Censorship != Innovation

I've written a lot of stories for Slashdot, but until yesterday's Microsoft news, I've never been inspired to write an editorial. I wrote this for people who are coming to Slashdot for the first time from media outlets, but regular Slashdot readers and comment posters may enjoy it, as well. Let me know what you think in the comments.

Every time I see Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer on television, spouting the Microsoft party line about the 'freedom to innovate,' I can't help but think of Inigo Montoya in the movie the Princess Bride, saying "You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means." It would be extremely easy to write an article on how most of Microsoft's innovation in the software industry is actually based on licensing issues and business models instead of technology. I won't be doing that this time.

My name is Emmett Plant. I write full-time for a website called Slashdot. I post news bits to the page throughout the day, and I also write features about interesting stuff. I tend not to editorialize, and I choose to show my bias in the stories I choose to write rather than to show bias in the reporting of news. An interesting thing about Slashdot is that we've got a system where people can comment on stories that we post or write. The most important thing about this system is that anyone can post a comment, either as a logged-in user, or as a user we call 'Anonymous Coward.' Based on how interesting the comments are, they get moderated to thresholds in the systems by logged-in users on a number scale system. So, while some really intelligent comment may go to a higher threshold, and a stupid comment may go to a lower threshold, the most important thing is that none of the comments ever get erased. If you're interested in reading everything that's been posted about a story, you can do so. The very basic idea is that if we don't impede on freedom of speech, a greater number of varying viewpoints can be expressed.

The system isn't perfect. We get trolls and miscreants tearing through the comments with comments about nude teenage movie stars, breakfast foods, and the scientific process of petrification. Based on the story, time of day, phase of the moon and the cost of tea in China, the signal-to-noise ratio in the comments fluctuates wildly. Still, we've created a system where intelligent people can say intelligent things in a free forum that tends to bring the cream to the top of the chaos.

Slashdot is viewed in the media as the place where the Open Source and Free Software communities meet and voice their opinions. This may be true, it may not. Nevertheless, we get a staggering amount of pageviews every day, and we're read by people all over the world at all hours of the day. Everyone who works on Slashdot is an Open Source enthusiast, so that bias is shown in the news we post and write everyday, but it doesn't stop there. If you go to a Star Trek convention, you'll find that most of the people there are Star Trek fans, but are also fans of The X-Files, Japanese animation, and computers in general. In the same vein, Slashdot readers are also interested in cutting-edge technology, digital content delivery, and the preservation of constitutional rights. In other words, we've got a lot to talk about, and we talk about it twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Some of our readers also meet online in IRC channels devoted to talking about Slashdot content on a number of different IRC networks.

Linux users are painted as the 'enemy' of Microsoft, although that's not necessarily the case. In my own experience, Linux users value freedom over bandwidth. For many people, Linux is an alternative to Microsoft's products not because of any vast performance difference, but because using Linux enables them to work in a world where their common system environment isn't controlled by a proprietary interest. While many Linux users take a vitriolic stance on Microsoft's monopolistic machinations in the industry, the argument really isn't a Microsoft vs. Linux issue. It's an issue of being able to choose a free and available development and operating platform over a closed-source, proprietary platform, and that means that Microsoft isn't the enemy. The biggest problem that Free Software enthusiasts need to overcome is the ideology and the processes behind the proprietary business model. Despite motions in the direction of the Open Source model, Sun Microsystems and Apple Computer are just as guilty as Microsoft in establishing a closed proprietary environment. Microsoft is just the most widespread 800-pound gorilla.

The problem with the proprietary software model is that it puts users and applications at odds with the interest that controls the common system environment, whether that platform is MacOS, Solaris, or Windows. This means that it will always be in the owner's best interest not to share it's best knowledge and research with the people writing software for the platform; Why should we let someone else make the money? We can do it ourselves. This is why Microsoft's 'Freedom to Innovate' campaign is hypocrisy at best, and the source of endless amusement in the Free Software community. Microsoft's finest innovations to date have been in their ruthless business dealings and monopolistic tendencies. Freedom to Innovate more money into their coffers, that is. The word 'innovation' used to have a pleasant, exciting connotation. It meant people were building things to make life better on this planet. Electricity. Running water. Solar-powered cars. Nanotechnology. Bulletin board systems that gave equal and free opportunity to everyone who wants to post, and a threshold system to bring the best posts to the top. You know, innovation. When smart people do smart things so everyone can benefit. That's 'innovation' in my book.

