is forced to see the EULA. so they can't argue (IANAL) that someone circumvented it.
1. You are a common carrier of information that does not own, nor does it edit, the content of user posts. (This might be a good time to suggest that you kill the Katz book you were plugging a couple weeks ago.)
2. User posts really amounts to on-line chat, and saved articles contain a log of what was said. This is not really publishing, but is archival.
3. If you accept liability for the Micros~1 comments, you expose yourself to litigation for every naked Natalie Portman post and every mean thing said about RMS (Including my post from last week, where I jokingly called him Richard M. Stalin).
4. Check with your lawyers and make damn sure that the posts in question constitute fair use in the context of criticism of a product. If they do, you have a final line of argument of the others fail.
The most effective thing you can do, as I see it, is send out a press release... not just to folks like Wired and C|Net, but to all the major dead-tree news services. Include the e-mail. Include links to the offending sites. State your case to the press. Include an explanation of the DMCA, and how it is being used by some companies against free speech and fair use.
This might have the dual effect of getting Micros~1 to back off (they really don't want to look like bullies again right now), while calling the attention of the mainstream press to DMCA issues.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Since clearly Microsloth folks had to access /. in order to read the alleged infringing material, I think the solution is to simply license access to the site only under the terms that users contractually agree to not attempt to censor other posters.
Use of the site means you agree with those terms.
Violations of the agreement are punishable by breakup of your corporation.
May I say that Slashdot, to me, encompasses everything that is "freedom of speech" :0)
/. servers to Russia?
.I'm just looking at all the alternatives here.
If push came to shove, how long would it take to fly
I had a SIG once... it was years ago.
I just realized what they're doing. This is exactly what Scientology has done all these years with their "Notes for Operating Thetans". It's a Trade Secret -- ya see -- and its copyrighted, so God help you if you ever disclose those "NOTs" to the general public. Microsoft isn't just a company, it's become a religion, with Bill as Godhead.
Dog is my co-pilot.
The -2 thing is pure hypocrisy. Since, I'm more of a troll than an elf, I find the trend disturbing.
Microsoft owns its servers and everything I've seen on MSN is heavily moderated. The test is: What will / do? WW/D
As with all things, you have to pick and choose. If you expect Katz or anyone else to be 100% right 100% of the time, then your not looking discussion but rather agreement of your own opinions. Or worse, you're looking for someone to tell you what to think.
The GPL is a license agreement that individuals agree to. The DMCA is a law and can therefore be unconstitutional. Congress didn't pass the GPL, Congress passed the DMCA. For any branch of gubblemint to outlaw the GPL is, arguable, tresspassing on the 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments. Arguably, the DMCA does just that.
The original comment is somewhat lame because it's comparing apples to oranges.
This is an outrage. This is plain and simply freedom of speach. I *WILL* not allow MS's monolpoy control my freedom of expression. There tring to domonate the software world, now this. I REALLY can't wait until the DOJ breaks them up. This is a clasic example of the crap they are try to pull. Slashdot will not go down in flames becuase there whining that no one likes them or there software. Fight em! You/we will win!
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Those of you saying /. should fight this is halirious. This isn't about freedom of speech or anything else. It is plain and simple, a posting of content not belonging to the poster or to /.
/. to remove some part of their copyrighted material? I think not.
That in itself is illegal.
Take for example back in the days when you dialed in with a modem to your local BBS and you just happen to find a copy of Doom (yes ages ago when games fit on floppies). Now who is in the wrong here? The person who uploaded it or the person who owns the BBS? Believe it or not, the person who owns the BBS is the one that gets the lawsuit.
/. is responsible for what is stored on its server, no matter if they own the copyright to it or not. Comments about MickeySoft or any other company is fine. Posting their material isn't. Duh, that is what freedom of speech is.
Would any of you be making a fuss over this if some shareware author asked
-Kupie
Some of us can't live on open source alone...bills can't get paid with "free" currency.....
First off - and GOD I hate siding with MS on this part - but "prior restraint" implies stopping publishing BEFORE it occurs, not after. In this case the items have been published already.
I think he may have meant to say "prior attempts at restraint," not "attempts at prior restraint."
-----------------------------------------
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
This upsets me in retaliation I will have to reduce my budget for purchasing MS products for this year.
Since said budget is already at zero Microsoft will just have to send me some money and I will return the MSN and J++ demo coasters that I have. I should probably change my email account also.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
This move by MS Legal is very counter productive. If it was MS's wish to prevent the spread of these documents then the best possible method would have been to shut up. If they had kept quiet then these posts and links would have spent the rest of their existance unnoticed in the archives. Now that they have raised a stink about them hundreds if not thousands of copies of them are now spreading across the internet. Perhaps they should not have put the Kerberos specification on the internet in the first place.
This is either a very stupid move by MS Legal or a brilliant move by MS Marketing to spread knowledge of MS Kerberos.
This was an effective method of launching a DDOS attack on /.'s new server. it's been /.'d for the half hour.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
We all know and agree that Microsoft's request is ridiculous and blatantly anti-First Amendment. Indeed, if any lower court were to uphold Microsoft were this ever taken so far as to trial, I have faith in the Supreme Court and that they'd strike down DMCA.
If you agree with Microsoft here, then you are a fool, and should move to China. And I don't say that facetiously. Posting a comment on /. is much like, say, passing out a leaflet on a street corner, stapling something to a telephone pole, or simply, engaging in conversation with another person in a bar, on the train, in the classroom.
Nations like America do not censor what its citizens say. Nations like China take down comments posted, say, on the Democracy Wall in 1979 ("what about the Fifth Freedom, Democracy?").
Thus should also serve as a wake-up call to all those who defend Microsoft. Not only have they shown total disregard and disrespect for the laws of this nation (I guess the Sherman Antitrust Act means nothing to them), but they have also shown total disregard for perhaps the most fundamental of our freedoms, the freedom of speech.
Granted, Microsoft is not leading the way here, rather they are following a larger trend of corporate censorship. The main threat to our liberties today, contrary to what the idiotic conservatives think, is not the government or the UN or liberals, but corporations, for whom the Constitution and other laws are impediments to profit. It is time for America to wake up and realize that we don't have to take this bullshit lying down.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
-John Lennon
Remember too that the Supreme Court has struck down repeatedly any attempts at prior restraint, which is evidently exactly what DMCA is seeking to accomplish.
I have the right to claim, anywhere, that "The US Government should be overthrown". I can publish the schematics for a nuclear bomb. I can explain to you how to kill a man in any number of ways, and all of this is legal. I can't make threats against our leaders and that's a reasonable restriction. So, if I can do all that subversive stuff, why the fuck shouldn't I be able to post something that is copyrighted?
Have we already reached the point where corporations have more power than nations and governments? Buddha help me if we have.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
-John Lennon
to wit: Microsoft is copyright and trade mark of some large company in Redmond WA, and I don't see them complaining when I use that bit of copyright material without "express written consent".
Therefore, if this company, which is already in dutch with the D.O.J. (another copyright issue here), wishes the world to stop using its copyright material without consent, perhaps we should do so . . .
Later . . . . . . WebBug
It is unfortunate that Micro$oft feels the need to take this sort of action. Apparently it has learned nothing through the course of its legal battle with the DOJ. It would be nice if M$ could see the discussion on /. for what it is. A segment of the user community voicing its opinon. Instead it has responded impersonally through this sanitized note from M$ lawyers. I encourage /. to fight this to the fullest extent as long as it is practical, no need to make /. or Andover.net a martyr.
...then they they should not vanish, for the sake of posterity if nothing else. IMO the comment title should replaced by COMMENT REMOVED and the body should read THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED FOR LEGAL REASONS along with (possibly) a link to the original post on a server not under US juristiction. Which raises another point: should Andover invest in a foreign web server just to avoid future incidents like this one?
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes" - Oscar Wilde
You know, you have to be the single biggest loser I have ever seen (or read about, or whatever) Seriously...are you expecting this little speech to be the rally cry of all the linux people everywhere? Oh, tyrants, you learned big words today in history class didnt you? Give it a rest. No one cares.
Creative, no?
Umm, Eric, I dont have time to check out the post, but I think you have the wrong one :
-------------
"by smartin on Tuesday, May 02, @02:20PM EST (#86)"
Now, I went and looked at this comment. Wanna know the big secret? Here goes:
Posting the data is all well and good, but.... (Score:2)
by smartin on 03:20 PM May 2nd, 2000 EST (#86)
---------------
That is what you posted, look at the times!
Resistence is futile
Prepare to be assimilated
Maybe they SHOULD be split up into tiny little pieces...
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." -- The American Crisis (1780) by Thomas Paine
-- null
I'm a computer company, I'm going to crap on one of the biggest hacker//cracker sites around. On second thought, I'm going to coat myself with barbecue sauce and wrestle my weight in rabid starving hyenas.........
If threads on /. were copyrighted then M$ letter to /. would be in violation of copyright laws, by M$ own definition of copyright violation. Kind of complicated, but it would work.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
No one wanted to publish those M$ Kerberos documents. Those guys were just storing them in cookies. How could these documents get to ./ ? ANY SUGGESTIONS, BILL & STEVE ???
aaw come on. you're just being paranoid. nanoflaccid just wants to be able to innovate! they'd NEVER pull a dirty trick like what you describe. i mean, just look at how sweet and innocent and nerdy bill is with a dick's burger(tm) in one hand and large coke(tm) in the other..wouldn't hurt a fly..
While a tshirt would be pretty funny, i think it would be even better to use that little virus everyone has been talking about, and change it so taht it displays the full text of these messages as the wallpaper of all affected computers. and you would only have to change the subject from i love you to i love microsoft, people are bound to open that just from sheer curiosity as to what sort of freak would make such a statement.
I can't say I am surprised at this turn of events but I am shocked, c'mon M$, remember the 1st Amendment? "Freedom to Innovate" har har!
So much for all the media posturing being done by M$. "We propose to open up the operating system."
Ya right.
To Slashdot:
Never give up. Never surrender!
- GalaxyQuest
Oh damn that was copyright. Now I'm going to have the MPAA on my arse.
-- Spammers: My E-mail server is in California. Consider yourself warned.
What you fail to notice is that Kerberos was not a Microsoft idea. This is sort of like copyrighting a Concordence to the Bible, or your seventh grade book report. If I am not wrong copyright laws allow for " fair use" this allows the community discuss potentially harmful or inacurate material.
I want to suggest a possible course of action.
I don't believe that Ms can protect it's copyright while keeping it secret. At least, it should require some more action.
Basically, Microsoft must offer some prove that it owns the copyright. Slashdot should ask for proof, and it should not accept as proof a license protected document because slashdot should not be forced to enter a contract for the sole reason of being able to verify Microsoft copyright allegations.
Many posters say it is obvious that the post of the document is infringing. This is not so, they are issues of the percentage quoted etc, that can only be done by comparing the copy to the original. And noone can do it because the original is not public. Microsoft can of course ask a judge to issue an injunction based on sealed evidence. Let it do it.
As another suggestion, I believe a letter describinc this issue should be filed with the court dealing with the anti-trust case.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Relax, sit back, take a deep breath, and find something silly to laugh about. It will do you good. =)
I just want to take over the world...Why does that automatically make me EVIL?
Nice try, ace, but the original post read:
Coherent and well-argued, Jon.
Why aren't your articles like that?
That's not a request, it's begging the question.
Yours for better reading comprehension skills,
HJ
I looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked into me--and we both winked.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but under the DMCA... isn't it illegal to make a program that will circumvent protections placed on a program? This means that Winzip and WinRAR are illegal products, and you should remove them from your HD immediately after removing Microsoft Outlook, which is clearly a tool for spreading virii.
Indeed, what makes this a really juicy piece of evidence for the anti-trust guys is the fact that MS is attempting to dominate the real Kerberos by stealing the standard, making it incompatable, and putting it under lock and key.
Hey folks... This is so simple... M$ hasn't gotten the message yet! At one end, the DOJ has M$ by the tail as it sharpens it's knife, and at the other end this stupid dog keeps barking and snapping, clearly not having gotten the message to stop biting people.
I say we contact the justice department, and say, "Hey Guys, apparently this bad dog thinks it's immune to your ire, that or they believe you have no balls... because here they are doing the same 'ol dirty deeds, shoving illegal copywrites down peoples' throats', threatening first amendment rights, attempting to pave clean over honest and decent programmers in the process of simply discussing software, and generally claiming that they got the right to do any 'ol thing they please. Isn't there something you can do to muzzle this mutt? It's really getting old having to tell them "They Can't Do That", mayhaps you need to use a larger "Clue-Stick(tm)".
I a nutshell, Hey! DOJ, They haven't gotten the message... sik'em!!!
Anne Marie
Comments and links:Kepp 'em Microsloth:Burn 'em!!!!
They [most Internet companies] reserve the right to not offer service or to discontinue service without cause.
They most probably do this because they are afraid of litigation, the without cause part being so that they don't have to worry about being contested in court.
Why else would they? Maybe Internet companies in countries where this common carrier law applies (I take it this is in the US) should drop these clauses?
M$ is mad that y'all said mean things about them. Good. Screw em...there isn't a damn thing they can do about it, especially considering the disclaimer made by /. . They CAN go after the people who made those particular comments. So, now they'll get together w/ Metallicrap and get NETPD's card and give em a call, then they'll find your house and send some muscled suits in to bust a few in the chops and force you to make a public apology on MSNBC. The M$ gestapo is just around the corner...watch yer backs.
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's
Boy it seems if they cant abide by another organizations Liscence agreement, why should anyone abide by there's. It seems to me that this so called Microsoft Authorization Data Specification or whatever you want to call it isnt Microsofts to begin with, considering that they broke they GPL. Screw Em!!! Fight em every inch of the way. Considering the grounds they stand on. They are trying to do nothing more than to protect STOLEN SOFTWARE!
Spoiler: somewhat off-topic
"They are trying to make their public relations nightmare worse then it already is"
I have to wonder to myself whether MS really believes it has "done nothing wrong" (unlikely, but thats what they keep trying to tell the mainstream), or if they know they're guilty as sin but just don't care. Either way, it seems like its "business as usual" at Microsoft. Arrogance, perhaps? A misguided sense of immortality? The only thing that will save MS from disappearing altogether during the next ten years is a complete change of "business culture". That means pulling out the people at the top, including BG.
Given that the DMCA does appear to put the burden of liability upon the hosting site(s) and their provider, this actually seems like a very good idea as far as the offshore arrangements go. As for the whether or not the DMCA is constitutionally valid, this seems like a good test for it. Is there any possibly the ACLU might have an interest in looking at this case in terms of freedom of speech? Of course it's easy for me to say since I don't have to directly deal with the fallout of this, but it seems that if a site like /. can be censored - BY A THIRD PARTY - then all I want to know is whos next?
Actually, moving offshore (or preparing an alternative location offshore) was brought up in comment #465 and #586.
/. Thank You for making a stand and stink about this.
/.
I think your lawyers will tell you that nothing can be done about the full texts posted here, but comments and instructions are indeed legal. The ultimatum on the legality of Micro~1's actions will probable not be decided until the kerberos dispute is settled. Then I think we'll all see this whole business plan crumble around Micros~1's ears.
ALL HAIL
Too right! the so called public medical ststem has people dying on emergency wards waiting rooms.... Heaven forfend I should succumb to a serious disease before i have a gold card... A proprietary health system? Somebody in NYC need a graphics guy real bad?!?
Holy Cow Kiddies!! Speaking as a Canadian, who enjoys a 'socialised' parlimentary style of government and all the economic pros and cons of a weaker dollar,I look at the current situatiom as baffling,but not unbelievable. Much like the early days of LSD in the sixties, whats becoming illegal Stateside is not necessarily UP HERE! (i.e. encryption technology and dev is alive and kicking up here where restriced in U.S and some developing natoins..) The Canadian model of freedom is somethin like this "Yer free to buy and sell anything that WE THE EDUCATED AND INFORMED DEEM SAFE FOR YER TENDER LITTLE SELVES...." that means that were protected from porn of varoius kinds, but completely free to have whatever kinds of sex we want.Paradoxical no? We Canucks look Stateside towards an ideal of freedom that our system isn't geared to deliver. Now it seems up to individual citizens to assert their beliefs.... and I thought the NAPSTER debachle was stupid..... Micro-Tallica Anyone?
yes, yes, i love that idea. we could creat a new union, the united servers of the internet, the USI. we can have federal goverment that dose things like define our transportation system (ie the tcp/ip stacks, replace internic, etc...) and defenses the union from its enemies (ie micro$oft)
we just have to be carefull in preventing the USI from losing the identity as an union, in exchange for the identity of the federal goverment. we all know what this is like.
As far as Microsoft backing down, well, that's a big risk. If I were them, I'd do everything possible to avoid the DMCA going to court because it is so shaky from a constitutional point of view. But you never know. They have a lot of money and a lot of nerve.
This thing is becoming far too common nowadays, where the threat of legal action is used to ensure compliance. Many ISPs now state quite clearly that they will remove your site if legal action is so much as hinted at. It's quite anoying that the fundamental right of freedom of expression is being compromised by big companies waving their arms and knocking people over with the breeze.
If, as some suggested, M*crosoft are the Borg incarnated, their motto might perhaps be "Litigation is futile! You will be monopolated!"
This links quite nicely to the N*pster case (which one?) in which the universities threatened with legal action immediately agreed to block the site from their users even though they had done nothing wrong. These are the days when no disclaimer is sufficient. Soon, ISPs will be sued just for RELAYING requests for particular pages. No-one will be safe.
As well, software developers like M*crosoft are forcing more and more clauses into their EULAs. In response to even more _threatened_ legal action, browsers' EULAs will contain clauses to the effect that looking at any site which remotely annoys anyone will cause the product to automatically uninstall, to stop the developer being sued. Oh, I hope I'm not giving B*ll G*tes any ideas.
The internet, the ultimate embodiment of free speech, is going to be legislated out of existence, and anyone who suddenly finds they now have nothing to do will switch to FidoNet, which M*crosoft will have anticipated and bought the rights to. Perhaps it IS all a clever marketing ploy...
(Please note: Names have been changed to protect the guilty.)
"Laws change, but justice remains the same."
http://www.doublezero.uklinux.net/
Doublezero: like Slashdot, only less useful.
Not to mention the fact that M$'s business model and its monopolistic practices are also quite sickening.
The EULA exe doesn't control access to the PDF file. It's simply a zip file which has been turned into an executable.
Simply by unzipping the file with winzip, the PDF is available which means that the EULA exe cannot possibly be described as 'a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work'. The file must by definition be a normal zip file or winzip would be unable to extract the PDF file.
To me this means that the DMCA simply does not apply to the document!
Gimme Gimme Gimme - Karma!
Subject says it all. You HAVE (please please please) to do a poll on this.
Gimme Gimme Gimme - Karma!
Is just linking to sites containing copyrighted material now against the law in America?
Whoowee. Land of the free and all that.
I'd be very suprised if it was illegal to use quotations from a copyrighted document. It would be impossible for and information based society to function if that were the case.
IANAL and know nothing of US copyright law but I suspect that they don't have a leg to stand on.
Gimme Gimme Gimme - Karma!
J.K. Weston, Designated Agent
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way , 114/2314
Redmond, WA 98052
By phone: (425) 703-5529
By email: jkweston@microsoft.com
Not that they are megalomaniacs or anything.
Gimme Gimme Gimme - Karma!
Then Microsoft will be forced to censor their own servers as well. That will hurt them in the wallet.
Microsoft has proprietary technology to protect??
Robin, ;)
April Fools was a month and a 1/2 ago. I'll keep an eye on userfriendly.org to see if they get an 'email' also
--
Mike
-- Mike wildcard@illuminatus.org
That being said, I am no great fan of Microsoft. I think that many of their business practices are plain wrong. However, Copyrights do exist and should be honored. There may be things which should not be copyrighted, but until a court says otherwise I am inclined to side with the holder of the copyright.
