Microsoft Asks Slashdot To Remove Readers' Posts

Our friends at Microsoft are upset about some of the readers' comments attached to the story, Kerberos, PACs And Microsoft's Dirty Tricks (posted on May 2), and would like us to remove those comments from Slashdot. We are not happy about this, to say the least. But instead of reflexively going into rant mode, we are calmly posting the full text of the e-mail we got from Microsoft, along with our initial response to it, so that you can see what news and community Web sites like Slashdot are up against now that the DMCA has become law. We are talking to our lawyers, of course, but we would also like your suggestions on how we should handle this situation.

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

Comments

Re:Paraphrase it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose someone from outside the US, and not governed by DCMA, grabbed the document. Then they read it carefully, and basically paraphrased, or rewrote it completely from scratch? Could these comments, now not infringing on plagiarism, may be posted to /., or are they still illegal under the DCMA? The only questionable part would be the explanation of the bastardized Kerberos protocol.

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).

Re:Perhaps just remove the actual text copies

[smartin]

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?

If /. edits any, is it then responsible for all?

[jsm]

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.

Can any lawyer here confirm or deny this?

When in Rome..

[NickFitz]

Tell them that their concerns will be addressed in the next Service Pack for the discussion, whilch will be available 2nd quarter next year. Until then it is suggested that they disable ActiveSlashdot in their browser. Oh, and reinstall CommonSense while they're about it.

Did the email have an attachment with a .vbs extension by any chance?

Re:Erm, well... (off topic, but applicable)

[Nagash]

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

New moderation options..

[seeken]

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...

Perhaps just remove the actual text copies

[StormCrow]

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.

Re:Perhaps just remove the actual text copies

[loki7]

That would be fine if roblimo argued that Slashdot is a common carrier. But he argued that it's a free speech issue, which it isn't.

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.

/peter

Re:Perhaps just remove the actual text copies

[loki7]

It's nice to see someone making sense. Roblimo's response was somewhat puzzling.

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.

If I posted a list of 100 stolen credit card numbers to Slashdot, would they remove that?

/peter

Re:Perhaps just remove the actual text copies

[brass1]

> 1. Those individuals can not remove the material, and it appears that preventing individual commenters from being able to remove their comments was an explicit design decision made by the developers of this site.

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 (n o 'cancel' or 'supersede' provision in SlashCode).

As someone who is constantly involved in both the Operations and the Policy Enforcement of a Large, Commercial Usenet News Provider(tm), there is one other issue that I don't think has actually been raised here. If Slashdot wishes to use the common carrier argument (most News providers do, at least of the Usenet kind), then the moderation system violates the basic premise of this argument (I'll note that a Slander case involving Prodogy is the precedent M$ would most likely use in this case). I'll also point out that this argument may be invalid with the newfangled DMCA, though that's something that needs to be tested in ligitation.

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.

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. Oh, and just to be nice, we've removed the material in question since you've asked. The next step to this is to move towards more of a common carrier model, that being one of absolutely no moderation of any sort, PLUS the ability for users to self moderate (as a user I can remove of alter my own comments, but no one else's), and then be very careful about what records are kept on user accounts and even where the records in question are stored. This is actually very close to what all the commercial news providers are moving towards to limit possible damage from liable and DCMA suits.


[1] I'll point out at this juncture, that I don't have, nor do I want, a law degree.

Re:Perhaps just remove the actual text copies

[Wah]

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. 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.

If I posted a list of 100 stolen credit card numbers to Slashdot, would they remove that?

No, but they (gov't) should put yo' ass in jail. If they could find you... You do know that the FBI reads /., right?

--

Re:Perhaps just remove the actual text copies

[Raindeer]

A couple of thingies: If you do remove the actual text copies then at least make a note of it in the postings. Something like:

Because of a violation of copyrights, we were obliged under the DMCA to remove the information enclosed in this posting.

What I do find bad is that because this is a digital medium, there is no way of getting it back again. Slashdot is by the same law obliged to remove it of their servers, no back ups etc. Therefore it might also be nice to give posterity a general idea of what was in the posting.

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.

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) :-)

And really as a final comment, shouldn't the phonenumber and e-mail adress have been remvoed of this e-mail? You never know what someone might do.

Re:Perhaps just remove the actual text copies

[348]

Their content is the owner's responsibility

So how does one sue AC?

Re:Perhaps just remove the actual text copies

[luckykaa]

Which would result in the removal of precisely 1 article which is blatently infringing copyright. The rest were links.