Yesterday, Andover.Net Editor-in-Chief Robin Miller posted a news bit to the front of Slashdot titled 'Microsoft Asks Slashdot To Remove Reader Comments.' Sit back and look at that title again. It makes Free Software champions and Open Source enthuasiasts see red, and it made this Slashdot Author seethe with intense anger. We offer an opportunity to give everyone in the world a chance to speak, and Microsoft wants us to pull reader comments off of our site, after Linux users and Open Source enthusiasts have been talking trash about Microsoft in our reader comments for that past two-and-a-half years. You bet. Microsoft is hoping to use a statement in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (which is now law) to stab back at Slashdot for a small number of postings about their Kerberos specification. You've got to be kidding me. Robin received the E-mail from the Microsoft attorney, and it was posted in its entirety, as well as Robin's response letter to Microsoft. When I left the the house yesterday morning, the story appeared to being well on its way to becoming the most popular Slashdot story of all time.

Where will we go from here? We'll wait. We've issued a letter back to Microsoft, and we're looking for ideas on how to deal with this in the best way possible. We're talking to lawyers, software gurus, business people, and Slashdot comment posters. We're talking to everyone. Please let us know what you think we should do.

People come to Slashdot and post on Slashdot because they know that Slashdot's comment system is the epitomy of the 'equal time' concept. They know we're Open Source zealots, and that we will never, ever back down. We're too smart for that. I'm hoping that Andover.Net takes this to court. Jeff 'Hemos' Bates told me that I would be flown to wherever the court case would take place. If I'm given the chance, I'll be on the stand, defending the rights of every Slashdot reader comment that has ever been moderated down, moderated up, stayed on topic, asked that I be fired, talked about my wife, or posted whatever was in their head at the time. It's a principle thing. Congress shall make no law.

Comments

Missing the point

[qsi]

I thought feature was rather unimpressive, and missing the point. Since it's aimed primarily at non-regular Slashdot readers, the title is likely to be incomprehensible to non-geeks. How many people know what != means?

As for the feature, it does not address Microsoft's claims of copyright infringement in any detail, but is rather a generic argument for the Open Source credo of free speech & beer. I don't think this approach is particularly effective in this context; new visitors to this site (I would imagine) are more likely to be interested in why slashdot (if it chooses to fight in court) thinks Microsoft's claims are unfounded. (I also thought the exposition of Open Source principles of freedom was a bit weak, but that's another thread...)

Given the law (DMCA) as it stands, it's more of a copyright issue than free speech. One might argue that the DMCA is wrong, immoral or unconstitutional, but it is on the basis of the DMCA that the court case will be fought, not high-minded priciples of free speech, unless you want to argue that the DMCA violates the First Amendment. In that case, the article should have made that point.

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

The above post raises valid points, but it neglects to speculate WHY Emmett might choose NOT to include certain elements in his reply. Simply put, there is no reason whatsoever for Emmett to add to the content of Microsoft's suit!

Thus, it would seem to be folly for him to discuss ways to circumvent the DMCA, since this may well be interpreted as yet another violation of the DMCA! (Is there such a thing a recursive law?)

However, we posters are under no such restrictions (not yet, at least). So let's try to fill in some of the blanks Emmett so carefully (and necessairly) avoided.

How about a look at just what the law might consider to be a legal or an illegal post?

My own original thoughts, and my expressions of them, are clearly OK (they can even be copyrighted). When I lack the proper words, I can also freely use short quotes of the words of others to help express my thoughts, even if those quotes come from copyrighted works.