On the other hand, if the material quoted was quoted in a strictly editorial sense, then there is no problem that I see.
An idea suddenly occured to me, of which some serious fun (oh, and a political statement) could be had. There are, what, a couple hundred thousand readers on /.? Let's assume we get 10,000 to post the afforementioned microsoft documents onto their own webspace, or for even more annoyance, geocities. Then, Roblimo can calmly notify Microsoft that action has been taken to remove the posts, and that he can review the results in the attached HTML... and just list all 10,000 sites. I don't know about you, but the mere *thought* of some poor exec in the MS office soiling his drawers is enough motivation to me. *grin* So who's feeling celebratory? ;) Arc.
The portions of the commments that contain obvious copyright violations should be removed. They are not covered by free speech, nor by a "someone else did it - we don't own the comments" defense. Whether /. put them up or not, /. is continuing to display copyrighted material against the wishes of the owner of the copyrighted material and that is illegal and /. isn't above the law, nor should it be.
/. didn't agree to the terms of the EULA, and so are not subject to it. (The terms of the EULA and the way Microsoft distributed it could be basis for invalidating part or all of the EULA - freely available trade secrets my hiney).
/. cares about (and I think they should), then leave that comment available and force judicial review of the law if Microsoft so desires.
Remember that the original Kerberos spec isn't copyrighted by Microsoft so those portions can remain. Also, paraphrased Microsoft copyrighted material is not copyrighted so people can still mention (in their own words) what Microsoft is doing.
The rest of the comments should remain accessable. These include articles containing portions of the copyrighted work that is protected under fair use. The only way those portions should be removed is by court order, not the mere allegations of Microsoft.
Regardless of whether it is illegal for the commenters to post any portion of the work in question,
The link portion of the DMCA is worthy of a fight as a case could be made for free speech infringement. If this is an issue that
Also protected under free speech are comments containing information on how to circumvent the EULA. Providing code to do so might be illegal but discussing the action in general (even telling people how to do it) is protected. People probably shouldn't mention this EULA in particular though. Talk about circumventing any EULA - that speech is easier to protect. In any case, those comments are not subject to copyright laws at all.
As an aside, the legal liability of the copyright violation is probably small. If the copyright wasn't registered (which Microsoft may be scarambling to do) then statutory damages and attorney fees cannot be awarded for any violations before the date of registration. The only damages Microsoft could sue for would be actual damages and since they freely gave the copyrighted material away what damages would they have?
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
Legal precedents (the kind taken into account in future court cases and which it may be of utmost importance not to set) are not set out of the courtroom and are not set by anyone other than judges. So I wouldn't let a fear or precedent-setting stop you from removing the comments. In fact, if you don't remove the comments and are taken to court, you might lose and be told to remove them by a judge, setting just the kind of precendent that Shomon2 seems to think it is imperative to avoid.
You may decide not to remove the comments, and take your chances on legal precedent setting, but do so based on ethical considerations (that are raised elsewhere in this discussion and that you come up with yourself) or legal considerations (based on the advice of professionals) not on fear of precedent setting.
The only people who have to follow the precedents you set are you. Or do you?
Respectfully, David Tallan
I live in Canada and was wondering if US laws like DMCA can be used to sue wee Canadians if we some how violate it? I wouldn't think so, as we (everyone) would be required to know every law, in every country. So since Canada has very few Internet laws, looks like we can host some cool sites :)
>Dear TechNet Staff, .exe-File).
>
>I am writing to you regarding your Page about >Microsoft's
>changed Kerberos implementation. Could you please >make
>the document public in a way so that non-DOS >users like
>me can access the file (specifically, not >publishing it as
>a
>Second, since you changed the Kerberos protocol >in a way
>which is not beneficial to non-Windows users, >could I please
>have your authorisation to implement the protocol >in code, which would of course be
>best for the Internet as a whole...
>I am looking forward to your reply,
I will post any replys....
Andreas Spengler
Why bother with having interaction with a company that will take every advantage it can of you and others, fair or not. And if not fair, then it will make sure that by the time anything is done about an unfairness, its become a moot issue.
Perhaps people need to begin to think more about making MS a MOOT company.
MS has played the game of who has the most software, and once it got this lead, it has kept it in the many ways it has.
But what would happen if the methodology of software development changed. Changed so much that even the "Sotware Crisis" identified and labeled in the 60s' was once and for all SOLVED?
It took chemical engineering 700 years to go from the discovery of alcohol to the operation of chemical megaplants. Software is only about 50 years old, still in the stage of it being wizards, gurus and magic code....and it's only dealing in the abstractions of on and off.
We can move forward and make MS a MOOT issue, but do you really want to?
http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/KNMVIC.html
Autocoding is very possible, but it not magic either.
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
The Slashdot reply to Microsoft's request was weaselling at its most contemptible worst. First, this issue is *not* one of "freedom of speech", it is a copyright issue, plain and simple. "Freedom of speech" does *not* extend to illegal copying of copyrighted works. Second, the reply said that Slashdot does not want to "censor". Selective publication by a *private* organization is *not* "censorship" -- censorship is *government* restriction of expression *by use of force* (i.e., law or ordinance.) Third, the claim that Slashdot doesn't want to supress the "ideas" of its posters is equivocal hogwash of the lowest order -- there is a categorical difference between expressing an idea, and reproducing, verbatim, clearly copyrighted work in violation of the holder's copyright. Individuals are perfectly capable of expressing their views on any of Microsoft's technologies or practices, without violating its copyrights. Slashdot's anarchistic, intellectually irresponsible response does nothing to bolster individual rights, but actually does the opposite, by obfuscating the real issues. Brad Aisa baisa@brad-aisa.com
One last thingy that I noticed. There is no digital signature appended to the message, not any other way to identify the writer of this e-mail. Ofcourse you could make a phonecall. But coming from MS one would expect better use of Outlook (Or not) :-) Lack of traceability brings up an interesting issue. Not that I'm into conspiracy theories, but what if an agent of the plaintif (e.g. $MS) sent the material in question, just to cause the other party trouble? Apparently the copyrighted material in question is already available through other means.
This doesn't have anything to do with DMCA. They are calling the complete posting of their files a copyright violation, and that would have probably been a violation even before DMCA.
As for their complaint about links and instructions to bypass the EULA, that's just bullshit and even DMCA doesn't make those illegal. Even if they somehow manage to deceive a judge into believing that using WinZip to extract the file amounts to "circumventing technological measures to limit access", then their complaint should be against WinZip. After all, the current wave of DMCA scaresuits is based on the idea that you go after the toolmakers instead of the people who use the tool, right?
DMCA was brought up because it has all the stuff about notifying offending parties, and counter-notifying of mistakes, etc.
Basically, I think they're right about the postings of their files being copyright violations. They're full of shit with regard to the EULA-bypassing. They need UCITA for that to stick.
Yo, J.K. Weston: Slashdot has generated a lot of heat in the past, but that was directed at entities that were only tangetially opposed to the main subject matter of this site. Your client is different. Your client isn't just the MPAA or the RIAA or someone who violated the GPL. Your client is the main enemy of everyone who uses a computer. Think carefully about proceeding to represent that client, because you are the wrong side of a Holy War. No matter what happens, if there's ever a "Microsoft vs. Slashdot" case, you are going to come out of it smelling like shit, Mr. Weston, and everyone is going to remember your name. Walk away now and find some honest work.
"The fields are defined as follows: include-pac - This field indicates whether a PAC should be included or not. If the value is TRUE, a PAC will be included independent of other preauth data. If the value is FALSE, then no PAC will be included, even if other preauth data is present. The preauth ID is: #define KRB5_PADATA_PAC_REQUEST 128
References
1 Neuman, C., Kohl, J., Ts'o, T., "The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", draft-ietf-cat-kerberos- revisions-05.txt, March 10, 2000
2 Tung, B., Hur, M., Medvinsky, A., Medvinsky, S., Wray, J., Trostle, J., " Public Key Cryptography for Initial Authentication in Kerberos", draft-ietf-cat-kerberos-pk-init-11.txt, March 15, 2000""
I fear that even /. might cave in to the legal power of M$ and remove these posts. This thread should be copied to a servers all over the world as soon as possible by whichever AC's have the resources.
"by smartin on Tuesday, May 02, @02:20PM EST (#86)",
yet the copy I have says:
"by smartin on Tuesday May 02, @03:20PM EST (#86)"
Yet, the headers on 87, and 96 are:
"by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @04:21PM EDT (#87)" and
"by scotpurl on Tuesday May 02, @04:27PM EDT (#96)"
However you look at it, it seems they were smoking some of the $3 crack that is so common around here :) (Joke, don't sue me for slander/libel M$.)
Made particularly tasty by this:
"This email notification is a statement made under penalty of perjury that we are the copyright owner of the referenced Specification, that we are acting in good faith, and that the above-referenced comments, as part of http://www.slashdot.org, is posting proprietary material without express written permission. "
Ok, how about we get the option to remove/edit our comments with some sort of system notice that identifies to other users that a comment was there, but now removed by... or edited by...
Of course the anonymous cowards won't be able to do that.
Fuck Ajit Pai
We've had this debate before. Slashdot does not moderate comments. Slashdot allows readers to assign scores to comments, and you can adjust the score you are willing to look at. If you browse at -1, then you'll see Slashdot in all of its unmoderated hot grits glory. Your choice.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Ha! This brings up an interesting point. The lawyer's email itself contains links to the posts which link to the material that they want removed. Therefore, the lawyer's email is also suspect and must be removed! :^)
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
I think a little precision is in order on this contentious issue. They didn't say "our content", they said "public content". Quite a big difference.
-Paul Komarek
Having wrote that article I was suprised and pleased to be in the list. I suspect however that the fact that it's included is simply a bug in their legal process that will be resolved in "Microsoft Notice of Copyright Infringement under the Digitial Millennium Copyright Act 2.0"
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
I suspect that the fact that it's included is simply a bug in their legal process that will be resolved in "Microsoft Notice of Copyright Infringement under the Digitial Millennium Copyright Act 2.0"
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
By using posts without the author's permission, Slashdot and Jon Katz may be setting themselves up for a copyright lawsuit, but that is up to the people whose posts they used in the book. If Katz is correct, and those people really wanted their letters used in the book, and didn't really want to be contacted for fear of reprisals if the wrong people find out, then there shouldn't be any lawsuits. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that posts are owned by the posters.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
My prediction, and no, I can't back it up, is that if this had happened a year ago, Slashdot would have stood it's ground. But now, I don't think it will.
Malda has always said that he has complete control over the content on Slashdot, but what about this? My guess is that Andover gets to make the decision, and that they aren't going to want to risk getting sued. So if Malda says keep them and Andover says delete them, I bet Andover wins.
When thinking about this, I remember Al Pacino in "The Insider": "Are you a businessman, or are you a newsman?" Slashdot/Andover is going to have to make a similar decision: money or principle. I'm not too hopeful.
"The LINE must be DRAWN HE-AH!"
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Is this Stalin's USSR or USA?
Now it happens that Americans have to hide their speech in other countries. I never dreamed I live long enough to see that.
It's funny that most of you Americans think about your liberties as granted, your freedom as a matter of fact and then, as a first reaction, look for assylum in other countries.
You have a judiciary system that allows you to challenge that, so Fight, otherwise just sit down trying to get your first post or pour hot grits down your pants, thank you.
Chris DiBona
VA Linux Systems
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Pres, SVLUG
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
> Their content is the owner's responsibility
/. (comparing with the media giants).
So how does one sue AC?
Who do you sue when you wake up and find your car, which you forgot to park in the garage, had pretty obnoxious grafiti all over it?
The same way they should, instead of bullying a "minor" site as
The Napster association is bad enough. If Slashdot does not yank the copyrighted material, not only will Andover lose, but the mainstream press will have a heyday calling all proponents of free software a bunch of thieving zealots. Imagine the impact this will have on the DeCSS case, let alone the future of commercial free-software development.
Slashdot has long been a thorn in the side of Redmond; let's not give MS such a cheap chance to destroy this rival. Nothing would make MS so happy as an excuse to take Andover to court and bleed it dry of funds. Now, the comments explaining how to circumvent the NDA are another thing; in my book, they count as legitimate reverse engineering. Legally testing that legitimacy might be a good thing.
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
I agree. If you are quoting sections of the document that is fair use from what I understand (Of course, IANAL) I believe another mentioned the risks in assuming responsibility for posts on this site. I agree with this as well. If you are responsible for any part of the content you are responsible for all of it. I know no-one wants to be the ones to have to go through the legal hassle to fight a bad law, but we do all get upset whenever x company chooses not to fight, we shouldn't be hypocrites now and back down ourselves.
/. should stick to their guns on this one. I believe in picking your battles, but this one is not a minor skirmish. The DMCA is a very big problem so any opportunity to shoot it down must be taken.
However, I'm thinking this might not go that far. The DMCA is a bad law, but companies like MS want to keep it. My guess is they'll bluster and try to make you take it down by threatening you. But, if you stand up, there's a good chance they will back down rather than take a chance on the law being overturned in court. A lot of companies take a tack like that. If you stand up, they might back down and go after people more easily frightened.
Either way, I think
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
If the New York Times had printed an editorial containing copyrighted information, Microsoft would not even think of having them go around and ink it out in every copy of the New York Times distributed, including those in libraries, archives, bird cages, etc. Why should Slashdot be any different because it's printed with bits instead of on paper? Why should a corporation be able to retroactively alter or delete the historical record provided by a news outlet, effectively rewriting the past?
If you are not one of us, you are one of them. Sentient programs. They can move in and out of any software still hardwired to their system. That means that everyone we haven't unplugged, is potentially an agent.
Dear Microsoft:
Thank you.
Thank you for your corporate culture, thank you for your unflagging sense of invincibility, thank you for targeting us.
I'm serious! It's your antics that are going to get the courts to throw out most, if not all, of your customer damaging, ethically questionable, and technically incompetent abuses of your hard-bought legislation. After all, lets not forget the bottom line of exactly what you're claiming ownership of. You're not just defending the trade secret of, say, one of those secret API's you're in so much trouble about. You're defending a trade secret that basically says Only Microsoft can allow something to join a Customer's Network.
Only you, Microsoft, could claim ownership of your customer's networks. Only you could claim the right to admit and deny code into your customer's nets. Only you could do this while desperately trying not to be split up! Only you could do this to such a degree that you'd attack hundreds of thousands of people just *itching* to prove to anyone within hearing distance why, just why Microsoft is a threat.
I mean, after all, lets not forget that Reverse Engineering law came into existence due to IBM's lock-in policy, whose playbook you've suspiciously stolen. Lets not forget that AT&T was infamous for restricting the hardware you could use on their network. Actually, you can forget. We'll remember, and for all I've been trying to believe that your organization shouldn't be split, or placed under a rather ridiculously oppressive consent decree...this ain't helping.
For all the technical respect I have for your employees--yes, at least one of the people you attacked today repsects your coders greatly--I can't imagine how powerless and abused these individuals must feel. Perhaps Microsoft should be split into coders and suits? The coders do the work and get the money, while the suits field the lawsuits that they've spawned with their arrogance.
Yeah, I can go for that.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Which responsibilities do corporations not have that regular citizens do (under US law)? They have to pay taxes. They have to follow the laws, or else face the consequences. Yes, they can *SHAPE* the laws and get laws which favor them put in place, but so could a similarly-equipped private citizen. Thus corporations soon become more powerful that real people.
What slashdot has done is to set up a system with some clearly defined rules than let people play with it. The fact that some users have a defualt score of -2 is a result of lots of seperate actions by users.
Editorial control, on the other hand, is when someone looks at the content before it is published, and makes a judgement on where to publish it, if at all.
The mechanisms are entirely different in a very important way.
I would also suggest that you only remove the posts in question if ordered to do so by a court.
You want to avoid doing anything which might be used to claim that you have excercised any form of control over the content of the posts on your site. This is important because as soon as you start filtering the posts, perhaps even if you are tricked into doing so, you could be held responible for filtering all the posts.
I agree with leaving links up. Additionally the pages that discuss how to remove the EULA from the document are also A-OK. There's no law that says that you have to agree to the license. If it's been published (I'd say it has) then you're bound by copyright law - anything else is optional. Information on how to read parts of it and avoid other parts is fine.
And IANAL but is it not eligable for significant copyright protections if it's not published? Which would have to be the case for the EULA to really stand up.
It's very disturbing to see people (well, almost always it's big corporations, not people at all) attempt to use copyrights to their benefit, but also skirt around the requirement that it be published and that they submit to the rule of first sale (where the copyright owner cannot control the sale, use or ownership of the material after selling a copy himself - it's what keeps used bookstores in business, and is generally a good idea)
As for the posts actually containg the document, I am undecided. Just my 2 cents
-- 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.
It's ironic, so shortly after the ILOVEYOU virus, that Microsoft still apparantly expects every single user out there to run random executable files to view a simple document! If everybody tried explicitly opening all attachments with Notepad and tried opening all .exe downloads with Winzip, the world would be a lot safer from million-infection computer viruses.
.zip. Someone here said it was a RAR archive, but the only "unrar" program I could find for Linux (binary-only freeware? I feel dirty...) wouldn't open it. Anyone know of Linux tools that will? I'm certainly not going to run it through Wine...
I'm annoyed, however: kerbspec.exe (wow, and they still use those 8.3 filenames, too) isn't a self-extracting
All this talk about Microsoft vs. Free Speech is important, but there's something else that needs to be considered here.
The fact that Microsoft is trying to suppress these articles indicates that they fully intend to 'protect' their proprietary Kerberos extensions. This isn't a replay of earlier extensions, such as the way they transmit DNS and WINS server addresses over a PPP connection, an extension which grudglingly became more-or-less a standard, even though it was placed in the wrong layer). This time they're embracing, extending, and pointing an assault rifle at anyone who wants to try to turn it into a de jure standard rather than simply pay megabucks for Windows 2000.
If Microsoft is successful in protecting its Kerberos extensions as a trade secret, look for this to become their standard mode of operation for every standard they butcher in the future.
And since I know Microsoft is reading this: you people should be ashamed of yourselves. You are a bunch of soul-less monsters. I hope a meteor lands on Redmond and wipes out the whole lot of you.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
I seem to remember a court decision in a case against a very large ISP (AOL or Prodigy?) which held that the ISP was liable for posters' comments, only because that ISP already had an existing policy of regular censorship.
By the way, all the talk about how Andover/Slashdot should be held faultless because thay are a common carrier is nonsense. Slashdot is no more a common carrier than the NY Times.
If copyrighted material were published, in whole, in a story in a newspaper or pulp magazine without the copyright holder's permission, you can bet that that periodical would be sued.
On the other hand, I think that trying to copyright openly published, globally accessible, and freely accessible (as in free beer) material, and then trying to claim it as both copyrighted (for purposes of redistribution) and a trade secret is a ludicrous, although creative abuse of intellectual property laws.
The gist of M$'s license is:
M$an is standing on a corner. StrangerA walks by.
M$an: "Pssst. I have a secret. I'll tell you if you promise not to tell anyone else."
Stranger A: "Okay, what's the secret?"
M$an tells StrangerA the secret.
StrangerB walks by.
M$an: "Hey. I have a secret. I'll tell it to you, but only if you promise not to tell anyone else."
StrangerB: Sure. Tell me the secet."
Another stranger walks by.
M$an: "Hello maam..."
I personally consider divulging the secret to be at worst, given that the secret is actually copyrightable, an act of civil disobedience. Consider that, under Brittish law of the time, the American Revolution was against the law. At one time in the U.S it was illegal for a black man or woman to drink from a water fountain designated as being for whites only. Yeah, it's shame those laws were broken!
Another thing, how can M$ claim any rights under DCMA when DCMA has not ever gone into effect yet?
If so, how far? Under the "six degrees of separation" theory, every server on the net could end up with at least one page with a propagated illegal link.