All of the "circumvention" instructions simply said unzip it. This is hardly circumvention. You might as well say "View it using acrobat" is a means to circumvent it.

Cream of the crop is this one which is apparently breaching confidential information.

Re:Perhaps just remove the actual text copies

[Oarboat_7]

Microsoft should be sending letters to those people, who should then ask /. to remove the comments..

Umm, what you're saying is that Microsoft should contact the individuals who posted the information.

1. Those individuals can not remove the material, and it appears that preventing individual commenters from being able to remove their comments was an explicit design decision made by the developers of this site.

2. In order for Microsoft to contact the individuals in order to ask them to remove the material (which is impossible for them to do in any case), Microsoft's staff would need the contact information used to establish the accounts the material was posted under. Do we really want to advocate the forced disclosure of that information?

3. Point 1 above raises an interesting issue. If comments made here on this forum are the property of the people who submit them, why is it impossible for those people to remove and/or modify the content of those comments?

I think blowing this all up and making a big issue of it could precipitate a 'sea change' in the legal status of many of the involved parties. It might take this site down, or radically modify how it is structured.

It will be an interesting ride.

What this is really about

[jms]

Microsoft is playing very dirty pool with this "specification."

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 ... congratulations. You are now legally ineligable to work on them because you have been "contaminated" by exposure to Microsoft's trade secrets.

Microsoft is attempting to create a new legal classification ... 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.

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.

Reverse engineering provision

[qseep]

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?

I don't see a trade secret here...

[EricWright]

Microsoft's letter specifies a number of comments which include a 'trade secret'. One of those listed is the following:

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

Re:Erm, well...

[demosthenes]

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.

Microsoft gets pissed, *everyone* suffers

[mind21_98]

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.

A Test is in order

[Penrif]

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.

Well being one of the named...

[iCEBaLM]

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

Look at the bright side...

[A moron]

We got a microsoft suit to send slashdot an email with the word "blueunderwear" in it twice. Thanks to blueunderwear for tick them off.

Astroturfing.... (dark thoughts)

[coyote-san]

Reading this comment, something occured to me.

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 :-), 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!

Shouldn't we all...

[ronfar]

.. find those posts Micros~1 is complaining about and post the contents of them to our individual Web pages? Sort of like DeCSS?

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.

I agree... do NOT give them an INCH!!!

[SvnLyrBrto]

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

Re:Erm, well...

[shomon2]

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

Time to stand up for what's right.

[Cheerio Boy]

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!"

It would seem pretty obvious what to do...

[jalbro]

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

Fair Use.

[Juda_ben_Maci]

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.

Re:Give them hell!

[mcrandello]

"When will they learn that Freedom and Truth are to be embraced?"

They've already embraced them. This is the "extend"ing part.

One Microsoft Way

[spiralx]

LOL! I love their address:

Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way, 114/2314
Redmond, WA 98052

Says it all really :)

Bad publicity probably best way to deal with this

[spiralx]

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 :)

Liability for people's post

[Mo B. Dick]

As soon as you start controlling what people post, you will become liable for everything posted!

Stick To Your Guns!

[Vanders]

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.

Erm, well...

[DrEldarion]

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.

I think that would get /. off the hook, and the comments would still be there and totally visible.

-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.

Lawyers and extortion

[YIAAL]

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.

Re:Suggestion: Mark Up Microsoft's E-mail with Lin

[aeloff]

Here's my c*ckmonkey work for the morning:
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)"

Look to Picard

[fleener]

"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

M$ Licence of Kerberos illegal?

[Pinball Wizard]

I tried to find out the exact licence the kerberos protocol was licenced under. According to MIT, the inventors of the protocol, Kerberos is freely available from MIT, under a copyright permission notice very similar to the one used for the BSD operating and X11 Windowing system. MIT provides Kerberos in source form, so that anyone who wishes to use it may look over the code for themselves and assure themselves that the code is trustworthy. In addition, for those who prefer to rely on a professional supported product, Kerberos is available as a product from many different vendors.

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.

Take it to the Supreme Court or Cut the comments

[Often_Censored]

First let me say, MS is what happens when corporations endorse unethical behavior and reward it hansomely with great stock options. I looked into possible defenses for a summary judgement to save the comments posted on Andover-owned servers.

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):

"(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, componenet, or part thereof, that --

"(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

"(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;


note:"(A) to 'circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

(B) a technological measure 'effectively controls access to a work' if that measure, in 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."

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.
* http://fairuse.stanford.edu/articles/
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!?!?"

Let's consider each "request" made.

[m0smith]

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.