However, I am not free to republish substantial portions of ANY copyrighted work verbatim! At the very least, I am required to express the information I wish to communicate in MY OWN WORDS. The IDEAS expressed within the copyrighted document are NOT protected by copyright. Only the EXPRESSION of them is protected, and using trivial modifications of copyrighted materials is still plagairism. I must create my OWN expression of the relevant ideas, using limited quotes only to illustrate the accuracy of my expression.

I doubt very much Microsoft would have ANY problem (that would result in a suit, at least) with a post that did a point-by-point analysis of the Microsoft document, so long as the quotes were few, short and reasonable. (This may bring up EULA violation issues, but those are SEPARATE from the copyright issues, and are covered under very different law - probably UCITA.)

So, what is Slashdot's role in all this as a publisher, as the host of this forum? What are their duties under the law, with respect to avoiding copyright infringement while at the same time preserving and encouraging free speech?

Let's get more specific: No matter what Slashdot can or must do (still a very open issue), WHEN must they do it? Must they be "procactive" (which may lead to their being "over-reactive")? Or may they wait until a formal notice of copyright infringement is received (the current situation)? Or something in the middle?

I'd say a bit of both, and certainly not the middle. Clearly, Slashdot needs to formulate a policy that defines the difference between a post containing the poster's own thoughts and the fair expression of those thoughts, from a post that contains a level of quoted copyrighted material that clearly infringes on the rights of the copyright holder (under current law, at least).

No such Slashdot posting policy presently exists, and I'm not even sure it is possible to formulate a "perfect" instance of such a policy. But its complete absence is intolerable, at least in the sense that it leaves Slashdot wide open to being charged as being negligent (at best) or intentionally encouraging (conspiring) violation of the copyright law (at worst). The present "moderation" policy does not respond to ANY of the legal issues involved.

So, some sort of clear policy is needed. Preferably one that pushes right up to the furthest limit of the law, to err toward the side of free speech, rather than live in fear of the copyright laws. In any event, a balance must be struck, the line drawn, and we should all be expected to observe it and abide by it.

What does this mean to us, the Slashdot posters? Quite simply, we just have to take a moment longer and express ourselves clearly, and not take the shortcut of violating a copyright. We must NOT allow our laziness or illegal acts to impact Slashdot. It is OUR responsibility, but it is Slashdot that will be sued in court (though we could, in theory, be right there with them). After all, Slashdot is part of the VA Linux purchase of Andover, a deal with a value of ONE BILLION DOLLARS at the time it was announced! Those are some deep pockets, and Microsoft is just as willing to accept revenue from the courts as it is from the sales of its software and services.

Now, back to the original question: What must or should Slashdot do with a post that has been PROVEN to violate copyright? For the moment, let's postpone the discussion of just HOW the determination of a copyright violation is made, and focus on the proper response. (I'm saving the decision process for last.)

What should Slashdot do? Should they wait for the lawyers to drag it through the courts? Or can they do something up front that may mitigate the situation WITHOUT intentionally or accidentally violating the poster's rights? I'd say, yes, there is. And I'd use one of Microsoft's favorite words to define it: "Redacted". Microsoft's Encarta dictionary defines this wonderful word as follows: "redact 1. edit something: to edit or revise something in preparation for publication formerly classified documents that were redacted before release to protect still confidential material" In this case, it is fair to substitute the word "copyrighted" for "confidential" (to avoid the connotation of a military classification category).

Yes, the post must be edited to remove ONLY the minimal amount of copyrighted material necessary to stay within a liberal interpretation of the relevant law. How much should be removed? For starters, I'd suggest leaving the first and last few words (so the context may be preserved, alowing those with access to the document to look it up for themselves), and replace the stuff in between with the following: "[REDACTED]". This inserted comment may probably include a LINK to an offsite instance of the document, since it seems LINKS to copyrighted material are not in and of themselves copyright violations. However, to stay clean, Slashdot editors should NOT actually insert any such link.