Christopher A. Bohn
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
I realize that I am chiming in late, but you did ask for readers' opinions. Here's mine.
The letter from Microsoft under penalty of perjury identified one other post as containing a copy of Microsoft's copyrighted material when it instead asked about SAMBA. Microsoft has therefore perjured themselves. What are the legal implications of this? How does this affect the rest of the complaint?
Nice oxymoron.
-- Faré @ TUNES.org
-- Faré @ TUNES.org
Reflection & Cybernet
Hey, at least they're visiting the site.:) I wonder if the M$ guys have accounts?
Humm, maybe they're the Anonymous Cowards that do the first posts.... heheheh
"If you insist on using Windoze you're on your own."
SlashDot may have already given themselves hell. Hell-mouth, in fact.
/.'s grave. Now /. can't really argue that they're more or less free to do what they like with user comments.
Publishing the comments of SlashDot readers sans their permission (the Hellmouth book) may just have dug
OTOH, Microsoft only has the right to demand removal of actual copyright material. Links are a different matter. Hint: Australians are allowed to reverse-engineer things; perhaps there should be a SlashDot department somewhere out of reach of Microsoft lawyers?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I think it's worth noting that Slashdot has never removed a post. Having established no precedent, it makes it considerably easier (IANAL!) for Slashdot to claim that it merely a location where data can be posted, but is not a filter or editor of the content within them.
I don't know how this fits in with the DMCA: Anybody know?
-Waldo
>One last thingy that I noticed. There is no digital signature appended to the message, not any other way to identify the writer of this e-mail.
/. is located. In WA it just might be whatever Gates & Ballinger say on a given day -- or then again, the exact opposite.
Hmm. Reminds me of the Helena Korbin days on a.r.s.
ItooANAL, but sending legal notice to people tends to be done on paper by registered post. An email could come from anyone -- a lawyer at Microsoft, a troll wanting to get MS in trouble, or the legal staff at Andover wanting to run up the billable hours &/or get some overtime.
State law here in OR is that you have to send legal notices by snail mail. Prolly is the case in Michigan, where
I say ignore this communication, until soemthing arrives from Redmond that would be acceptible to a 19th century court of law. Like a snail mail or a live human being.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I am no lawyer. But I have met several times this race of mammals roaming in the neighborhood. And this puts me in alert in relation to this letter.
/. should have looked something like this:
/. to give the public acknowledgement of this letter and then asks to inform him about what action has been taken!!!!
This letter claims copyright violations according to "provisions" in a certain law. UAU!
Either lawyers quit the old _ONE_ M$ Way, either someone at M$ is taking the law with himself or this is just a good joke. If you claim a violation AGAINST an act of law, USUALLY you claim no only the law but also the article, paragraphs and, if you are a damn bastard in your profession CITE the law and even DETAIL IT against the concrete violation. Besides you don't strictly claim that you are breaking the law and that you SHOULD do that or that to become the good right citizen. That belongs to the police, the FBI & Co. And even such organisms don't have the right to claim you broke the law and consider immediately that you are guilty (maybe in One M$ Way they only believe in presumption of in-nonsense of their users)
A letter of pretentions to
"According to article 272 point 1 of the Trinitary Act, we consider that the article #33454
is violating our rights as it publishes a detail of our internal specs on Windows^-1. Specifically:
'- You can overpass the login password by pressing ESC'
We consider this information internal to our company and not available to public. Consequently we would require that you remove this immediately"
That is one point on how the letter should look like. A correct letter. Not this mass of foggy warnings that we are seeing here. But not only.
Usually there is a practice for contacts between lawyers before any action is taken. No one likes to wash such kind of dirty laundry in the public. Strangely enough the author of thing asks
Looking at this I can come into three conclusions. Either we are facing a guy with a very good/bad sense of humour, either we are facing some sort of provocation (or call for provocation). Or lawyers, maybe in face of the last events around M$, decided to quit the boat and left their apprentices around...
that slashdot got hit with a DoS shortly after all this occurred..
8 2,00.html
see http://www.wirednews.com/news/politics/0,1283,362
Hmm.. i may be a conspiracy buff, but id love to see it traced back to the empire... ehehe..
Not really as disturbing as what dog food becomes after the dog has 'processed' it, right? That would explain a lot....
Someone should do a pseudo clean room reverse engineer of the spec. Have someone read the spec without seeing the license agreement, have them relate the spec to another author, and have that author do a write up and post it as a feature on slashdot. The reson the author shouldn't read the spec is to ensure that he is 'clean'. Copyright doesn't cover facts, only expression, so I don't see how this could be illegal.
Of course the samba guys will probably reverse engineer the method by watching the packets fly across the network. Real men don't need documentation!
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
Legislating against circumvention and reverse engineering is so misguided, I hardly know where to begin.
... it was kids, working alone, or in small groups of friends. It wasn't done for profit -- it was done for the challenge.
Back in 1982, my parents bought me my first computer -- an Apple II. They also bought me a bunch of games. I was immediately frustrated by how much better the commercial games were then my BASIC programs were. I quickly figured out that if I ever wanted to write "the good stuff", I would need to learn 6502 assembly language. Fortunately, Apple had included a source listing of the monitor ROM, which, along with a 6502 reference card, was enough information to pick up the language and start writing programs.
But the real way that I learned 6502 assembly language was by removing the copy protection from those games. The games were expensive, and the copy protected disks worked poorly, wore out quickly, and were murder on the disk drives. Clearly these games could be "improved" by turning them into small files, which I could more easily carry around on a single disk in my backpack -- a similar motivation as people have in creating MP3s out of their CDs.
(For the curious, the trick was to load the boot sector, which couldn't be copy protected, into memory, then disassemble the boot code and change the JMP instruction that transferred control to the second stage boot loader into a breakpoint. Next, I would execute the boot sector code, allowing the program to drop back into the monitor once the copy protected boot loader had finished loading. Then I would explore memory to see what had been loaded. There were some devilish tricks -- sometimes the byte right before the starting instruction would deliberately contain an opcode designed to trick the disassembler into printing gibberish. Sometimes, the boot loader would load the program into memory, then run an algorithm that XORed one part of the program with another part of the program -- descrambling it. Inevitably, by repeating the process over and over, I would eventually reach a point where the entire program had been loaded into memory and was ready to execute. Then, I would copy all of the individual chunks of the program into a contiguous region, usually in the HIRES memory area, and reboot the machine. Rebooting the machine would leave the contents of the HIRES memory intact, so once DOS had booted up, one could easily BSAVE the program image into a file. Next step was to write a short assembly routine that would copy all of the program sections back into their original location, and branch to the starting instruction of the game. Finally, this was all combined together and BSAVED as a single executable program. There were many other tricks -- like overlaying the RWTS (read/write track/sector) routine (I accumulated an entire disk full of those!), but the main approach of attack was almost always reverse engineering. Doing this, I could fit 5-15 games on a single, unprotected disk, I could back up my games, and they weren't so hard on the disk drive.)
Each game was a battle between the programmer who had tried to protect the game, and myself, and I almost always had more fun cracking the game then from playing it. I used to borrow games I didn't care about, just for the fun of breaking them down into a file.
I was 15 years old at the time, and although it may have seemed like a waste of valuable high school study time to do this, I have found that I use similar techniques to this day. All that reverse engineering work gave me the basic analytical skills that I use to this day, both on the job and off, and if I had been dissuaded from doing so because it was illegal, I don't know what I'd be doing with my life right now, but I doubt it would have been for the better.
The valuable practical experience and education that comes from unauthorized reverse engineering is what the DMCA seeks to deny to the next generation of American computer programmers.
If reverse engineering is now held to be illegal, the effect will not be to stop reverse engineering. Instead, we will criminalize an entire generation of bright young people who are doing nothing other then exploring the world around them, trying to understanding how it works -- applying the scientific method to the things that matter to them -- their music, movies, and computers -- and trying to make them more useful to themselves. It wasn't a heavily financed organization that broke CSS, or reverse-engineered Mattel's encryption scheme
The danger is that if you tell a kid that he or she is a criminal for doing something that is not immoral or unethical, you run the risk that that kid will accept that he or she is a criminal. The real danger of record company executives, and especially ignorant musicians making poor-mouth declarations that "downloading an MP3 is just a wrong as stealing a CD from Tower Records", is that a kid believes it. That's not what this is about, they know it, and they are teaching a very, very bad lesson to the next generation, in a doomed effort to stop something that's about as stoppable as the incoming tide. They don't care what damage they are doing, and that should bother everyone.
The way things are going, the main effect of the DMCA is going to be the creation of a new generation of extremely smart young people with contempt for the law, because the law has contempt for them. It will be exactly what our country deserves for passing laws like the DMCA.
A quote from the Peacefire site:
It's not a crime to be smarter than your parents
Not until the DMCA made it a crime.
Yes, in theory you are correct, but when you're faced with a federal indictment charging you with theft of trade secrets, you are in a bit of a tough position, aren't you?
Bear in mind that theft of trade secrets is a felony in the U.S., punishable by fines of up to $500,000 or imprisonment of up to 10 years. I didn't know that until I just looked it up, and I bet you didn't either.
That's why this is such an appalling tactic. Theft of trade secrets is an extremely serious crime, penalty-wise, and Microsoft has essentially used it to bait a trap for its competitors.
It's your word against Microsoft's money and lawyers.
Want to roll the dice?
Except for those users who have an automatic score of -2. Slashdot censors certain users, which could be considered to be editorial control.
I propose the following: If Slashdot removes the comments without having been forced to by an actual court ruling, we boycott Slashdot.
What a dumb idea. Slashdot is us. Slashdot needs our support. Do you always turn on your friends when they suffer a setback? Whose side are you on, anyway?
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
"I sincerely hope that Slash is doing, and has been doing, the right thing and simply not keeping any records of anonymous posters."
Well, what is the answer to this one? Do I need to read the FAQ? You'll find the answer to the question by reading the source code. (I don't know the answer just now:)
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
This email notification is a statement made under penalty of perjury that we...
I find it a little ironic that Microsoft expects to add weight to *any* statement by using the word "perjury". Anybody who is interested in judging for themselves whether Microsoft thinks perjury is a problem can check out Bill Gates video testimony. Personally, I don't think perjury means a thing to this man or his company.
I wonder if it matters at all that Microsoft is quite likely breaking the law with its attack on Kerberos, and supporting that lawbreaking using the fig leaf of DCMA.
I wonder if Microsoft would rather that this post be removed also?
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
The traditional definition of a common carrier is a business that offers a service to the general public, without discrimination, on a regular basis. Common carriers are usually subject to federal and state regulations. A common carrier can not refuse service to a customer except under unusual conditions such as lack of capacity. That is where most Internet companies flunk the common carrier test. They reserve the right to not offer service or to discontinue service without cause. The telephone company on the other hand, must provide service to anyone who can pay for it, even if they are the League of Communist Dope Fiends and Child Pornographers for Satan, Reformed.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
And if he's not available, I am a great lawyer. I've never lost a case! And I'll work for almost nothing!
"It does NOT make sense!"
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
The illegal material is NOT on slashdot servers... and according to a recent ruling, slashdot has every right to link to those pages, even if they contain "illegal" stuff... I say just let Microsoft deal with it... if they really want to let through with it, then let them sue whoever the owners of the other servers are.
:)
We, Slashdot, need not worry.
No, that is not obvious. Why would Slashdot/Andover remove posts they don't own?
Slashdot is just like a telephone company or a newsgroup. A discussion group.
Microsoft should ask the original owners of the posts to remove them. But not order Slashdot to remove them!
But should Slashdot/Andover do that?
They (Slashdot/Andover) don't own those posts.
Slashdot is just like HotMail, A telephone company or a newsgroup. They host a discussion forum and they should not be responsible or interfere with the content.
What is interesting is what would happen when SlashCode finally has support for NNTP/Usenet news gateways. Then the Slashdot comments would also automagically appear on DejaNews and thousands of other news servers. Then it would be obvious why it is not the business of Slashdot/Andover to remove these postings.
[I Am Not A Lawyer]
The copyright issue is bogus. MIT owns all copyrights on Kerberos. Microsoft can't get them by re-writing a spec. Doesn't work that way.
Of course it does. If Microsoft writes a new spec for a Kerberos extension (that's what this was, right?), then Microsoft has a valid copyright on that spec. Accordingly, the single posting that was a verbatim copy of Microsoft's work should really be removed as a blatent copyright violation. (I can't see any way to argue "fair use" for a verbatim copy without additional analysis or discussion by that poster.) Postings which discussed bypassing the EULA or linked to the text should be left intact.
The DMCA is evil and should be repealed, but I believe that posting was already illegal under existing copyright laws before the DMCA was passed. I don't know if Slashdot would have been liable for it, but I can imagine refusing to remove it might qualify them as "accessories after the fact" or some such...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
This is a very interesting point. Microsoft's lawyer said it was "a statement made under penalty of perjury", and two of the referenced comments listed under "Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification" actually only contains links to unauthorized copies. Given that a single comment was listed under "Comments Containing Links to Internet Sites with Unauthorized Copies of the Specification", Microsoft cannot claim ignorance of the distinction.
It looks like Microsoft's lawyer may have committed perjury.
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Do you think they would remain for long?
My understanding of the EULA is that you *must* agree to it to be legally entitled to access the content. Even if you work around, it is an illegal access of the document in question, and as such is breaking copyright.
Crowing about free speech isn't going to help, there is a copyright violation in place here, and, regardless of who posted the documents, they should, realistically, be pulled.
If the original posters want to mirror their posts elsewhere, fine, but see if the juggernaut leaves you alone.
Anyhow, how is an AC going to claim ownership of a post? Without dredging the logs and determining if the server caught the IP of the poster, or checking if it was a logged in posted who checked 'post as AC'*, you end up with a thousand people claiming to be Spartacus.
On the other hand, if this is going to degenerate into Usenet, I'd like a copy of Neil Stephenson's The Big-U posted to a thread.
* If you moderate a comment, then go back to that thread and post as AC, your moderation is undone. I guess the server still knows who you are in this case, regardless of what others may have said.
Although most of this is obviously bullshit, they may have a point, regarding people who posted the entire copyrighted work. So I decided to look up one of their examples of "Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:". The very first one I checked was this:
That post contains a copy of the specification? They want Roblimo to remove smartin's post because it violates DMCA? Okaaaaay... It sounds like Microsoft's lawyers are way overpaid if they're making as much as McDonalds workers.
What's interesting to me is this possibility: even if smartin's post had contained the copyrighted work, the overall context (the story about the ridiculous attempt at imposing a license that removes rights) might actually legitimize it under fair use. In a story about a lost secret, quoting the secret seems pretty reasonable to me.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Fine, it's not a trade secret anymore, since they themselves published it openly. But the document in question is still a copyrighted expression that describes that non-secret.
The document is still copyrighted. And you can do anything you want with it, within the provisions of Fair Use. Basically, that just means you can not redistribute it in whole, and almost anything else (e.g. coding a competing implementation, redistributing parts of it along with criticism, etc) is fair game.
Alas, some people have been redistributing the whole thing, using Slashdot as the carrier. That's the only problem here.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Microsoft doesn't lose much by pissing off a bunch of avowed anti-Microsoft Linux-lovers.
/. isn't a big loss for them (although I suspect more of us Win32 weenies are on here than anyone suspects -- we are nerds, too) but the front page article in Infoworld talking about how Microsoft is trying to supress the publication of an "open" standard sure wouldn't make too many IS admins or CIOs comfortable with the support for that standard (or it's potential logevity)...
Well, pissing off
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Take this letter as a fair warning. Listen to your lawyers, and don't be too adventurous. But prepare for next time:
Establish an agreement with an off-shore site to provide mirroring. Then if the US site has to remove something, it can note that this can only be found off shore, as the US no longer promotes free speech. (I think that you are a busy enough site that this might even be more efficient than the current arrangement...but you know best about that.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If you moderate a comment, then go back to that thread and post as AC, your moderation is undone. I guess the server still knows who you are in this case, regardless of what others may have said.
Copy the link location of the "Reply to This" link and paste it into lynx (or any other browser that doesn't have your slashdot cookie). Without your cookie, lynx (or whatever) will post as a real Anonymous Coward.
(If you only have one web browser, well... get another one. ;-) )
Courts have never been supportive of any attempt to use copyright as a way to limit the ability of third parties to create compatible products or code. I think that nukes the "good faith" right there.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Yes...but is your place called dotopia?
-AP
...simply moving the SlashDot comments database off-shore to it's own private island. Call it, "dotopia." Cannot imagine the cost of the high-speed leased-line it would require though...
But seriously, this is a really good oppertunity to see how good Andover.net's legal department is. If they choose to fight, most of the SlashDot readership will be happy and more secure about SlashDot being owned by a coporation. If they choose to comply, the opposite may happen. In any event, this is good an exciting news: and I am proud to be a witness.
Go get 'em!
-AP
"If I were a Microsoft public relations person, I would probably be sobbing on a desk right now," says Miller.
"Microsoft has no comment at this time," said a Microsoft public relations spokesperson.
The first one is the reason why Jeremy Allison made a big fuss over the issue, and the second is why Microsoft is pressing on Slashdot. The document is clearly still copyrighted material - it could never lose that status. What happens to Andover/Slashdot is still very much in the open.
According to this article by C|Net, the document no longer enjoys the status of a trade secret:
So, if this logic was to be followed, the Samba team would be free to implement an open source SMB server that interoperates with Microsoft's Kerberos, without getting permission from Microsoft.
I am so damn mad at reading this that I could spit nails right now. I went outside and had a smoke so I could calm down and try to write something well reasoned and insightful. I hope I do.
I don't know if Andover wants to do battle and try to show that the DMCA is the fraud that it is - something that was written by a few companies to benefit themselves, but we all knew that - but I hope that they will. I have my checkbook out right now and am willing to make a donation to get this stupid ass law tossed.
I am therefore pleading with the powers that be at Slashdot and Andover to just tell Microsoft to go to hell. We the geek community need to stand up to bullying tactics. It does not matter if it is Microsoft, the RIAA, or Joe's Software Company. It is time to give the DMCA the finger. If we don't, we are giving in.
This is undoubtedly what Micorsoft was hoping for. Why else "release" a protocol spec in such a ridiculous way?
/.? And a careful observer would know that some /.ers are prone to posting banned material such as DeCSS, if it offends them in some way.
When a Micorsoft spokesman spouts bullshit to the public, or when one of their suckups publishes a misleading benchmark or technical analyses, where doe the imperial nudity and the odor of poop get pointed out more quickly and thoroughly than on
The proper response is, I think, to hit them with a subpoena for all internal correspondence pertaining to (a) Slashdot, and (b) the "release" of the spec.
At the very least, you'll get someone sent to jail for destroying evidence. At best you'll get the case dismissed and Micorsoft will get another huge PR black eye right as it goes into the final round of the DoJ suit.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It's good to know that someone at Microsoft is reading /., 'cause now we can tell them in person what we think of them.
Messages for Microsoft, anyone?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If you don't like it, don't post, or read or anything. Go back to usenet. Are YOU DENSE???? Who cares about ALL CAPS! I SEEM TO BE DOING ALL RIGHT.
Enough of this BS...no-one is keeping you here.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
MS isnt' suing slashdot. MS is requesting that slashdot, as a service provider (they provide the service of allowing you to post content here), they must remove the alleged infringing material (as they DO have the technical means to do this), unless the end-user wishes to contest.
It's no different than if this were slashdot hosting co. and you had a website with them. Yes, you own your website outright, but the hosting co., legally, must remove the alleged infringing material upon notification, which would mean removing the comments, or taking the site offline, or whatever is necessary....
Trade secret is a whole issue unto itself, dealing with whether or not something is a 'secret'.
Copyright applies to any original work. The MS Kerberos document *IS* an original work, copyrighted by microsoft, and, as such, can be copyrighted.
As for trade secret, I believe they may have problems claiming trade secret has been violated. It is no longer a secret, by microsoft's own doing, how their protocol works. Anyone who wants can go get the spec. They cannot claim that it is a trade secret.
A trade secret is like, the recipe (formula?) for Coca-cola. Nobody knows it, at least, nobody who isn't in the highest echelons of coca cola corp.
Should you manage to steal this secret and publish it, you wouldbe guilty of violating trade secret laws, as you knowingly divulged coke's trade secret, which is very valuable to them.
Otoh, if coke offered this secret to anyone who would sign an NDA.. it's no longer a secret after enough people know about it.. even if they are all under NDA.
MS, however, is not suing under trade secret. THeir license simply says to treat the document as if it were a trade secret.. and you agreed to it.
What does the fact that they invoke some trade secret lingo have to do with copyright?
Trade secret deals with the materials covered in the documents.. the facts of the matter.
Copyright deals with the document itself.
If you are posting the document itself, you are violating copyright, plain and simple, as you have absolutely no permission from MS to reproduce the document.
If you are simply posting the technical details, and exerpts, re-worded.. that would be trade secret.
Well, I don't want to see Slashdot legally dismantled any more than anyone else does. The posting of the specification on slash, really is copyright infringement, and any court in this country would find against Andovet. Think if they posted the complete text to a new novel online, or if someone posted top-secret documents that they had obtained from their employer under an NDA.
While some readers may applaud these moves, trying to defend them in court is a futile battle (and one of questionable value, IMHO, even if Andover did win).
On the other hand, the "linking" issue, which mirrors the current 2600 case, is an open question. I sincerely doubt that the supreme court would uphold it, considering its first ammendment implications. In essence, a link to copyright-infringing material is an instruction on how to commit a crime, implicitly saying: "Hey d00d, if you want illegal documents, just !" This is a protected first-ammendment right, as long as it doesn't cross the line into real incitement.
Slashdot should remove any posts containing the illegal text, but not bend on the linking issues.
--JRZ
OK so they claim that Slashdot needs to remove copyrighted material? Yet if Slashdot does this then they are responsible for any copyrighted material. So...
Let's post the spec on one of Microsoft's sites. If they then remove it, then they are claiming editorial responsibility for any information posted there. Then we post anything we want under their servers (I'm thinking mp3s here) and they could be held responsible for it. So we'd have the RIAA suing M$ for the removal of this stuff that we'd keep posting. And there's nothing quite like 2 large corporations suing each other silly. Especially if its posted on NBC's news site who would be more likely to claim its within the rights of a news orginization to do so...
Like I said... silly idea.
-cpd
At least one of the comments that they claim contains a copy of the spec, does NOT contain the spec. Post #86 by smartin simply says "What happens to the people that implement it (ie. the Samba guys) even if they obtain the information without intentionally breaking the license. Are they exposing themselves to expensive litigation? Are they endangering the project?" It's post #87, by anonymous coward, that contains the spec. Thus, Microsoft has unjustly slandered the good name of "smartin". Who knows what else they have wrong.
Why can they even call it Kerberos in the first place? It's not Kerberos anymore, it's some wacky proprietary authentication since they hacked it all up.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Courtroom in Seattle, year 2002...
"So, you admit you created and uploaded this web page, in direct violation of the DMCA?"
"Well, yeah, but all it says is..."
"Your honor, it's clear that the defendant illegally reverse-engineered Windows 2001, and then posted this illegal web page. We ask for the maximum penalty under law."
"What did the web page say, exactly?"
"Windows Sucks"
"Guilty, as charged. Take him away."
On a more serious note, I hope that Andover will stand up to Microsoft. The DMCA was passed on behalf of corporations, not the American public.
I agree with another poster: it's a damn sad state of affairs that we (Americans) have to look to other countries to find freedom of speech.
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
Hello,
I was surprised to find out that you read the posts on slashdot, but since we have your attention I would like to say a few things to you. I used your products for personal use for a couple years, from win 3.1 to win 3.11 to the first release of win95. I will never purchase another windows product again.
I found your products to be unstable, unreliable and generally lacking in most areas. I am sorry you feel it's more important to concentrate on destroying all your competitors than to develop quality software.
I find the way your company does business to be distatefull and damaging to the computer industry.
Yet, despite my opinions about your company and your poor products, I do not think it's appropriate for others to violate your rights. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I think the scariest part (and one with legal backing under the DCMA) is where they ask to remove posts that just describe how to access the contents of the document:
:-) )
[Ms asks to remove posts, including...] and some comments contain instructions on how to circumvent the End User License Agreement that is presented as part of the download for accessing the Specification.
Would they mind telling us which posts in particular they consider legally viable to get around the licence? (So we can remove them later, of course!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Moderation is not JUST doen by users (and even watched over by users)- it is also totally optional. You can view the moderation as simply a "display" layer placed over the comments- you can freely view them with or without the logic of this display layer in place.
If it was me my, "official response" would read in it's entirety:
Have they not read the disclaimer on the bottom of all slashdot's pages? "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2000 Andover.Net."
Since when did this piece-of-crap "DMCA" have any validity outside the US? Slashdot is worldwide, don't even think about invoking law beyond your own state boundaries!
Roblimo! Quick - mail back to the listed sources in that email saying that without GPG-signed mail you can't verify that it's really from them. Just fling it in the bin and forget it without GPG.
It's time to fasten your seatbelt, Dorothy, 'cos Redmond is going Bye-byes!
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Posting opinions and ideas and thoughts to Slashdot is one thing, but posting copyrighted material...well, that's different. If I were to post a comment containing the entire text of Snow Crash, one of my favorite Neal Stephenson novels, would you not remove my posts due to copyright violation? I believe you would. And I believe that you should extend the same courtesy to Microsoft and respect their copyrights just as you would respect those of your favorite author. Freedom of speech is not going to be impaired by the removal of a few comments containing illegally reproduced, copyrighted material.
--
There are two things that really confuse me here: Is this protocol GPL'D? If so, doesn't MS completely lack any kind of leg to stand on?
Second, what happens under DCMA if Slashdot fails to comply?
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
We are not breaking copyright because we are not trying to claim that their material is ours or anything close to that.
Insightful?!? This is the most blatantly idiotic thing I've read on slashdot yet! So what you're telling me is that I can go ahead and distribute copies of Metallica's songs on mp3 as long as I don't claim ownership of the song? For the love of root, read the articles posted, read the DMCA, read up on copyright law, but please, PLEASE, stop posting this type of uninformed nonsense here.
To summarise, some users posted entire copies of copyrighted documents in comments on Slashdot, and links to them as well. Some links to other documents that MS is protesting as well were posted. Under the provisions of the DMCA, Slashdot is responsible for removing the posted materials, irrespective of who owns the posts, as it is on Slashdot's server. Also, it should be noted that as users cannot modify and/or delete their own posts, asking the posters (or "owners") to remove the offending material is not really an option. The links to the other documents not hosted on Slashdot is a separate issue, since they don't control the content on the servers that are linked to.
Hope this clears some things up.
----
Dave
Purity Of Essence
- Dave
Second, it's probably safe to tell people how not to obtain documentation.
Rewriting the offhand comment portion of my original post:
Do not, under any circumstances, right click on the exe and choose extract to folder, as this would prevent you from seeing the license agreement.
Third, this is a PR nightmare for Microsoft. They've already gotten reamed in the press for not releasing Kerberos specs, now they're insisting those specs are a Trade Secret?
Fourth, Trade Secrets usually lose their protection after they are made publically available to competitors. Putting the spec up on a public place on their web site and letting the Samba developers download it and then submit an article to slashdot is probably enough to lose trade secret protection.
Fifth, Slashdot needs to move offshore.
IIRC, wasn't there just a case that said that source code is considered protected speech, if you are talking about it and you need to "quote" it, just like what happened in the story they are trying to censor.
Couldn't find the link in under a minute, someone else will have too...
--
+&x
Do you really believe that slashdot wouldn't censor a list of credit card numbers? I think you're being a bit too idealistic here.
that depends on what you mean by censor. I would censor them myself, since I browse at 1 and would thus miss the spamming by the law-breaking AC.
hmm, the best was to test idealism is to test it.
Let's find out, anybody got a list of CC#s? (just curious, a simple yes or no will do....)
There's also this other little problem.... Big props to numb for pointing this out.
--
+&x
The moderation process has nothing to do with selecting or rejecting content.
It is a system in which a quasi-random sample of the community rates the quality of posts.
Down-moderated posts are still out there for the public to see. Slashcode merely allows the user to prioritize posts which are likely to be interesting based on a sampling of opinions. It's no different in principle than peopel going to see a movie because of word of mouth. A movie like the "Blair Witch Project" is almost impossible to ignore, because everyone's talking about it.
With respect to being unable to retract or edit the comments, I believe that is irrelevant to the argument and a very bad idea. It is a bad idea because Slashdot is an ongoing conversation, and posts are records of what was said. To allow users to redact or modify their comments is to change the record of what was said.
It is irrelevant because the ability to retract or modify your works are orthagonal to the issue of ownership. Dr. King gave his "I Have a Dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. The speech, the courts have ruled, belonged to him. He and now his heirs have the sole right to publish the speech and any derivative works. However, he can't take the words back. He can't eradicate them from the public memory, either in its intangible or tangible forms. If the courts found the speech slanderous, they could order the family to cease publishing it, but could they order the television networks to erase their tapes?
Legally, this argument probably doesn't hold water. However an accurate record of public conduct and speech is very important to a free society, so Slashdot should stick to its guns.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I agree, that publishing a description of the method of avoiding the click-through license is not an infringement even under DMCA. The people who use the method, however, are probably still in violation of DMCA's very broad anti-TPM provision, despite the fact that it is easy to do with widely available tools. I think that "effectively" controlling access to the content in the context of this law means that the user must be aware he is doing something against the author's wishes, not whether it is hard to do or whether the technology to do so is widely available (to argue otherwise puts winzip under the same legal cloud as DeCSS).
I think the DMCA argument has a weakness though.
It is interesting that MS doesn't use a trade secret argument. The problem with a trade secret is that once the cat's out of the bag, it's not a secret anymore.
So what is protected is not the specification of the protocol extensions, but Microsoft's creative expression of these protocols. In turn, this creative expression is protected by a restrictive EULA which forbids disclosure. You are allowed to enjoy Microsoft's expressive prose with the proviso that you're only allowed to do security analysis on it. These interlocking measures protect the intellectual "payload" -- the trade secret of Microsoft's Kerberos extensions.
It's a clever kind of interlocking argument, but like a lot of Microsoft's software, I think it is too clever for its own good. Like Scotty says, the more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to gum up the works.
IANAL, but I see two immediately possible paths to defeating the secrecy of the protocols.
First of all, there is the tainted approach, which requires an EULA violation by somebody but frees the protocol extensions. Somebody with access to the document, either legal or illicit, could write a compatible specification and publish it anonymously. This would be illegal, but since the protocols themselves aren't protected except by EULA, people who receive the new specification would be free to use it since it contains none of the expressive IP of MS. The software does contain a former trade secret that was illegally disclosed, but once disclosed, legally or illegally, it is no longer a secret.
A second approach is for somebody to work within the letter EULA but to violate its spirit. In this approach, you'd do a security analysis -- a very, very thorough and well annotated analys. Then, another party takes this and reverse engineers a full specification.
In the last case, there can be no argument that programs which implement the extended protocols are tainted, since the initial step, which effectively reveals the trade secrets being, is allowed under the EULA. The problem with this approach is that the details of some EULAs might make publishing a detailed security analysis difficult.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
However, this is orthogonal to the original issue, which was that the contents of the document were a trade secret. Trade secret protection extends beyond copyright, and its pretty clear that MS want to effectively prevent anyone from interworking with this aspect of their Kerberos service without their permission. Whether they can make TS status stick on a click-through license is another question.
Meantime, where does this leave a hypothetical future version of Samba which would interwork with MS Kerberos? If MS can claim trade secret status then true open source would be impossible. But I suspect that if you wrapped the source code up in a click-through license then MS would not be able to claim violation of the trade secret. Copyright might be a bit trickier: most of the MS document appears to be source code from a .h file, so simply copying that code into your own .h file would violate their copyright. However if you rephrased their source code, using different names but equivalent data structures, then I think that would be OK.
I await the legal advice with interest.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Roblimo's response was somewhat puzzling.
Actually, I found Roblimo's response to contain a rather interesting problem for MS:
On one hand, MS happens to dislike the spread of this information around. On the other hand, it would be impossible for MSN if people started posting possibly copyrighted stuff on the MSN servers and poor, harried MSN admins had to run around deleting every single illegal post.
<Ponder>I mean, can you imagine what would if people started posting all the "illegal" stuff all over MSN servers (DeCSS, Kerberos clippings, etc)? </Ponder>
The DMCA was meant to benefit software houses at the expense of personal and ISP freedom. Wonder what happens when the entity is both?
And Judge Jackson. Include an explanation of how Microsoft is trying yet again to impose propietary standards in order to control the Internet.
It is my understanding that by naming your post Microsoft has sworn, under oath, that your post violates the DMCA. If you can show that your post has not violated the DMCA then i would have thought that Microsoft will be open to being found in violation of purjury laws...
Can this be used against them?
Probably, I broke no laws, and I can prove it.
Now what about defamation of character? That I'm a law breaker? Hrmm..
-- iCEBaLM
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Does MSFT's EULA prohibit parodies being made by people who have viewed it legitimately and clicked etc?
If not it should be possible to read it, parody it (can't see that being hard :) and repost.
of course I might be a fish...
~ppppppppö
As a mater of fact you do not violate the law by opening the MS program. In some country's there is no copy right (or any other kind of protection) for (so called) Trade Secrets.
That means if a foreign native (say of China) opened the file (in China) and post's the information no law has been broken. That foreign native is not liable to abritrary US law.
As to copy rights (or any other kind of rights), you can not take over a public standard and copy right it. It is the equivalent of me buying a copy of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, changing one leter and copy righting it as my own. Actualy in the US I believe that you can not even create derived works baised on someone elses book, let alone copyright and sell that derived work. (Don't believe me? Try writing a derivative of the Dune series and see what happens to you.) Why does that not apply to published (non microsoft) computer protocols?
"but apparently /. can tread on your first post rights... *G*"
/. is not the only one. But the real authority to tread on a comment is the commenter [him|her]self.
;)
And, as Microsoft would have it,
Slashdot should allow post owners to edit/remove their own posts. I know this would not always be pretty and wouldn't work for anonymous posts, but it is possible. I realize that comments don't remain in the database very long, and that once an article is archived, there is no practical way to allow editing. I've allowed users to delete (but not edit) their own posts for years at starshiptraders.com without any problems. At sitereview.org, contributors can edit their submissions without limit -- as long as they didn't post anonymously. We do add a line that says "Updated: [date]" on modified articles to help minimize confusion.
Of course, slashdot is in a class by itself, with it's own small army of trolls and DoS kiddies in tow, and would have to do a lot of analysis and tweaking to get a comment-editing system into place... and it might not even be workable here at all. But, then again, Rob hasn't shied away from too many such challenges in the past.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
I'm a college student. I don't have much money. But if slashdot wants to fight this, I've got $100 for their legal defense. Please do the right thing, Rob!
-Dave Turner.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
According to one of their reporters, the influential Seattle Weekly, one of our free weeklies that all the politicos and arts crowd reads, is doing stories on the DCMA and also on MSFT suing Slashdot.
...
They say that they can't get any of the Slashdot staffers to comment on it, though.
I just so love dropping nuclear bombs in Bill G's lap - the expression is priceless and you can hear the screams all the way across Lake Washington
Will in Seattle
Definitely!
Except, the question should be:
A) Compliance
B) Resistance
C) You are Borg - We are Slashdot
D) Hemos
Will in Seattle
Just a silly question, but when I was trying to get E*Trade to release the shares for the coders, I found that a lot of press coverage from other news organizations, as well as any federal agencies one can think of, sure makes large corporations sit back and think.
So, if every person on slashdot forwards the story link in an email to all the tech and business news organizations they know of, the intense spotlight of coverage might change the end result.
It's called daylight, you shine it on worms.
[Note: I own shares of MSFT, so I guess I should email them to complain about misuse of corporate resources to hound slashdot]
Will in Seattle
Looks like it's on cNet, according to this story here.
Anyone seen it on CNN in Tech, or NY Times, or Washington Post yet? How about Seattle Times or Seattle Post-Intelligencer or Seattle Weekly or The Stranger?
Will in Seattle
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Very nice reply by roblimo.
But, should Microsoft persist, I say fight. By any means necessary, short of tactical nukes. The most important thing is to not roll over at the threat of a lawsuit.
If this goes to court, I pledge at least $500 to the Slashdot Legal Defense Fund. Who's with me? Even $20 per geek would add up fast.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Talk about pathetic lusers, here's a quarter, go buy yourself a real OS.
It's going to be sad, really, when no one is hiring you MSEs anymore. You can hold up a sign... "Will write useless, bloated, insecure, virus-prone proprietary spaghetti code for food..."
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
and then saying "whoa, mr. lawyer, we're just a carrier, all comments are owned by the poster!"
They actually said nothing of the sort. They posted the letter from MS and said, "we're talking to our attorneys"
--GnrcMan--
Apologies if this is a repeat, but I cannot read all 925 comments.
/. may not be beyond reproach, but MS certainly has to answer for it's conduct too. It may influence the court case towards structural remedies if MS cannot be trusted with conduct remedies.
Microsoft is threatening Slashdot by email. MS is trying to prevent the spread of it's specifications. Yet published specs is one of the remedies that Microsoft itself proposes for the punishment phase of the anti-trust trial. This email casts doubt on how sincere (complete) MS would be in publishing specifications.
I recommend roblimo get in touch with the DoJ anti-trust team and apprise them of this email and situation. AFAIK, they have a brief to file soon. Sure,
I simply cannot believe that MS would be so stupid as to send this email out. They may have the right to, but it seems to me very dangerous for them. Imagine the headlines "MS gangs up on techie site".
The problem is that some of the posts simply had the entire document in it. or VERY large chunks of the document. Thats illegal DMCA or not. Most non-fiction books have it marked on the copyright page that its ok to use small sections of the text in editorials. that doesn't mean the entire document. But as far as the links go, MS better not beable to touch them, they should, and have the right to go after ther person the links go to.
To move the slashdot severs to another country. We always say that that is a good way to circumvent american law when it creates censorship of ideas, maybe it is time we take our own advice.
//Phizzy
"Most European technology just isn't worth our stealing," -- Former CIA chief James Woolsey, referring to Echelon
...and lets slip the dogs of war!
JediLuke
JediLuke
-Do or Do Not, There is no Try
Unfortunately, Andover.net and Slashdot ARE in the wrong here. Microsoft is NOT limiting people's free speech, because there are no individual opinions being expressed. There is only copyrighted material being posted for the public to read and study. How would you like if someone took everything from your home and spread them all over the lawn, or perhaps your grades or other personal information and sent them out over the net for everyone to see? Just as there are protections for the individual, so are there protections for the corporation. You all are logical, reasonable people. Your nerds for God's sake! Have some sense!
----
Lyell E. Haynes
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Slashdot doesn't reprint articles it doesn't own from other jornals. It doesn't redistribute mp3's of major pop tracks. Slashdot is not a form of civil disobedience - it is a news site.
So it seems perfectly reasonable that Slashdot should obey the law, and take down the text. (The links can stay though).
I'm all for challenging the DMCA when a good oppertunity arrives. But wait for a case where there is some substance to the defence, and a chance of winning. Fighting an unwinnable case against the DMCA and losing just becuase there are aspects of the DMCA we disagree with is stupid.
This is only an issue becuase it's Microsoft. I dislike Microsoft as much as the next geek, but we can beat Microsoft *legally*.