Nor would it be appropriate for Slashdot to CREATE the "offsite instance" of the copyrighted document, but it would likely be provided by another poster as soon as the "[REDACTED]" word appears. So it would be VERY reasonable to expect that a followup to the post that had some of its content "[REDACTED]" would be immediately forthcoming. Slashdot obeys the law, and we posters take up the slack. That is to say, if a poster wants to violate copyright, it is their own personal responsibility to deal with the consequences, and it is NOT fair to expose Slashdot to the effects of such illegal and irresponsible behavior.

But notice the net effect: Nothing has changed! No information has been realistically denied to readers by the Slashdot insertion of a "[REDACTED]" edit, so long as the posters are willing to "fill in the gap".

To me, this only seems fair and just. If we want to enjoy Slashdot, we must personally (though anonymously, should we so chose) accept responsibility for our words. Allowing Slashdot to use the "[REDACTED]" policy should satisfy all parties involved, and keep things out of the courts. I do NOT believe Slashdot would then be under any compulsion to report the real identies of posters, or even assist law enforcement in any investigation. This would allow Slashdot to receive the full protection under the law enjoyed by all journalists. And still act as a responsible corporate citizen when it comes to supporting the law.

No matter if you agree with my "[REDACTED]" idea or not, it certainly proves there may be at least one way to skin this cat that has no net effect on the quality or content of posts, and manages to keep Slashdot out of the courts.

That leaves us with defining WHEN the edit must occur. Clearly, it should be done IMMEDIATELY after a "proper" determination of copyright violation has been made. Slashdot cannot make any such determination on their own, since I doubt they posess the resources to check the copyright of every post. As an open and public forum, it is not an unreasonable burden to expect copyright holders to protect their own interests, much as Microsoft's letter to Slashdot has done. In fact, this letter seems to be a very direct and simple expression of Microsoft's concerns, though it does seem to omit any way for Slashdot to perform at least minimal "due dilligence" to verify Microsoft's claim. I feel that verification is the key step in all this: Once a complaint is recieved, and its origin and authorship is verified, then the complainant must provide a simple method for Slashdot to be able to verify the basis for the claim. If it looks legit, then the redaction should be performed IMMEDIATELY. If there are open questions, as is the case with Microsoft's current letter, then NOTHING should be done until those issues are at least minimally addressed. Which again, seems to be the current situation.

Bottom line? Slashdot appears to be doing all the right things, but maybe by accident or for the wrong reasons. I believe Slashdot must also do the following:

1. Establish posting guidelines that explain the relevant copyright issues, and provide methods for avoiding them. (Please don't explain how to circumvent the law! Merely list the things that are NOT affected by the copyright policy. Things like links.)

2. Establish the process by which suspected violations of copyright will be addressed. This, above all else, will be what makes it difficult or impossbile to take Slashdot to court.

3. Place that process into action NOW!

I suspect Microsoft will be more than willing to support this process, and will accept reasonable delays, so long as it is clearly on the fast track. They may ask a judge to look at the final policy, but that would be a Good Thing for the policy itself!

Slashdot CANNOT and MUST NOT be the arbiter of what does or does not violate copyright. But when a copyright violation has been brought to Slashdot's attention in a way that explicitly defines the violation, and illustrates a basis for the copyright itself that can be simply and independently verified, then Slashdot MUST take prompt and effective (but minimal) action.

The copyright holder must defend their own copyright (that's the law). Posters have rights to free speech (that's also the law). Slashdot must protect the latter by default, while being willing and able to promptly respond to the former.

That puts the responsibility where it belongs: With us, the Slashdot posters.

I think we're up to it, don't you?

-BobC
rcunning@acm.org
(Sorry for being an AC, but I can't seem to remember ANY of my /. accounts!)