Besides, I think it is very likely Microsoft was deliberately trying to leverage the DeCSS rulings and publish a secret in such a way that any software produced to interoperate can be considered 'tainted' by illegally obtained information. The Samba people have a chance to fight this - their 'interoperability exception' case is stronger than the DeCSS people, because no one can argue that Samba is a piracy tool. Let them handle this one.
It seems to me, that had the name "Kerberos" been somehow protected all this wouldn't be possible. Apparently everyone can do what he wants with the protocol and still call it Kerberos and even sue others if they distribute his altered specifications.
It would thus make sense to:
- protect the names of protocols somehow, by specifying what standards an implementation must fulfill so it may be called an XXX-implementation (this would have made it impossible for MS to call their protocol "kerberos" while it's not operating with other servers) it would suffice to address compatibility issues here, so one implementation of XXX will always operate with another while it may add additional features.
- include in the protocol specification that any implementation of the protocol is only valid (and may call itself XXX) if its specifications are made public without any legal restraints.
We should look what protocols are out there for MS to grab next.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Actually, this is a rather elegant hack, using existing tools in new and unexpected ways. Who would have thought of reusing a mailing address as a mission statement?
--
This is not my sandwich.
I say we pull the ol' DeCSS game and distribute these comments as widely as possible :) ...and if any lawyers ask, yeah, I'm just kidding, I would never encourage anyone to violate Microsoft's intellectual property rights, because that would be a Very Bad Thing To Do. ;)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
>So now anyone who doesn't agree with you is one
>of Gates' minions?
In the average thread, no. Disagreements are a healthy way to promote discourse. Dissenting opinions are usually a good thing.
But that's the very heart of this matter. Gates is attempting to supress dissenting opinion. He is attacking the very right to disagree. He is attempting to silence his critics.
To support gates in an action such as this is ludicrous. And weather you draw your paycheck from microsoft is irrelevant. It is a galling example of cult-like behavior for you to agree with microsoft that the dissenting voice must be silenced. Notice that the cult of scientology uses remarkably simular tactics to supress it's own critics.
john
Imagine all the people...
Maybe this is stupid, but can't Andover provide a server in Brazil or somewhere where the DMCA doesn't mean anything, and put all "questionable" material/posts there with no copy, cache any bit of it in the US and then just seemlessly compile the page and post it to the users?
Tell me where I'm wrong.
- I like pudding.
The following things must be remembered:
1) We own our posts
2) There still is freedom of speech
3) Microsoft can't always get its own way on things.
I think it's come to the moment when Microsoft are employing more lawyers than programmers, and thats not a good thing.
The more this happens the less people will trust Microsoft, even after a breakup.
I wrote a reply to this yesterday, but my connection was all screwy so it got lost. So here I go again:
... (Score:1)
This is helping. Even if it is only reposting on Slashdot. I am used the text of one of the messages they dislike to express my outrage at their request. That turns it directly into a form of free speech. Hopefully that will help if it does go to court. Because MS now has to request that my posts be removed as well, or Slashdot can simply point to mine and say 'Look, he posted the same link and they don't want us to remove his post.' And then if Microsoft presses the issue it can be clearly demonstrated that my use of this post:
May I claim John Doe #1
by BlueUnderwear on 05:17 PM May 2nd, 2000 EST (#253)
(User Info)
... for This puppy. It's the kerbspec file unzipped and without the legal boilerplate.
is most definately me excersising my right to speak. It sickens me that Microsot would try to prevent people from linking to a standard that they allow anyone to download. It's obscene. If they want people to use it then let them use it. Throw the idiotic EULA away and deal with it.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
The most important point to consider that you've brought up is probably that if a user violated Microsoft's Copyrights (whatever they may be in this case), it is up to Microsoft to charge that user, not Andover.
In fact, Slashdot may wish to change its legalese at the bottom of the page stating that posts are Copyright their posters and the rest belongs to Andover. This should be refined to include one of those sweeping comments about "other Copyright and Trademark owners".
If mainstream media does a story about how a child pornographer used PGP to encrypt his porn, are they liable for telling other pornographers how to do it?
If MSNBC did a TV story about the current DVD issues floating around and gave a link to OPENDVD (or other) website, would they be liable for that linking to a site that may or may not violate the DMCA in some way?
These are the counter-questions that must be asked.
The DMCA must be re-written!!
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I have read the entire DMCA.
.exe file (self extracting zip). the .exe requires you to view and click through a license agreement.
IANAL, but I HAVE READ THE ENTIRE DMCA.
While they may have a point about some anonymous coward posting the entire trade secret, their complaint against posting instructions to bypass the EULA is TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT.
"Comments Containing Instructions on How to Bypass the End User License Agreement and Extract the Specification:"
I mean, if you don't know that you can extract a self extracting zip file with pkzip, you don't read slashdot anyway. DUH. For those not up to date with the thread, what they're referring to is this:
1) Micros~1 posts a "trade secret" inside a zip file that they turn into a
2) Some user on slashdot points out that if you just unzip the file, you don't have to agree to the license.
This information is not a microsoft trade secret. As a matter of fact, it's in the PKZIP manual and help file(s)! THE INFORMATION THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT SLASHDOT REMOVE IS PUBLIC DOMAIN INFORMATION FROM THE HELP FILE OF A FREE UTILITY. IT DOCUMENTS A LEGITIMATE AND INTENDED USE OF A LONG STANDING SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
If microsoft didn't know that users didn't have to read their stupid license agreement to see that file, that's ignorance on their part, not malice on ours.
morons.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Does DMCA eliminate the ability to cite brief passages in reviews? I haven't (yet) read all of that 59-page beast, but somehow I doubt it. Why? Aside from the tremendous change to present copyright common practice that would represent (the NY Times Book Review can't cite a particularly beautidul or particularly bad passage?), there seem to be provisions in the DMCA to allow breaking copyright protection for exactly the purpose of news reporting!
Where can you find this? See Section 1201.B of the DMCA, which states, clearly, that the Librarian of Congress can determine when it is legal to break copy protection. If you look at 1201.B.i through v, you see what factors the Librarian is to consider when deciding what kinds of uses to allow. Look particularly at 1201.B.iii:
The way I read this (and of course, I'm not a lawyer, YMMV, etc.), even DeCSS would be legal so long as it is used for the above kinds of uses. For example, if I'm a professor of film theory at a university, I might very well write a multimedia scholarly work comparing the use of montage in two different films. Montage invariably occurs over time - the only to make relevant passage comparisions is with the relevant passages of the film in front of you. I'm not a professor, but I did this myself, perhaps eight years ago, when I did a comparison of narrative structure in Stanley Kubrick's "Spartacus" and "Full Metal Jacket."
So if the comments contain only short passages for the purpose of criticising the work, how could there be any legal problem?
And if there is, who'd like to join me in a start-up company to colonize Mars?
-----
Klactovedestene!
FreeNet provides for distribution of non-localized docs, for which no single site can be held responsible.
So, anything which is/might be censored can be shifted into this realm, then referenced in un-censored publications.
Lew
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
1. MS criticism & discussion of its products is free speech, not copyright infrigement.
2. Open discussion of a variant of an open authentication protocol (Kerberos) is acceptable, even if said variant is proprietary.
3. Supply a copy of this email to the judge in charge of the Microsoft case, as further proof that MS is a monopoly and tries to stifle competition and consumer advantage. Hey, Slashdot is a competitor to MSNBC, right? =)
Guys, this is it -- whatever you do, don't cave in!!
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
The really interesting thing is that of the four links mentioned in "Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:" 2 were links to a copy, 1 was the actual thing (ACed, of course), and one was talking about possible legal repurcussions to the Samba team if they "unzip ~/ms_kerberos.exe"ed and developed! Ha!
;-)
Is this some sort of legal chaf released to make their "non-case" look like it has a leg to stand on?
Does this mean I've become one of the "Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:" ? No, not to anyone who understands links
And considering I used a Unix unzip on a file downloaded from MS, it's even from official sources! Hopefully some opensource/free software project will incorporate the changes, to allow interoperability (which is legal under the DMCA). Hooray for legality.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I believe that is correct. You can make whatever modifications for your own use that you desire. But if you give/sell/distribute a binary executable to anyone else, then they have all the same rights you have. Including the right to view the source, as well as the right to give/sell/distribute their software to others.
make world, not war
I think this should be handled in the proper Slashdot manner. There should be a poll.
A) Comply
B) Defy
C) Hemos
Why would that be a test? Do you think MS wouldn't remove it from MSN? I can't see any reason they would chose not to remove it.
99% at best. You don't speak for me in this case. I have no problem and think that /. should remove some of the parts of the posts that do indeed obviously violate copyright laws. Feel free to note in your posts in the future you speak for everyone except me.
I should also note that your claim that you represent all of Slashdot's readers is somewhat of an odd claim. Since the MS people obviously had to read this too . . . and you don't speak for them.
In my impression strong beliefs in internet privacy, open source, free software and a strong contingent of anti-MS feelings have built up an almost religious belief that one day there will be some sort of great legal or otherwise apocalyptic event where one if not all of these beliefs will be challenged. I'm concerned that people might use this occasion to try to fulfill their own prophecy.
There's always talk about the great GPL lawsuit where a company (the prophecy wouldn't quite be as nice if it was just an individual) violates the GPL and a lawsuit is filed and GPL is tested in court. There's much rhetoric about how the government and corporations are trying to take away our privacy. There's always unsubstantiated claims about MS's conspiracy to destroy free or open source software. Personally I believe many people actually want some situation like this to occur to confirm their beliefs about MS, or corporate greed, or government oppression. It's always easy to be the wounded hero.
I'm not saying I do not believe in some ways some of these beliefs are true. However I worry that this might be chosen as the great event. It's simply the wrong fight to fight. Slashdot would lose, and for good reason. The information posted is clearly copyrighted material in it's entirety from MS. It's a straightforward case. I would rather see questions of freedom be challenged where it can truly show that people need to pay attention and gather further support, not die a martyr in a dirty case.
This email notification is a statement made under penalty of perjury that
Can slashdot ignore the letter because some of the referenced comments do not contain copyrighted material? Better yet, can Andover sue Microsoft for perjury?
--
The shareholder is always right.
So they had a typo on the timestamp- they also had a typo (or similar problem) with the post #.
I believe they meant to indicate post #87, not #86. If you look at #87, it has a bunch of code posted to it.
I have saved some of my Starcraft replays here
There is no way /. should drop this. If you had read the comments accused you'd see MS is covering their ass by censoring discussion. Only a few actually link to the files.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
1. MS should go after individual posters. they own copyright to whatever they post, as per slashdot's terms.
2. a lot of people need to grow up and quick this "fight the power" "down with the Man" crap. would you like it if ms violated your copyright license (eg, the gpl)? do you know what "double standard" means?
now, as far as whether or not those posters violated ms's license (btw, you don't violate a copyright, you violate a LICENSE), is another story. i have one question: some posters claimed that each page had a copy of the license; is this true? (i have not looked, so that i'm not contaminated by their trade secret).
if it's true, then you're fucked. if the only place the terms were displayed was by executing the self-extracting archive, and you used winzip or whatever to bypass that, then you should be in the clear.
slashdot should point out the fact that posters own copyright to their own posts, and that slashdot is not responsible for the content. that being true, you should not remove the posts unless ordered to by a court, else risk the responsibility to have to check every single post.
btw, IANAL
I have another question, if Microsoft submitted this under penalties of perjury are they not in fact now guilty of this, ie haven't they perjured themselves.
I think that this "under penalty of perjury" garbage isn't taken seriously enough, maybe if the Microsoft lawyer was sent to prison for a couple of years for a false claim we'd see less of this kind of stupidity. (Or at least they would be much more careful about it.)
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
I didn't get a chance to see that discussion, so I don't know why it was posted. Was the poster(s) trying to make some kind of point about the material? Would their actions fall under "fair use" guidelines (posting the document in order to have a discussion about it)?
You heard it right! Not only is backing up your beliefs in the constitution the right thing to do, but it's also a lucrative opportunity to make a little cash on the side, too.
I understand your point, sir, but I think that there are much, much more important things to think about. If the staff of Slashdot has to have a meeting and a presentation on the profitability of standing up to Microsoft, maybe Slashdot isn't the right place to fight the good fight.
What are the rules for common carriers? Do they have to remove content if it's requested, or do the lawyers have to go after the person who originally posted the content? And would Slashdot even qualify as a common carrier?
I'm curious...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The BSD license basically says, "Do whatever you want, just don't claim you wrote it." From this interpretation, MS is within their legal rights as far as Kerberos goes. This ain't the GPL were're talking about here.
/. to remove the spec from the comments (assuming DMCA is constitutional).
:)
I think he was talking about the 4th clause (the one that says you can't use the names MIT (or, presumably, Kerberos) without permission of MIT). However, this assumes that MS is using the MIT Kerberos code (they could have done a reimplementation). If they are using the MIT code and IF they follow the license, they have put a small notice somewhere in the W2K docs that some of the code is copyrighted by MIT (which is required by the 2nd provision, probably very much in effect). If they haven't done so then MIT should sue them for a lot of money for copyright infringment.
And in either case (MS reimplemention or hacking on the MIT code), MS has every right to copyright both:
a) Their changes to the MIT code (or their own code)
b) Their specification that gives the changes they made.
Which means that they can demand
Hah, like I know what I'm talking about.
Maybe. But it argues against the idea that in
"an environment for discussion and debate the posting of Copyrighted material should be legal as long as it pertains to the topic being discussed."
That's a fine sentiment, but the court ruling doesn't seem to agree.
No, I think Slashdot/Andover.Net/VA Linux/Whoever has plenty of money for lawyers. Back when Slashdot was a "two guys website" I'd prolly contribute to a legal fund, but not when they and their company have more money than God. Let them spend their own money on lawyers.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
So how does one sue AC?
:-)
The same way one sues Major Domo
Microsoft,
/., that is clearly a case of fair use.
please clarify your stance on copyright. By clicking the EULA, the user agrees to a right that copyright NEVER protects - that of reverse engineering of described methods.
From section 102b of US Copyright law
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
It would seem you would like to allow users to view the methods while not allowing them to reverse engineer the methods. That is precisely the role of a patent under US law - to allow the free propagation of IDEAS and METHODS while giving the INVENTOR a monopoly on its use for a limited period. You would instead seek to accomplish the same thing with a copyright.
You might also recall that copyrights extend for the lifetime of the holder.
If the Microsoft corruption of Kerberos is protected by copyright, you have posted the methods to the web, and you can expect they will be reverse engineered. Copyright provides you no protection against reverse engineering of the described methods.
If, instead, these methods are protected by patent, please inform the world. And stop trying to pervert our copyright law to further your corporate desires - at the expense of the rights of the consumer to reverse engineer copyrighted methods.
As for posting the methods on
MS is right about the copyrighted stuff -- it should be removed. But the links and other stuff -- no way.
In this article about this story. See, typing in bold does let you be heard!
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but we were discussing Micros~1's deviation from the kerberos protocol. Most of us did not agree that Micros~1's implementation of kerberos did not fit the standard. Therefore in the context of our discussion, it was legal under fair use principles that we analyse the code.
Agreed. Furthermore, some of the comments M$ cited stated how to get the specifications without viewing (and thus, without agreeing to) the license, therefore the specification could have been posted by someone who never agreed to M$'s EULA. (Note that the earliest post they cited about how to extract - 1:47 PM - preceded the earliest post they cited with the spec itself - 2:20 PM, both on 5/2/2000.) So the EULA can not be proven to apply to the copies of the specification posted here, either.
This could be some really widespread publicity for Slashdot, which in the long run would increase readership. One big article at ZD or CNN + some light follow-up would be much bigger than some small/medium mentions in random articles...
Well, I for one was a little dissapointed and surprised, not at M$ request or at the tone of the response, but that the official Slashdot response was not from our beloved CmdrTaco. So Robin is the editor in chief NOT Rob. I guess this means that Taco and Hemos really don't have much say in what the official Slashdot response will be? I had hoped that the sellout to Andover was just to offload the marketing duties and provide thing like highbandwith and quad servers. How naive of me.
Hope Andover decides to fight the good fight but I'm sure it'll come down to a business decision: are we making money by staying in the public eye with this legal battle?
no sig.
IANAL, but I play on on the Internet: I really wonder if the how-to's will be seen as a circumvention. I don't read in this article that you cannot post a howto, just that you cannot have a technical device or offer a service, that would alow you to circumvent it. I therefore think that Slashdot should not remove those.
Use Adsense for Charity
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
and DeCSS has already been deemed illegal to have in your possesion
I thought that legality of DeCSS had not been determined yet. There is an injunction against sites hosting it but there is no decision that it is illegal to have in their possession. If this has changed, can someone let me know and give a link to the ruling?
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
It should instead indicate post #87.
--
So many "first post" idjits...so few moderator points... | Delenda est Windoze
--
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delenda est Windoze
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
This along with the precedent argument in the reply are, IMO, the best arguments NOT to remove the comments. This goes beyond the "law" and frivalous interpretations of copyright. It goes directly into the empowering force that is the Internet. We have to decide what kind of internet we want, and we must decide wether that's worth fighting for. My Internet is worth fighting for; I hope yours is too! Rick Terrill
I would think that the very nature of being an AC implies that a poster waiver his responsibility over his post, and as such his rights as well. Still, MS's concerns do not seem to warrant an unprecedented censorship of /. ...
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
OK, I've created a community on MSN's Discussion boards: Kerberos Discussion. Let's test their own statements: http://communities.msn.com/KerberosCensorship&nave ntryid=100 I welcome any and all discussions on this. Ironically, they state right on the first page: Notice: Microsoft has no responsibility for the content featured in this Web Community and further in the legal section : Microsoft is not responsible for any use of anything you say or post. Also, when I tried creating a discussion topic entitled "Microsoft lies" or "Microsoft censorship" and it would not let me!!!!!!!!! indiigo/indeego
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
The Iowa Legislature recently passed a law to nullify and protect Iowa residents from the DMCA.
/. to Iowa and post with impunity!
Move to
Alternatively, copy all the "offending" posts and email them using your Hotmail account. Then Microsoft will have to sue itself for violation of the DMCA!
later,
kristau
- Disclosure of APIs, Interfaces and Technical Information. Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs to enable--
That clearly covers the modified Kerberos interface.i. Microsoft applications to interoperate with Microsoft Platform Software installed on the same Personal Computer, or
ii. a Microsoft Middleware Product to interoperate with Windows Operating System software (or Middleware distributed with such Operating System) installed on the same Personal Computer, or
iii. any Microsoft software installed on one computer (including but not limited to server Operating Systems and operating systems for handheld devices) to interoperate with a Windows Operating System (or Middleware distributed with such Operating System) installed on a Personal Computer.
In fact, Microsoft's incompatible modification of the Kerberos interface probably violates one of the remedy terms:
Microsoft shall not take any action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance of any non-Microsoft Middleware when interoperating with any Windows Operating System Product without notifying the supplier of such non-Microsoft Middleware in writing that Microsoft intends to take such action, Microsoft's reasons for taking the action, and any ways known to Microsoft for the supplier to avoid or reduce interference with, or the degrading of, the performance of the supplier's Middleware.
Remember that Microsoft has been found in violation of antitrust law; they've had their day in court and the only remaining issue is the punishment. So issues of this nature should be reported to the Department of Justice's antitrust team.
Yes, Microsoft can appeal. But the disclosure requirements will go into effect while the appeal proceeds. Read the DOJ filing.
Ya know, this is really ironic, M$ standing in full support (read hiding behind) the DMCA. I seem to recall a time not too long ago that one up and coming company ripped off a GUI and it's architecture from another company then marketed it into a jaggernaught product. The main defense the perpetrating company used was in direct oposition to everything the DMCA stands for. My how things have changed.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Sour grapes. They're just having a bad month and needed to take it out on someone.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
don't farget ya cockn'bawllz!!!!
that dark clothing attracts mosquitos? indeed!
Let's say slashdot allowed posters to add pictures to their posts. If someone decided to post a picture with some classified government information, let's say, would slashdot then object to taking that post down too? I can fully understand not wanting to start censoring things, but this seems to be a pretty clear-cut case to me. I know this is on a different level, but aren't you already kind of censoring what people post, with your lameness filters, as well as with some more stealthy methods? (that is, one can no longer submit a post with "first post" in the subject line) It's possible I'm missing something, so please do correct me if I am.
Whenever someone says "I'm 100% certain that ... I'm speaking for [an entire group] ... when I say this," you can be pretty sure that they're dead wrong. You sir, are dead wrong. Please read my post below for why I disagree with you.
(Police Interrogation Room)
Agent Weston: As you can see, we've had our eye on you for some time now, Mr. Malda. It seems that you've been living two lives. In one life, you're Rob A. Malda, program writer for a respectable software company, you have a social security number, you pay your taxes, and you help your landlady carry out her garbage. The other life is lived in computers, where you go by the hacker alias CmdrTaco and are guilty of virtually every computer [copyright] crime we have a law for. One of these lives has a future, and one of them does not. I'm going to be as forthcoming as I can be, Mr. Malda. You're here because we need your help. We know that you've been contacted by a certain individual, a man who calls himself Anonymous Coward. Now whatever you think you know about this man is irrelevant. He is considered by many authorities to be the most dangerous man alive. My colleagues believe that I am wasting my time with you but I believe that you wish to do the right thing. We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start and all that we're asking in return is your cooperation in bringing a known terrorist to justice.
CmdrTaco: Yeah. Wow, that sound like a really good deal. But I think I got a better one. How about I give you the finger... and you give me my phone call.
Agent Weston: Um, Mr. Malda. You disappoint me.
CmdrTaco: You can't scare me with this Kerbose crap. I know my rights. I want my phone call.
Agent Weston: Tell me, Mr. Malda, what good is a phone call if you're unable to speak.... You're going to help us, Mr. Malda whether you want to or not.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Listen, what ever the slashdot crew does, they have to stick to their guns at all times no matter what.
If they decide to keep the comments up, any other company, person, thing complaining about slashdot posts, the crew has to say "We don't remove posts"
If they decided to delete the comments, any other company, person, thing complaining about slashdot posts, the crew has to say "We will delete posts with just cause"
When the crew decides what to do, they got to stick with it always no matter how tough it is going to be. If the say remove posts from the Microsofts post and Apple comes to them and says "You have our IP on your forums, delete it", the crew has to say "done and done Mr. Apple"
And if they don't delete Microsofts posts when Apple comes up with a simplair complaint the crew has to say "We don't remove posts, we didn't take down MS's IP and we sure as hell ain't doing it for you"
Seriously (I am talking to the crew) you must decide your policy and stick with it, no matter what the policy is and no matter how difficult it may be. When you decide on this M$ case, you are setting it in stone, so make a wise choice.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
So now Microsoft is whining about Slashdot!! What is this world coming to when they get anything they want?! I say take a stand and keep the comments up!!
The Tick : Spooooooooooooooooooooon!.
Neo : There is no spoon.
On the other hand, when you download the files, you agree (and the document even states that you must agree with it if you are wanting to use it) to the terms and conditions of Microsoft. One of those is that you don't copy or reproduce it.
People downloaded this and then broke the law by posting it here. Slashdot isn't a place to spread illegal materials. These aren't original posts here, they're copyright infringements of documents made by Microsoft.
I'm not a MS fan, but I think that /. should pull these down as they're Microsoft's work and not original posts...
kwsNI
Resistance is futile, you will be litigated.
BlackNova Traders
Hrm. Isn't making a false claim under DMCA purgery? You can get disbarred for that.
OTOH, I'm not sure if the legal standard for purgery distinguishes between bad faith and stupidity, and which that was. Might get interesting to be ask them to be real explicit about which posts they want down.
The DCMA makes people who want to claim the ISP
exemption make decisions about what is and what is not "fair use" that they are not qualified to make. Fair use is a very complex piece of law for which there are very few clear guidlines. News sources do not have the expertise nor the resources to judge fair use and the law which puts this burden on them may be unconstituional in that regard.
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
Pulling a post because it violates copyright in response to a specific complaint is not "editorial control".
/. will have to pull the posts that posted the entire contents of the document. It's hard to argue fair use when the entire document is published without comments.
I strongly suspect that
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
What kind of damages can Microsoft win in this case? If they haven't filed for copyright protection before the infringing action occurs (and they probably haven't), they are not entitled to statutory damages. If they have to prove damages, they're effectively up a creek because they're giving the document away.
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 I leave my door open, stick a poster on it saying "Lot's a money inside! Don't open this door unless you sign a form promising not to take it!", I'm not only rather stupid, but I think I'd be open to a countersuit by a captured intruder or possibly even the government for solliciting a crime.
This line of thinking is always on my mind when I see letters such as this one.
If I were to ROT13 my trade secrets, publish them in the New York Times in that format, and then started suing, isn't there a legal way to nail me?
I'd certainly deserve it :-)
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
Hmm... well, I guess I'll go buy all of your books, scan them in with OCR, and post them on my website for free access to all.
After all, no information should be proprietary, right?
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
I sent the following message to the email address at the bottom of the letter. It may never get read by the party in question, but perhaps Microsoft will read it here. I forgot to spell check it, so hopefully it's not too bad:-) Sir, I am very disappointed in Microsoft's handling of this situation. An educated person should realize that with Microsoft's current lack of public support and their legal woes, they should take care when throwing stones. I am not a lawyer, and I do not know a great deal about the DMCA, but I would think that in a PUBLIC forum such as Andover's Slashdot, the individual posters were responsible for their own content. Microsoft should be ashamed of it's propensity to cannibalize publicly recognized industry standards in the name of innovation. You blast Sun for trying to maintain control of Java, while mangling standards in your own network products in an attempt to lock people into your platform. You are the post World War II Japan. The difference being that the Japanese actually improved on the products they ripped off. Of course, you are not the only company that does this, but no one else does it to the extent that you do. Once, I respected Microsoft, but no more. Your greed and lack of ethics has crushed any positive image I once had of you. Chances are you will never read this. It will probably go directly into your circular file, but I wanted to express my disgust. If anyone needs proof that you can succeed with OPEN standards, just look at Linux and the OpenSource phenomenon. How does it feel to be despised even by your best clients? I hate being so negative, but that is the feeling Microsoft engenders in me these days. I really do hope you repent of your current practices. You could once again be recognized as a respectable company. Sincerely, Jeffrey C. Johnson
Microsoft is playing a fast, loose game with the concept of a "trade secret" in a way that completely violates the spirit of the law.
EXACTLY! To emphasise this:
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
There have been several precedents on this issue - as IANAL and I sure as hell ANAIPL, I would recommend you get a good book on copyright for further perusal.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:
"by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, May 02, @03:37PM EST (#197)"(Score 5: Funny? (Why ? ? ?)
Basically a copy of the original. If this were copyrighted, rather than a trade secret, this would be a violation. Since they foolishly called it a trade secret, it's only a violation if AC signed an NDA with MS.
"by BlueUnderwear on Tuesday, May 02, @04:09PM EST (#239)"(Score 2, Informative)
A Link, that's it.
"by BlueUnderwear on Tuesday, May 02, @04:15PM EST (#248)"(Score:2, Informative)
another link
"by smartin on Tuesday, May 02, @02:20PM EST (#86)"(Score:3, Insightful)
MS are idiots - No reason whatsoever.
Comments Containing Links to Internet Sites with Unauthorized Copies of the Specification
"by ka9dgx on Tuesday May 02, @2:52PM EST (#133)"(Score:5, Informative)
Oh look, another link. MS - maybe you don't entirely undertand the term Trade Secret? Implying that people don't already know it?
Comments Containing Instructions on How to Bypass the End User License Agreement and Extract the Specification:
"by myconid (my S conid@ P toge A the M r.net) on Tuesday May 02, @07:27PM EST (#362)"(Score:3, Informative)
A deeply sophisticated method for cracking the heavy MS security (Snigger)
"by markb on Tuesday May 02, @05:47PM EST (#321)"(Score:1)
Ohh, another heavy duty method.
"by Sami (respect.my@authorita-dot-net) on Tuesday May 02, @01:47PM EST (#19)"(Score:4, Informative)
You Hacker/Crackers. I'm soo Jealous. Evidently, so is MS
"by iCEBalM (icebalm@[NOSPAM]bigfoot.com) on Tuesday May 02, @01:52PM EST (#33)"(Score:5, Informative)
One of the more sophisticated ways - you have to download something first!!! I can see where MS might assume that their average user might not be able to handle that without us malicously showing them how . . .
"by Jonny Royale (moc.mocten.xi@notners) on Tuesday, May 02, @01:59PM EST (#51)"(Score:2, Redundant)
Yes, good old Winzip. The bane of law-abiding citizens everywhere!
"by rcw-work (rcw@d.e.b.i.a.n.org.without.dots) on Tuesday, May 02, @07:12PM EST (#353)"(Score:1)
Look - those linux using bastiches didn't even notice our license agreement. Release the Dogs . . .
All in all, my final opinion is . . . MS doesn't have a leg to stand on. They'd be in better shape if they hadn't called it a trade secret, since then they could claim copyright. I think they'd lose, even then, but it would be possible. Now it's just out there.
Given the ease it took to bypass the NDA, and the fact that it could be done accidently of all things, even under the UCITA, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I would say, in my laymans opinion, that Andover and slashdot are at no risk whatsoever.
But that's just my opinion.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Obligatory: IANAL.
First, this quote from the bottom of every /. page:
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Does this indicate that, if the copyright owner so desires, any offending instance of alleged copyright violation should be removed? As the copyright holder of this post, I don't have the ability to delete it. Nor would /. delete it if I asked. Should MS be given special consideration because they are a corporation? Should they be given special consideration since they are the owner of the copyright, but not the originator of the post containing the copyrighted material?
Does fair use apply here? Fair use traditionally has not been understood to cover quoting, en bloc, the entirety of a piece intended to stand alone. If the entirety of the Specification has been quoted in /. posts, then it would seem to reason that this does not constitute fair use.
Second, in the notes generated with every "Post Comment" page, this quote:
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
Copyright infringement is illegal. Whether you want to challenge DMCA or not, copyright will not go away anytime soon. (For good reason, I might add. Corporations abuse copyright principles, which were intended to protect original "authors" from the government and large corporate entities.)
Here is where things get sticky. Has the /. adminstration (roblimo, cdrtaco, etc.) at any time deleted posts, even partially? Then MS may have a legal leg on which to stand in court, as it indicates that /. takes editorial control at times. If not, then it may be argued by andover that /. is a public forum. In any case, whether exceptions have been made or not, it is clear that /.'s policy is simply to moderate illegal posts down. It is clear that /.'s policy is not to delete illegal posts (or any other violation of the above).
Clearly, andover would be reckless to ignore MS's request simply because most of us (myself included) hate MS. My vote (FWIW) is for the /. editors, in consultation with andover's attorneys, to do what they think is best. Of course, if this means giving MS the finger, all the better!
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who know binary, and those who do not.
By nature, I'm a lurker, not a poster.
However, I feel I must post my support for Slashdot in fighting this. My advice:
1. Set up a legal fund (maybe through the EFF) as soon as possible and post how we can contribute. Some may say it is premature, but now's the best time to get contributions while everyone is mad as hell. Include some language that any funds not used for this fight roll over to the EFF general litigation fund.
2. Listen to the lawyers, first and foremost. I agree that it would be wonderful to keep as clean as possible of the "censorship" stain, but the best way to win is to play smart and the lawyers should know the smartest way to play. If I'm taking advice in how to play a game of chess, I'll listen hardest to the grand masters.
3. Pick the right fight. Consult with mp3.com, Napster, 2600, and anyone else stung by DMCA. When this goes to the top (and it will), we want to spend our efforts on the best hope for overturning the DMCA.
After writing that last point, I'm thinking that the legal fund could be wider in scope. Could we amass a large enough anti-DMCA fund to hire top-notch counsel to pick the right battle and follow through to the Supreme Court?
Good luck, and keep us up to date (I know you'll do that anyway, but I'll say it nevertheless).
Work as if you don't need the money,
Love as if you've never been hurt, and
Dance as if no one's watching.
So, rather than appear foolish afterward, I renounce seeming clever now.
You forgot to put at the end of the message:
:)
"This letter is copyright by AndOver.net. Reproduction of this email by, but no limited to, email servers, email clients, or other electronic or non-electronic means is a violation of the owners copyright. License to copy this email is given at a rate of $100,000 per copy. By reading this email message you agree to the above terms."
Then email it to everyone you can find at Microsoft, and use a hotmail account. By the time you're done they'll owe you enough money to cover the costs of lawyers you'ld need to keep the whole thing in court for a few years until no one cares anymore
If you look at the list given by Microsoft, there is an hour's discrepency between the time that they give and the time of the actual post. (The difference is still there after accounting for timezone differences and daylight savings time).
That notwithstanding, the number given to the post identifies it as the post that Microsoft was referring to. This means that under penalty of perjury, Microsoft has stated that the following three questions posted by smartin (referred to by the phrase, "the above-referenced comments"):
> What happens to the people that implement it (ie. the Samba guys) even if they obtain the information without intentionally breaking the license.
> Are they exposing themselves to expensive litigation?
> Are they endangering the project?
constitute Microsoft's "proprietary material".
Also, not to start a grammar flame-war, but there's an incorrect verb tense in Microsoft's letter. (I only say this because letters written by lawyers are supposed to have impeccable clarity, precision and grammar to avoid misinterpretation (or reinterpretation).)
Donny
Unfourtunately you are talking about the wrong part of the DMCA. This case (mostly) involves people directly posting copyrighted materials. Even if the other parts of the DMCA were striken as unconstitutional the part which requires service provides to remove copyrighted work upon notification in return for abscence of liability would still be present.
While their are some issues with this section (in cases where the service provider isn't sure the material is copyrighted or it is under dispute ala the church of scientology) this is not such a case. This case here boils down to two issues.
A) is a liscence with no associated sale enfourceable
B) do you believe in copyright
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Just standing up to be counted
I'm holding up one finger to make it easier, Billy
"I am an American. You are a sick asshole!!"
kill -9 microsoft
Interesting would be to argue that the specification, is the property of MicroSoft, hereafter referred to as MS. The specification *is* the property of MS, they wrote every character that is in that piece of text, right down to the convoluted legalese. IMHO, if MS wants to lay claim to the text of the specification, let them. It was probably typed by a full time Bubble-Gum V-2.1 compatible MS-Typist.
/. do: I don't know, honestly.. I'd love to see /. take on MS and WIN. (pun tactlessly intended) I love it when anybody takes on MS and wins though. Every time I see MS getting the bad press they genuinely deserve, I think we all win.
/. go down over the wrong battle, but I sure do admire the stance. Links should remain, as those sites are arguably more responsible for the content than ./ is. Methods of circumventing the EULA should have been considered by MS before release, that's their oversight and thus their problem.
/.) Those arguing (myself included) that the DMCA is a Bad Thing might consider that using provisions of the DMCA itself as arguments against the DMCA is potentially self defeating. Perhaps a better approach is to wait until a clear case of unconstitutionality arises.
However, kerberos itself does not belong to MS. Kerberos seems to be the property of one "MIT", a guy I've never met who lives "up north."
This is the license as I could find in 5 minutes of digging for kerberos.. perhaps a bit dated, as it references old U.S. export control rubbish, but..:
"
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Export of this software from the United States of America is
assumed to require a specific license from the United States
Government. It is the responsibility of any person or
organization contemplating export to obtain such a license
before exporting.
WITHIN THAT CONSTRAINT, permission to use, copy, modify, and
distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and
without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright
notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and
this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that
the name of M.I.T. not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining
to distribution of the software without specific, written prior
permission. M.I.T. makes no representations about the suitability of
this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express
or implied warranty.
..."
I didn't see a copy of this licence accompaning the MS specs. Very odd indeed, considering the legalese used in the spec license.
A question to consider: Is MS in violation of the MIT license?
As for what should
(I won: I havn't used a MS product in 3 years, and for me, the wonderfully broken and unstable MS stuff just brings me more business writing and installing for non-MS platforms.. thanks again for the props, Bill. Keep up the good work.)
The more important question however: Is this the right battle? A smart fighter chooses his battles, and I'm not convinced that MS doesn't have a good case to have the verbatim posts removed. As for verbatim posts of the specs, I don't think copyright infringment will be covered by the first amendment should this go to court, and I think that even the most avid MS haters suspect that this is also the case. I'd hate to see
Sure, MS would love to cement the DMCA, and it would be unfortunate to provide them with easy circumstance to do so. (I picture some MS VP in an office saying "Excellent.. Smithers" in response to a report of how things are going here at
"power belongs in the hands of those who know no lust."
Wow I sent an email to the J.K Weston dude. Here is what you will see if you do that.Thank you for contacting the legal department at Microsoft Corporation. This process is provided EXCLUSIVELY for notifying service providers, such as Microsoft.com, MSN.com, MSNBC.com and Hotmail that your copyrighted material may have been infringed. To make a complaint, please provide the information as outlined at . All other inquiries, including but not limited to, requests for technical assistance, reports of email abuse, and piracy reports will not receive a response. For Hotmail technical issues or reports of email abuse, send email to support@hotmail.com or abuse@hotmail.com , as appropriate. To report piracy, send email to piracy@microsoft.com or call 1-800-R-U-LEGIT. I guess they DO NOT want to hear my opinion first hand. Anyway if you do go to court count on me for $25 in legal bill contributions. Not much but if we all do what we can......
As the owner of another internet service these issues obviously concern me. I believe your service much like my own fits into the legal staus and definition of an "Enhanced Service Provider" The same laws that protect AT&T and ISPs protect you.
I quote from my FAQ( http://wickednews.voyeurs.net/faq/#5) I have heard most Internet services such as WickedNews, called Enhanced Service Providers. Is WickedNews an Enhanced Service Provider? And if so, What is an Enhanced Service Provider?
Yes, WickedNews is an Enhanced Service Provider, A site that gives Usenet service (feeds or newsreaders) to anyone who asks, without making any additional qualifications for the service (other than keeping the bill paid), is classified as an enhanced service provider in the United States. This is like a common carrier, the classification for bussinesses like telephone companies and railroad freight firms, but with a bit less govenmental regulation than common carriers suffer. By not regulating the content of traffic passing through them, enhanced service providers are believed to be absolved from liability for "illegal" speech (e.g., copyright violations, obsenity, conspiracy, presidential death threats).
(Henry Spencer & David Lawrence. Managing Usenet. Cambridge: O'reilly & Associates, Inc, 1998.)
From what I have been told if you sensor anything you automatically loose this status, my advice do nothing, but reply to MS reminding them of this information.
I would also hazard to say that you are also covered under the laws on fair use as well...
Bill Dunn
Owner/ Server Administrator
V N Internet Services
www.wickednews.net
newsmaster@wickednews.net
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
I see a problem here. When trying to explain to people who are not In the Know about this whole situation, how do you explain to someone that has no predisposition for or against MS or Slashdot that posting methods of circumventing the EULA is not wrong in the first place? Think about it, if this comes to a court case, someone's going to have to explain to the jury that this isn't a karmic response to a few people's deviant behavior. I'd really like to know other people's takes on this, so I can feel more confident in explaining this entire thing to people. Also, I'm not terribly versed on the DMCA. I have read through part of it, but IANAL, and I could really use a summary - including all or some of the potential misuses of the DMCA. Thanks for the help. The Kow
Moo
Why is it ok to break the DMCA but not okay for me to go break the GPL? Seems like a pretty huge double standard to me.