Tough Call

[harvardian]

I dunno, Emmett, I think this is a hard call. The reason I think it's a hard call is that I really think Microsoft has a legitimate claim that if they copyright something, and somehow it's on your site in violation of that copyright, somebody has to be responsible to take it down. I mean, if somebody were to post on /. the text to a copyrighted screenplay, for example, then wouldn't it seem reasonable for them to ask you to take it off of your servers? The whole point of copyright law is that information is _not_ open source, no matter how much you may want it to be, unless the person who came up with the information explicitly makes it available. That said, I think you have the weight of US copyright law against you, and I don't think anything is going to change that law. Information will just never be by nature free and open because part of our market is that if you come up with an idea, you shouldn't have that idea stolen from you and made profitable by somebody else. And something else. The Open Source community doesn't do what they do because they have the weight of law behind them. Open Soruce is a choice, not anything worked into our economy. I like the car analogy that I read a while back, that people choose Open Source not because it's better but because they want to have the option of having ANYbody with skills service what they've bought. Car makers don't keep as a secret the inner workings of their cars, so we have the freedom to take our car wherever we want to get it serviced. If a car maker came along who welded the hood shut and said only they can service your car, then nobody would buy it because it's a bad deal. Even if the car were much better than others available, the option of having your car serviced ANYwhere jumps the worth of the car to more than make up for the difference in quality. So don't try to get the force of law behind you, guys. You're simlpy cannot force Microsoft to play by Open Source rules just as much as Microsoft cannot force us to play by proprietary rules. Our market is set up so that people who want to make something proprietary CAN and can keep it that way with the force of law. The idea of open sourcing is simply another (albeit in our opinions better) marketing model. It has no force of law in its favor. So if we're going to beat Microsoft, we're going to have to do it on their terms. We're going to have to let them keep their proprietariness and STILL manage to beat them. Which we will. But don't try and bend the law in your favor in the dispute. By posting Kerberos to the web, their code lost its trade secret status, but it's still copyrightable and its still theirs. I welcome anybody more informed than I to fix any misconceptions on copyright law I may have, but those were my $.02

Re:Tough Call

[FreshView]

I wish I had moderator points still so I could moderate this up.

This is exactly the situation, some of the things microsoft is attacking slashdot for are well within it's rights, especially the folks who posted the entire document, that is copyright infringement.

However, some of the newer DMCA stuff (posting links, posting data about how to defeat EULA measures), that stuff should be fought to the Supreme Court. However, I bet if you removed the posts with the entire spec posted, Microsoft would drop the case.

Re:Tough Call

[Tau Zero]

The reason I think it's a hard call is that I really think Microsoft has a legitimate claim that if they copyright something, and somehow it's on your site in violation of that copyright, somebody has to be responsible to take it down.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

On the one hand, Microsoft claims copyright on the text. On the other hand, Microsoft allowed everyone in the world to download it, making no attempt whatsoever to restrict access to people who had previously signed an NDA. The validity of the "click-through NDA" is doubtful, because the use of WinZip to open self-extracting archives (and bypass any trojan or virus in the extraction code) is a very well-known procedure; indeed, this is a feature of the format. Since there were no technical measures taken to prevent users from doing this, the anti-circumvention clause of the justly-maligned DMCA is not applicable.

On to motive. Microsoft wants to restrict access to this information only to people who agree not to compete with Microsoft. In other words, to people who agree to give up their right to innovate and make products that do what Microsoft's do, but do it better, cheaper, or openly. And that, my friends, sucks the big one.

Offtopic WRT the DDoS: if it ame from Microsoft or from their astroturfers, we've got a new simile.

open-source advocates : Microsoft :: suppressive persons : Church of Scientology

--
This post made from 100% post-consumer recycled magnetic

Re:Tough Call

[Eric the .5b]

Normally, I'd agree with you. I'm a supporter of IP rights and don't buy the "information wants to be free" rhetoric (because, as a friend said, oxen want to be free, to, but it's smarter to yoke them both). And while I despise Microsoft, I often feel obliged to defend their actions where permissable (Microsoft is to the free market supporter as the KKK is to the free speech supporter). However, this action by Microsoft is absurd and abusive!

The specifications Microsoft claimed were "trade secrets" were specifications that anyone with Windows on their machine were free to download. You can't claim something's a secret if you show it to anyone who asks! You didn't have to pay for them, you didn't have to meet any real requirements...You had to click an agreement.