If the posts are copyrighted by their authors and the author may well be in violation of copyright, why does the Slashdot have to remove the article (if the article is to be removed)? Oh yeah, that's right, there's no self-management. That's the difference between an ISP and Slashdot. If some user puts up some illegal web page, the company contacts the ISP and the ISP contacts the user and tells the user that they will remove it or have it removed for them and then directs the company to bug the user. Of course, you can't do that at Slashdot because I can't remove my own comments (and believe me, there are times when I've wanted to, but not now).
.. no AC posting, that's an idea .. and a flamewar) as well as with nested comments. AC postings generally can't belong to the author since the author is unknown and Slashdot should rightfully take possession of those and manage them, but as for the rest of us users, why not give us the say? Then we can turn to Microsoft and give them either an "okie dokie" or a nice mooning.
I realize that such a system causes problems with regards to AC posting (hmm
by myconid (my S conid@ P toge A the M r.net) on Tuesday May 02, @08:27PM EST (#362)
Heres a good loophole. Install Winrar, right click on the icon and select OPEN WITH WINRAR, extract the file.
Whats a license? I never saw one..
----
I suggest we all stand outside the Redmond Campus with bullhorns and shout that, repeatedly.
--
dinner: it's what's for beer
Here's a fun new legal technique, similar to the unequivocably moral Unisys patent plan:
- Take an open standard.
- Add one small incompatibility.
- Hide that incompatibility for a few months.
- Write a paper describing the incompatibility in sufficient detail, so that implementing the necessary changes is trivial.
- Post a warning on the paper that implementing the specification without advance written permission is illegal.
- Wrap the paper in some sort of mechanism which presents the warning and a license agreement nominally waiving fair use, reverse engineering, and free speech rights.
- Make sure the mechanism only works on platforms where your implementation is already present, and, thus, no clean-room version is necessary.
- Distribute liberally, knowing that standard means of unwrapping the document -- on any platform but your own -- will not present the invalid license agreement anyway.
- Wait for the information to spread to all interested parties.
- Use the threat of legal force to intimidate anyone who might be considering writing a competing implementation -- not necessarily even based on information from the paper -- into cancelling the effort.
- Bask in the glow that you have not used dumping, product tying, or buyouts to maintain your monopoly position. Just good old American justice.
As I am not aware of any patent or copyright our friends at Microsoft have on this business process, please be aware that it is copyright chromatic, 2000.It's also unethical. I'm not surprised.
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
--
Dave Aiello
-- Dave Aiello
My real suggestion? Do what Yahoo recently when they were sued for liable because someone posted untrue statements on one of their stock ticker chat boards: Claim that Slashdot has no control over content, and the person they really need to go after is the poster, and if you (M$) provides the right kind of paper, then maybe we can give you some type of information on the poster of the content.
In other words, Slashdot would be required to keep records of all anonymous postings so the poster can be identified later at the whim of some government agency or corporation able to convince a Judge that it needs to strip away the poster's anonymity. This is the worst of all possible results. It would start a chain of results that would eventually tear away every shred of privacy on the internet.
I sincerely hope that Slash is doing, and has been doing, the right thing and simply not keeping any records of anonymous posters. The one case I can think of that would justify record-keeping is in the event that some sort of flood attack had to be defended against, and even in that case the record-keeping should stop as soon as the attack stops.
Do I have a better suggestion to offer? No. Not at this point. I think we've got a hard problem here. Personally, I would tend toward the opinion that Slashdot should remove the copyrighted material, after it's found by a court to be a genuine copyright violation. But for me, there's a big, big problem with that, and it's this: I believe that Microsoft has acted illegally in restricting this material, and indeed, in attempting to subvert the Kerberos standard in the first place; a court should find that Microsoft restricted the material illegally in the first place, and should in fact be stripped of it's right to impose any restriction on the use of this material at all. To put it in fewer words: antitrust law trumps copyright law.
If you look at the whole issue in that light, this turns into an act of civil disobediance, and that can actually excuse you from breaking certain laws. Let me say it again, in different words: I believe that Microsoft have broken the law by attempting to subvert the Kerberos standard and that the poster is justified in retaliated by making Micrsoft's restricted information public in the way he did. Yes, it's possible the poster broke copyright law in this case, but the principle of civil disobedience should excuse that.
I think the specs for Microsoft's perverted mods to Kerberos should stay right here on Slashdot until Microsoft has answered in a court of law for its latest trust-making strategem.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
The government has seen fit to protect the rights of Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA, and others. Should we, as mere citizens sit here and question the legitimacy of this position. How can we sit here and argue that we might somehow have a better grasp on the situation than our elected leaders.
Our leaders are being paid good money by the tax system and political action commitees. Do you think they are being paid because they don't know anything about their job? Imagine if you showed up to work tomorrow, totally oblivious as to how to do your job properly. Wouldn't you be fired? They wouldn't stay there if they didn't know what they were doing!
What these posters did is wrong because our politicians said so. And really, what more justification do we need? I call on the editors of Slashdot to condemn these people as government heretics, and remove these posts immediately!
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Well, your argument is well if its targeteted to the person you answer.
;)
But, to answer you, with my opinions;
1. Forced disclosure is ok. What other way to track down spammers?
2. They cannot ask them to remove it. When posting it to slashdot, well, it would be the same as leaving flyers all over the city. It would be impossible to remove them. It would be the same as dropping flyers down by airplanes. Impossible to remove.
3. It is impossible, because "the system works that way". If you dropped 1 million copies of some of your work, over a city -- it would be impossible for you to remove.
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
Let's try to keep the postings here to a certain standard of maturity. We must appear (because we ARE) to be Microsoft's peers, not Microsoft's unruly next door neighbours' children. If this ever reaches court (who knows, let's hope not), and Microsoft can show 400 postings which say "fuCk yOU mICRo$oft", it won't help too much. Keep calm, keep thinking.
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
Now I know that, deep down, the Slashdot editors (and owners) are anti-censorship and, specifically, anti-removing-the-comments.
BUT, while the spirit is willing, the flesh may be weak. That is, if Microsoft actual sues (or threatens to), Slashdot may cave for financial reasons.
So I propose the following: If Slashdot removes the comments without having been forced to by an actual court ruling, we boycott Slashdot. Hopefully that will provide the needed reverse financial pressure.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Actually, another very good point. If you believe that the original MIT license means that any added licensure restrictions by MSFT are null and void, you should inform MIT of this demand (by physical letter, since we do not have legal digital signatures to verify at this moment). And you should consider contacting the ACLU and EFF.
Attempts to enforce licenses which are in violation of the original license are unenforceable in a court of law - they can threaten you, they can twist the truth, but a judge will laugh in their face.
Will in Seattle
If you had *read* the article, the books will be in HTML on the web!
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
I agree. By /. using the columbine posts without the posters permission, I think they set themselves up. They seem to be saying in one case, "it's our content, we'll do with it what we want" and then saying "whoa, mr. lawyer, we're just a carrier, all comments are owned by the poster!"
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
How about we all just mirror the content?
I have.
By the way, that's one hefty assed page. It's a big ass file. I'm going to probably go through and cut much of the chaff from it.
Post all the messages, links included, to USENET. They can't sweep it under the carpet from there.
Yea, then he changed his mind and decided the thing to do would be to turn tail and run, while blowing up his own ship.
Somehow setting SlashDot's self distruct sequence then moving everyone over to hotgrits.org isn't the greatest solution they could come up with.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
If my knowledge of copyright law is correct (Not necessarily so), the user posts may fall under fair use -- provided that not too much was used. Fair use is not just limited to educational use; critique and public commentary are included.
This is even more true because the posts are noncommercial. Otherwise AC has some serious royalties due him/her.
-Walker
For any interested, there will be an article in Friday's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com) regarding Microsoft's letter, /.'s reply, and so forth. The article will be by John Schwartz, who, along with Rob Pegoraro, tend to cover /.ish issues. I think that anyone who reads /. on a regular basis will enjoy the direction that the article takes. Schwartz can be contacted (nicely, don't abuse this guy, he's one of the few decent tech writers in a major media organization) at schwartzj@washpost.com This heads-up comes from someone else with a @washpost.com address, explaining the ability to give advance notice. stil
But are they really? It may say that on the comments pages, but as we've seen the administrators seem to have no compunctions about taking the posts and publishing them elsewhere to make a profit (that fact that it is a profit that will be donated to charity is of no relevance).
No, but they (gov't) should put yo' ass in jail. If they could find you... You do know that the FBI reads /., right?
Do you really believe that slashdot wouldn't censor a list of credit card numbers? I think you're being a bit too idealistic here.
Oh please. So now anyone who doesn't agree with you is one of Gates' minions? I can't believe slashdot has come to this. It's really become the case that any and all dissenting voices are either moderated into oblivion or dismissed as "crazy." I for one do not work for Microsoft, and never have. I have a dissenting opinion not because I was told to, but for other reasons. Gross generalizations can only serve to make the one making them look foolish.
Microsoft is attempting to create a new legal classification ... an API that is published, yet illegal to use.
This is not new. How long have Unisys and Fraunhofer been doing this? The interface to GIF is restricted by the LZW compression patent; MPEG audio layer 3 is also patented.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Archives, which include unauthorized reproductions of Microsoft's copyrighted work entitled Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v.1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems" (hereafter "Specification").
Agreed, if they don't want it up, pull it. They wrote it and they own it. They get to say where it shows up and where it doesn't
In addition, some comments include links to unauthorized reproductions of the Specification,
Now you can shut up. You're essentially shooting the messenger. If slashdot isn't hosting it then it isn't slashdot's problem. Indicating that such information exists is merely informing slasdot readers, not infringing your copyright. You don't like those sites, go after them, then the links will be dead and useless. You're just being lazy.
and some comments contain instructions on how to circumvent the End User License Agreement that is presented as part of the download for accessing the Specification.
Now this is what puts a hair across my ass. Now you're not even attacking the messenger, but the message. If people break your EULA, go after them. This is really telling people, flat out, that they cannot even talk about certain aspects of your software and policy.
come for the naked robots, stay for the zombies
This is great. As a news site, publicity and name recognition are your life blood. They've really put you in a win win situation. If they decide to take you to court and you eventually lose the extra publicity will be worth far more than the fine. On the other hand, if you win then you get the "David slays Goliath" kudos.
The worst thing that can happen if you tell them to fuck off is better than than the best thing that can happen if you give in.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Who would have thought slashdot would be one of the first potential court cases to test the DMCA :-)
Someone should start a fund to help Slashdot in case Slashdot does get sued by Microsoft, even though it's very unlikely Slashdot will win.
Slashdot is not exactly a poor business that's barely trying to stand on two feet. I don't think they need a legal defense fund from the general public, besides which, although I read slashdot, I am completely unwilling to contribute money to the legal defense fund of a for-profit company. If they're making money off of their readership, (and rest assured that they are) they don't need to have us further help them financially by paying for their lawyers should they get sued.
I'm not anti-business, and I'm not anti-slashdot, but I would no more pay for slashdot's legal defense then I would for, say, Amoco or Bell Atlantic's legal defense.
The DMCA definately sucks, but in the end, companies will do what is best for their profitability. If they're publically owned, (like Andover is) then they pretty much have to. Your dollars in their defense fund won't change their strategy, and in the end, if the "stand up for the right thing" it will be because management has decided that that's the best thing to do in terms of long term profitability (for whatever reason) not out of some strong moral conviction.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
I agree it's out of line to remove the links. But if, under DMCA, links to illegally-copied material are ruled illegal, then are links to links to illegally-copied material illegal?
In other words, suppose someone places a copy on a server in Lilliput, out of the reach of DMCA (and perhaps a rogue nation that doesn't acknowledge intellectual property rights at all). In this hypothetical, a webpage in the US with a link to that copy in Lilliput would be illegal. But now suppose there's a webpage in Shangrila, also out of reach of DMCA, that has a link to the page in Lilliput. Would it be illegal for a webpage in the US to have a link to the page in Shangrila?
Does the "illegal link" propagate?
Christopher A. Bohn
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
This is the right place at the right time to start working to dismantle this dreadful law, passed nearly two years ago while much of cyberspace wasn't paying attention.
Some rock bands and music companies (for completely different reasons) are invoking this same law, as will any large corporation with lawyers that doesn't want to see something published. Under the worst provisions of the DMCA, you don't even have to prove copyright infringement, just allege it..and the ISP can only avoid liability by booting the offenders or deleting the allegedly offensive material. To restore access or content, you have to file an affidavit under the jurisdiction of the federal judge in your region.
This is one of the reasons it's outrageous for a corporation like Microsoft to use the DMCA to remove public comments. Almost nobody online was paying attention with the entertainment industry rushed to get this law passed, maybe because nobody imagined companies like Microsoft would jump in to use it to try and control what they call "proprietary" information, but which, in fact, will have the affect of censoring, chilling free speech. Slashdot is lucky, in this case, to be owned by a corporation..it has access to lawyers. To really grasp the horror here, imagine if you're a smaller website or weblog.Step one: The DMCA has to be repealed or re-written.It's much more offensive and damaging than the Communications Decency Act would have been, and much more enforceable.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Granted I don't care too much most of the opinions of slashdot editors (or posters for that matter). But it is good to see than when something real and serious comes up the editors here at Slashdot can put down the bias and the "revelery" for a moment and do the right thing.
:)
F /...
Your response was brief, to the point, and most importantly not inflammatory. Microsoft is a corporation, so of course its going to act like one. This fact seems to get lost on many slashdot posters. The DMCA is something they fought for... and now something they are going to use to fight with. This is as it should be. Its the lay of the land now... the way it works. Currently.
Unfortunately for Microsoft (and any large coroporation) they move slow and reacte even more slowly. The power of the net comes from its ability to inform many people of all of the facts on any issue almost instantly. Long gone are the days when it took months or even years to start a proper counter-movement. Now it takes days... Microsoft has felt this before and they will feel it again. What was acceptable for big business in the 80s became less so in the 90s and now in the zeros those who can't change and adapt to a smart, all knowing consumer are doomed to failure at that consumer's hands. This is the "internet economy"... not some company with potential billion dollar profits 5 or 6 years after starting up, no its consumers finally having real choice and power.
It is about time
---
Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OS
--- I do not moderate.
Microsoft didn't ask Slashdot to remove comments which were critical of the company. They asked Slashdot to remove articles which violated Microsoft's legitimate copyright.
Some of the comments which Microsoft wants /. to remove are not part of Microsoft's copyrighted material. They simply give advice on how one can circumvent an EULA.
Unfortunately, the DMCA makes the dissemination of such advice legal.
I'd like everyone reading this to stop for a few seconds and ponder this. If you write a howto which helps people obtain documentation you could be prosecuted under the DMCA.
A bit scary? I think so....
The time has come for Andover to secede from the United States. This will allow a huge expansion in business operations.
Suppressed organizations like Napster will be welcomed with opened arms. "IP Address of Convenience" registry will be available to other companies who feel the weight of the DMCA pressing down upon them.
Absolutely nothing a Scientologist or Microsoft or Metallica lawyer can do will matter in the slightest. It will be sort of like Canada, but not lame.
JonKatz will of course be named minister of propaganda and warm fuzzy feelings. CowboyNeal gets the ministry of statistics. Of course no form of expression will be censored, but people wanting to plaster dotcom advertisements over everything will be politely asked not to.
Good Things like microbrew, quality pizza, convertibles, game developers, mechanical wristwatches, fine clothes, USB, penguins, snowboarding and DVD will be encouraged, and perhaps even subsidised.
If you forget to dial the '1' before a phone number, there will be no annoying voice reminding you - instead the phone system will just know you meant to do that, and connect you anyway.
After the Andover goes the way of most non-US$ currencies, your old savings will be worth so much that there will be no need for a real job, nothing but open source hacking on state-supplied Athlons, punctuated by nerf gun wars and visits to the "mainland" for baseball games. Hooray!
> The DMCA needs to be stopped before it stunts technology permanantly.
More correctly, it will stunt _American_ technology permanently. If this trend is allowed to continue and the US falls farther and farther into restrictive legislation, it won't be long before other countries with less restrictive laws will pass you by. Show the lawmakers in the US how this will affect company's ability to compete on the world stage, and perhaps they will think twice about its usefulness.
For example, recently the US eased restrictions on exporting of encryption. Why? Because US companies were concerned about other counties coming out with equivalent or better products which they then shipped to the world, while the US companies could not.
http://bike.stu.ph/rides - free GPS routes available for Garmin, Magellan, GPX and Google Earth
I've been waiting for this to happen for a LONG time. I vote for a refusal to edit the posts or remove. And furthermore I vote that all of us users start appending those posts to our new posts like this:
... (Score:1)
May I claim John Doe #1
by BlueUnderwear on 05:17 PM May 2nd, 2000 EST (#253)
(User Info)
... for This puppy. It's the kerbspec file unzipped and without the legal boilerplate.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
The notion that Microsoft should be allowed to censor /. or any other medium is repugnant, and were this solely about this then I'd be throwing my hat in with everyone else who has knee-jerked and screamed "WE HATE BILL" with all their might.
If only they'd bothered to look at the issue here...
Microsoft say that certain posts infringed their copyright, and, if we're honest, they did. People blatently posted material copyrighted to M$. Such posts should never have been allowed to remain on the server, but they did.
Please don't do anything daft and turn this into a legal case that slashdot/Andover can't afford. I fear you would lose, and it wouldn't even be a blaze of glory you'd go out in.
--
Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
See, for example, LA Times v. Free Republic
Dear Microsoft -
Its nice to see that you are continuing to live up to your reputation of attempting to squash any open discussions of your business practices.
Instead of pulling out the DMCA and trying to use it to control, take a look at some of the comments that were made. At the *very* good points that developers and other IT people made about your release. And consider them an independent discussion of your business. The people who were discussing you are in a large part the people who are also your customers, your developers, and the very community with which you want to be having open discussions.
The best thing you could do at this point is to retract your letter, *apologize* and perhaps contact the Slashdot crew about an 'Ask Microsoft' regular feature. You might be surprised at some of our questions -- and who knows, you may surprise us in a *good* way with some of your answers.
Check out Magic Firesheep!
Circumventing the EULA is not illegal. It has no copy protection, it is a simple archive and can be opened in almost any program that handles that sort of file(iw winzip). Just because doing so is against what the EULA says, you must remember that the EULA was never agreed to when somebody decides to simply open it in winzip.
Also, simply linking to sites that contain unpacked versions that don't have the EULA on it is not illegal, or at least isn't yet(and hopefully never will be). The MPAA tried to get the courts to block 2600 from linking to DeCSS sites(and DeCSS has already been deemed illegal to have in your possesion). Why should slashdot stop linking to sites that contain microsofts implementation of the kerberos protocol when its not even illegal to have to begin with. There is no law saying a EULA must be present when you look at something from a company, even if a company wants it to be that way. I say it's time for Microsoft to realize that their days of blind bullying are over. Don't take down any posts concerning that story.
Not to mention the fact that "posts are the property of the person who posted them" to begin with. Stupid lawyers
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
"At the root of the issue is whether Microsoft legally has the right to keep its Kerberos extensions under copyright. As far as I recall, Kerberos extensions could only be kept private for in-house development. Obviously, Microsoft's Windows 2000 goes a bit beyond that."
And
"Remember as well that Microsoft has made the spec publicly available as long as you agree to certain terms--including that you don't tell anyone else the spec. Clearly, that's a ridiculous premise."
Even while it is on trial for abuse of its monopoly position, Microsoft is using the usual tactics (absorb, subvert, suppress) to abuse and strengthen its monopoly position.
The only way this will ever be stopped is to break up Microsoft. Well, short of nationalization, and summary execution of all key officers. Personally, I favor a breakup and summary executions, but I'm a moderate.
Is this a violation of DCMA? The reverse-engineering action occurred outside of DCMA's jurisdiction. MSFT's problem, as per their lawyer's letter, seems to be with the DCMA violation itself. Yet they are also complaining about proposals to bybass the EULA to view the document.
Which of the four stages are we at now? Then they fight you... Guess what stage is next???
Posting anonymously because their lawyers are probably scanning every post on this thread (scary).
I'm very confused, where in my post did i include any part of M$'s information? I've never even downloaded or read it in whole or in part. I can't understand why you or the evil empire thinks that i did? Here is what I said in it's entirety:
What happens to the people that implement it (ie. the Samba guys) even if they obtain the information without intentionally breaking the license. Are they exposing themselves to expensive litigation? Are they endangering the project?
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Can any lawyer here confirm or deny this?
Did the email have an attachment with a .vbs extension by any chance?
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
Just a note (because IANAL almost goes without saying anymore):
How about it be assumed that whoever posts is not a lawyer, thus eliminating the "IANAL" acronyms and instead, but "IAAL" for "I am a lawyer" for the rare person who has the credentials.
Of course, there are some issues with this, but really, if you're taking serious legal advice off a public forum, you need more than just legal help.
Woz
These should be added to the list with insightful, etc.
+1 Trade Secret
+1 Copyright Violation
+1 National Secret
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
I believe it is out of line to remove links to Microsoft's documents, but the comments actually containing the document are probably a legitimate target for removal.
Microsoft is playing very dirty pool with this "specification."
... congratulations. You are now legally ineligable to work on them because you have been "contaminated" by exposure to Microsoft's trade secrets.
... an API that is published, yet illegal to use. If they are successful with this, expect to see future APIs released in this fashion. At least when Microsoft kept their secret APIs secret, people could reverse engineer them, safe in the knowledge that they could not be sued by Microsoft. Anyone who utilizes an API that has been published under these conditions is in danger of having to defend themselves against an accusation of breach of contract, and having to prove that they did not see the poisoned API document.
The purpose of releasing the specification under this sort of "license" is NOT for the benefit of the user or programming community. This license is specifically crafted to provide a weapon that Microsoft can use against people trying to write programs that are compatable with Microsoft's interfaces.
The license only authorizes the use of the interface specification "for the sole purpose of allowing review of the Specification for security analysis." The license does not authorize the use of the interface specification for the purpose of utilizing the interface by third-party programs.
If you were planning to work on a program to interface to Microsoft's Kerberos, and you have seen these documents
Microsoft is attempting to create a new legal classification
Microsoft is playing a fast, loose game with the concept of a "trade secret" in a way that completely violates the spirit of the law.
As for the question of whether to remove the posts, I would argue that the posts that contained complete, verbatim copies of the program files should be removed, but the rest of the posts, especially the posts that describe how to open the files without agreeing to the EULA, should be left intact. Microsoft did not ensure that persons receiving the API specification could not access the specification without agreeing to the licensing terms, their trade secret has been revealed, and is no longer a trade secret. This is what Microsoft is trying to whitewash in asking that these posts be removed. They are attempting to establish that they can publicly publish an API, yet identify it as a "trade secret", then use it as a weapon against competitors.
Make no mistake, this new tactic is a direct attack on open source projects that compete with Microsoft's products, and we as of yet have no effective defense because we have been taken by surprise.
I hope that the outcome of this is that a court eventually finds that Microsoft lost trade secret status when it publicly published the specification, and I hope that whatever Andover decides to do in this case advances this goal.
Only the loss of trade secret status will stop Microsoft from pulling this dirty trick in the future. If they win this, expect all future Microsoft APIs to be similarly poisoned.
Let us not forget that the DMCA has a reverse engineering provision. It is lawful to reverse engineer software for certain specific purposes. One of those purposes is interoperability. Since Microsoft's whole point in protecting it is to prevent interoperability, isn't it legal to circumvent protections for that purpose?
Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:
.
.
"by smartin on Tuesday, May 02, @02:20PM EST (#86)"
Now, I went and looked at this comment. Wanna know the big secret? Here goes:
Posting the data is all well and good, but.... (Score:2)
by smartin on 03:20 PM May 2nd, 2000 EST (#86)
What happens to the people that implement it (ie. the Samba guys) even if they obtain the information without intentionally breaking the license. Are they exposing themselves to expensive litigation? Are they endangering the project?
Ummm... exactly where is there a trade secret in this post? I'm waiting...
Eric
Actually this would be the perfect test of the DMCA. The posting of the actual document is obviously in violation of Microsoft's copyright, however the links to it and the instructions for bypassing the EULA would certainly provide a good legal test of the DMCA. Rob, take down the actual document where it is posted on Slashdot, but leave the other posts. We need to choose our battles, DMCA is one I think we can win. Posting copyrighted material (like the specification) is not.
Someone should start a fund to help Slashdot in case Slashdot does get sued by Microsoft, even though it's very unlikely Slashdot will win. Maybe hire Johnny Cocran to take the case as well as Andover's lawyers. He's had great experience when it came to the O.J Simpson trial ;)
Anyways, everyone needs to write their representative now! This link will allow you to do so with ease. The DMCA needs to be stopped before it stunts technology permanantly.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
Okay, I propose a test. Let's post these Microsoft copywrited materials to some discussion group on MSN. If it's gone within a certain amount of time, then Slashdot should remove their copy. Else, Microsoft is being horribly hypocritical, and I'm sure that can't look good in court. But then again, I don't think there's a provision in the DMCA for hypocracy.
Being one of the named (hey you bright microsoft lusers, you forgot to capitalized my L!) I certainly don't want my post yanked, I did nothing which violated any law.
I simply stated that to get past the End User License Agreement for the Microsoft "embrace and extend" kerberos spec file located h ere is to just open it in winzip and extract it.
I mean, what possible law could I have violated, being a Canadian citizen and all? These comments belong to me, not Slashdot, if MS has a problem with them, then you talk to me.
The file is freely downloadable by anyone, in an easy to extract and read format, I thought this is what MS wanted? If not they would never have done it.
Now as for people posting the text to the file in whole, well, that's a copyright violation, and MS needs to go ahead and sue those people (comments belong to the poster), but as an unmoderated forum, slashdot is no party to it.
What if the same thing happened on an unmoderated group on usenet? How are you going to yank it after it's out there? You going to sue the news servers? No, you sue the person who did it.
MS is just making this worse for themselves, the whole kerberos thing would probably have just dissapeared and would have been forgotten by the majority, but now by doing this, they rehash it and just make it worse for themselves, next thing you know there will be mirrors upon mirrors of the pdf file everywhere. I personally am thinking of rewriting the document in my own words to hand off to the kerberos guys now, which I didn't even think about before.
Microsoft, you really know how to shoot yourself in the foot. Kudos.
-- iCEBaLM
We got a microsoft suit to send slashdot an email with the word "blueunderwear" in it twice. Thanks to blueunderwear for tick them off.
Reading this comment, something occured to me.
:-), I think it's reasonable for the lawyers to investigate the posters a bit before responding to MS's demand. I think we can all agree that the response will need to be *very* different if Slashdot/Andover/VALinux can show that the offending posters work for Microsoft!
Is it possible that the comments which many of us feel might have crossed the line (e.g., posting actual content instead of just links) were planted by Microsoft employees specifically so Microsoft could make a fuss about the "clear violation of law" and (hopefully) eliminate additional posts which would have otherwise been left alone?
I have absolutely no evidence that MS did this, or that it even contemplated it, but the problem with playing dirty is that reasonable people have to assume the worst from you. Because of MS's history (written entirely by Mac sorehead losers, no doubt
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
It might be even more fun to do this to M$, if they (an individual company) keeps fighting things in court, maybe they'll bankrupt... unlike the Entertainment Trust which still owns a lot of people's hearts and minds.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
First, I agree that you don't speak for 100% of Slashdot's readers. It's been common knowledge for quite some time that gates has commanded his minions to infiltrate, monitor, and astroturf Slashdot. You can see some of them in this very thread that you started, and quite a few more in the other threads on this topic.
Speaking for myself, however, I agree 100%.
Look. We all knew this was comeing. It was only a matter of time before gates moved to silence his critics. It is an inevitable part of any tyrant's rise... seize control of the critical press. Make sure ONLY your viewpoint is heard by the masses. Stalin did it. Mao did it. Castro did it. Hussain did it.
And let's face it. Outside of gates' own astroturfing schills, most of the Slashdot community IS critical of microsoft. Now Gates has begun his own campaign to silence his critics.
I say FIGHT! Do NOT submit without making gates pay dearly for his every inch. The old cliche applies. If you give an inch, he will take a mile. But if you stand your ground, this MAY be the turning point in the struggle for freedom. Who knows? Mabye resistance REALLY is not futile.
And don't keep the fight in the courtroom only. Take it to the public. Let the media know that gates is attempting to do away with the first amendment. And I don't mean just the tech press like ZDnet and Cnet. Take it to the mass media! CNN, AP, the New York Times, even sensationalist press like Fox. Let the WHOLE WORLD know what gates is trying! Put that Andover IPO money to good use; take out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal.
But above all, NEVER GIVE IN! If microsoft suceeds, if gates takes away our right to freely speak and write, critically or no, who knows what right is next on his list during his ascension? Keep and bear arms would be the next logical chioce, but free assembly, trial by jury, and redress of grievances would also be high on his list.
Slashdot should learn from others who fought such battles against tyrants. The forces of good invariably have triumphed in the past, and I hope that we triumph in the future. Adopt the philosophy of other great fighters. I am reminded of one quote in particular. Some of you might recognise it:
"We shall have no truce or parley with you,
or the grizley gang who work your wicked will.
You do your worst.
And we shall do our best."
-- Sir Winston Spencer Churchill
john
Imagine all the people...
I think the problem is quite different from actually providing that information in this instance.
If we just moved the contents of those comments somewhere else, sure we'd put slashdot off the hook, but it would escape this important opportunity to oppose the dmca.
If slashdot removes those comments, the DMCA has a precedent, and this site will be the place that set that precedent. I think it is of utmost importance not to do that.
You can take all the controversial stuff you want, and hide it in another country, but if you keep running and hiding, soon there will be no country free enough to hide that information in. Someone needs to turn around and oppose the DMCA head on. That's what will stop it.
Ale
Here it is guys. Here's the chance you've been waiting for.
;-)
I've seen tons of posts saying basically "I'll fight them if they come to my door/portal/site!" Now you have the chance.
You knew this was coming. You knew it would happen eventually. Now stand up and do what needs to be done.
1) Slashdot should not have to remove "any" comments any more than an existing paper magazine should. (Some magazines occasionally have crossed the line - but if they can print a retraction in tiny letters on some back page so can Slashdot.
2) Microsoft should be made somehow (I don't know how - any ideas?) to pay for trying - IN THE MIDST OF THEIR ANTI-COMPETITION BATTLE - to silence information about something they're working on. To this end I suggest sending letters and e-mail to the Justice Department regarding this recent behavior.
In the interest of standing up for what's right I give Slashdot permission to contact me as needed regarding anything that I may have seen or heard on Slashdot. I give no such permission to Microsoft under any circumstances.
The Tick - "Spoon!"
"Bah!" - Dogbert
Here's my input:
Yank the posts that copied the original Microsoft documents. They clearly own the copyrights, and that is a reasonable request.
As for the links and the comments about the EULA, tough nouggies, theose are protected free speech, copyright the original posters.
-Jeff
I have not read the comments so I am not certain this pertains. The law explicitly says that it is legal to uses copyrighted material if it is for editorial purposes. Considering that Slashdot is clearly an environment for discussion and debate the posting of Copyrighted material should be legal as long as it pertains to the topic being discussed.
LOL! I love their address:
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way, 114/2314
Redmond, WA 98052
Says it all really :)
I suppose that this had to happen sooner or later given some of the things that get posted to /. every time a "trade secret" story comes up here. It's ironic really that it's everybody's favourite company, Microsoft, that's the one to finally do it though :)
Anyway, given that this is exactly the sort of thing the DMCA was created for I very much doubt that Slashdot would win if it ever goes to a court of law. /. did have posts which contained copies of the information which were forbidden under the MS Kerberos EULA, and the recent court case victory for shrinkwrap licenses doesn't put /. in a good position.
The one way I can see to fight this is through publicity and public opinion. Microsoft aren't liked, and if enough of a stink is raised they may back down. And /. is great for raising a stink, especially when it comes to Microsoft :) So everyone should be working to publisize this as a violation of free speech and general interference by a corporation intent on making money at the expense of other's work.
And I fully expect that the relevent posts will already be mirrored in a hundred places across the net by the time this gets posted anyway, so, like with DeCSS, it's a battle that's lost in practice but being fought for control :)
As soon as you start controlling what people post, you will become liable for everything posted!
I'm 100% certain that when i say this, i am saying it for all of Slashdot's readers:-
No matter what Microsoft threatens, no matter what they say, do not give into them. This is not because it is Microsoft, but because Free Speech is far too important, especially on a forum such as Slashdot. Give them hell.
As a side issue, i have a feeling this could turn into a very intersting thread. It covers all the things Slashdoters love to hate: Microsft, the DMCA and Censorship.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
If I'm not mistaken (IANAL, naturally), actually hosting the material is illegal. BUT, linking to it is perfectly fine. So, someone make copies of all the comments... stick them on a server off in some country where they can't be touched, and post a link moderated to +5 on the story in question linking to that page.
/. off the hook, and the comments would still be there and totally visible.
I think that would get
-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.
Personally, I would not cooperate with such a request without a signed opinion letter from counsel stating that (1) there is no fair use involved; and (2) there is no improper motive in the request. If it turns out they've overreached, you can pursue disciplinary action against the attorney who signed it. Most lawyers will be very reluctant to sign such an opinion letter because of the legal risk it creates for them. And if the requestor won't provide such a letter, it makes subsequent legal action on their part much more problematic. Plus, such a demand on your part is obviously reasonable. Note that the letter must not simply be a demand, but must state that it is an opinion of counsel.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:
"by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, May 02, @03:37PM EST (#197)"
"by BlueUnderwear on Tuesday, May 02, @04:09PM EST (#239)"
"by BlueUnderwear on Tuesday, May 02, @04:15PM EST (#248)"
"by smartin on Tuesday, May 02, @02:20PM EST (#86)"
Comments Containing Links to Internet Sites with Unauthorized Copies of the Specification:
"by ka9dgx on Tuesday May 02, @2:52PM EST (#133)"
Comments Containing Instructions on How to Bypass the End User License Agreement and Extract the Specification:
"by myconid (my S conid@ P toge A the M r.net) on Tuesday May 02, @07:27PM EST (#362)"
"by markb on Tuesday May 02, @05:47PM EST (#321)"
"by Sami (respect.my@authorita-dot-net) on Tuesday May 02, @01:47PM EST (#19)"
"by iCEBalM (icebalm@[NOSPAM]bigfoot.com) on Tuesday May 02, @01:52PM EST (#33)"
"by Jonny Royale (moc.mocten.xi@notners) on Tuesday, May 02, @01:59PM EST (#51)"
"by rcw-work (rcw@d.e.b.i.a.n.org.without.dots) on Tuesday, May 02, @07:12PM EST (#353)"
"They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here!" -Jean-Luc Picard
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but we were discussing Micros~1's deviation from the kerberos protocol. Most of us did not agree that Micros~1's implementation of kerberos did not fit the standard. Therefore in the context of our discussion, it was legal under fair use principles that we analyse the code.
Not only that, but according to MIT, kerberos is released under a bsd-style licence. Well, this is what a bsd-style licence looks like. Micros~1 totally abused this licence, and MIT should take away their privilege of calling the software kerberos. Kerberos is a MIT copyright, not a Micros~1 copyright. Micros~1 does not have the right to pursue this.
I usually play devils advocate when someone spews misinformation about Micros~1. This time, it is totally obvious that they have left the realm of the clued.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
I'm so frustrated, MS might as well have written the law -- it's damn near airtight (even though its application here has to be unconstitutional). Stanford Law's archives were somewhat reassuring in this "fair use" of copyrighted materials quote.
"The framers of the constitution maintained that a free exchange of knowledge is essential for the good of society, and it is from this assertion that both copyright law and the fair use doctrine find their roots." *
Now here is the relevant excerpt MS can bury Andover with (notice, I said Andover):
Does anybody see anything that would help here? Just making information to circumvent the liscence makes Andover guilty as hell of making information available to more-easily cirumvent the software liscence. A serious crime. .pdf? I open all my .exe files with Winzip -- Don't you!?!?"
* http://fairuse.stanford.edu/articles/
If anybody asks me, I'll say: "you mean there is a liscence on that
There are 3 points to this "request":
1 - Removal of copyrighted material
Posting of copyrighted material is wrong. There is no reading of
the copyright laws of the USA that allows for the verbatum copying of
copyrighted material whether it be with a printing press, photo copier
or email. There is very little justification to the notion that
an editorial requires the entire contents of the document. So, the
initial posting was wrong and illegal and the poster may be liable for
damages.
The question still remains: shall slashdot remove the copyrighted
work? It is not a question of free-speech. Even the Evil Empire is
not "requesting" the removal of the comments, only the copyrighted
material. This is within the rights of the copyright holder.
Posting the material was both wrong and illegal (even if its
Micr$soft'$). Knowingly keeping the posting is still wrong, even if
the legality is in question. It seems to me that the slash dot people
are interested in doing what's right.
2 - Removal of links
A while back SlashDot posted an article on a similar subject. The
Mormon church sued to have links to copyrighted material removed from
a web site. The judge found in favor of the Church. From an article
in the New York times: ( search for "mormon" on SlashDot for a link to it)
Claiming that the Tanners were improperly pointing viewers to
sites that contained illegal copies of the handbook, lawyers
for the Mormon Church succeeded in getting Judge Campbell to
issue an expanded restraining order. This week, she also
issued a formal preliminary injunction, which prohibits the
Tanners from directly posting the contents of the handbook or
posting on their site "addresses to Web sites that defendants
know, or have reason to know, contain the material alleged to
infringe plaintiff's copyright."
This would seem to be along the same vein as the "request" made by His
Royal Gatesness. Having had it brought to SlashDot's attention, they
now "have reason to know".
In reaching her decision, Judge Campbell made two key
conclusions. First, she reasoned that anyone who went to a Web
site and viewed a pirated copy of the handbook was probably
engaging in direct copyright infringement, because that viewer's
browser automatically makes a local copy of the text.
This is an interesting definition of a "copy", yet it sets a legal
precedent that might effect SlashDot's case.
In addition, Judge Campbell reckoned that by posting the addresses
to the pirate sites after they were ordered to take down the handbook,
and by otherwise assisting people who wished to locate the pirate
sites, the Tanners were liable under a theory of contributory
copyright infringement. By their actions, the Tanners "actively
encouraged" browsers to directly infringe the church's copyright,
Judge Campbell wrote.
This argument could easily apply to SlashDot as well.
What makes Judge Campbell's 10-page opinion significant,
lawyers said, is that there are few other instances where a
court has ruled on the practice of knowingly linking to or
posting addresses for sites with infringing material.
Which should give me cause to reflect as the precedent this might set.
So, while I disagree with this judgement, it is also very applicable
(at least on the surface) to any case that SlashDot might be involved
in with respect to links to copyrighted material.
So should the links be removed? What would SlashDot gain by leaving
them up. They would get sued (probably) and then the court would
decide. Should the court decide against SlashDot, that would be a
victory for the Redmond Monopoly and a strengthening of the above
legal precedent. Should SlashDot prevail, it would bring the above
decision into question, which would be a good thing.
My suggestion: talk to a good lawyer and see what your chances are
(assuming you have the money for the legal battle).
3 - Links to instructions on How to Bypass the End User License
Agreement
This seems the flimsiest "request" by the World's Richest Nerd.
Micro$oft does not own the copyright on these articles. I have not
read the DMCA but this sort of thing falls outside copyright and
should therefore be allow. Also, EULA are questionable. I do not
know if they have been challenged but they seem to go to far into
keeping people from "fair use" of the copyrighted work.
Again, consult your lawyer, but leave these up.