Now, while I am a huge supporter of contract rights (I even think shrink-wrap agreements should be legal, as long as you can read them before you are committed to the product), I don't buy that you can make people promise to not share or discuss information that you're willing to show to just about anyone who makes that promise. That's a logically void agreement.

So, to hell with Microsoft in this instance. Slashdot should fight them.

Re:Tough Call

[Bad Mojo]

I don't know. I tend to see Slashdot as a digital manifestation of the toothpaste tube analogy of free speech. Once you say something, it's out. You said it and you are responsible. You can't (easily) put the paste back into the tube. If that means MS sues some Slashdot posters for violating their EULA, that's fine. And if that means the penalties are worse for making their code available for all time in the anals of Slashdot, so be it. Slashdot is no different (in my eyes) than the air that carries my words from my mouth to the ears of those who are near me. Can MS sue the air? They can try, I'm certain.

Free Speech is something we all say we want. Well, those people who posted the material that MS owns (supposedly) have got Free Speech and they used it. Good or bad, that's the extent of it. DMCA, Copyright law, EULAs all mean crap when applied to the air, so why should it mean anything to Slashdot? This is a good time, IMHO, to show people that the DMCA should not apply to forums of Free Speech in any circumstance.

Now, take a deep breath of Slashdot. ;)

Bad Mojo

What the hell are they thinking?

[G27 Radio]

I swear there has to be a reason that Microsoft keeps pushing their luck like this. Honestly, consider this...Isn't it possible that they know that Windows is seriously losing ground--at least technology-wise and actually hope that the DOJ will "take Windows away." In Gates' recent article on Time's website he's already positioning to place the blame on the DOJ for future Windows problems such as the Love Bug. He's going to keep doing what he's been doing then blame the DOJ and everyone else involved for the failure of Windows. It might not fool most readers of Slashdot, but people that don't follow technology closely might believe it. Just a thought...

Another thought--what's the worst that will happen to Gates and Ballmer if the DOJ comes down as hard as they can on Microsoft? Will they go bankrupt? Will they go to jail? Or will they still have more money than they can possibly spend? They've got nothing to fear.

numb

A few thoughts

[Grant Elliott]

I'm just as against censorship as the next guy around here, but I think some of what Microsoft said was valid. Overall, censorship is not good, but neither is unauthorized use of someone else's property. I've got news for you: copying != innovation, either.

It seems that the majority of what Microsoft complained about was the unauthorized reproduction of their materials. Quite frankly, this is illegal. It might not make much sense, since the materials are readily available to the public, but Microsoft does have the right to restrict access to them.

This probably isn't a particularly popular view. However, I think the best way to avoid this type of thing is for Slashdot to set up their own limits on their own terms before someone else forces them to. Perhaps if Slashdot allows moderators to report comments containing illegal material and appoints someone to remove such material, we could avoid future conflicts.

Slashdot should not be held responsible for users' comments. There is nothing wrong with posting an opinion that may upset people. However, I think Slashdot does have a responsibility to limit illegal abuse of the system, just as web hosting services cannot permit illegal content or spamming from their servers. Simply put, if Slashdot couldn't post it themselves, they should prevent users from posting it.

Unfortunately, it's bound to happen eventually. Freedom on the internet is dying quickly. It has reached the point that a company can be hired to find out who you are given an internet alias. If Slashdot doesn't regulate its users more, someone else will, and it won't be pretty.

It's just a suggestion, and I don't like it any more than you do...

Re:A few thoughts

[blakestah]

It seems that the majority of what Microsoft complained about was the unauthorized reproduction of their materials. Quite frankly, this is illegal.

You need to have a good conceptualization of copyright law. Copyrighted materials are not intellectual property - they are signs of authorship of original material. As with ALL copyrights, reverse engineering is never protected. Only patents protect against reverse engineering.

Further, there is fair use. In judging fair use, one must consider
1) Has the monetary value of the copyright been decreased by its use ?
2) The nature of the use ie: are you making money from it ??
3) The amount of copyrighted material used relative to the whole
4) the nature of the copyrighted work itself

Now, in this case, Microsoft was GIVING the material away FREELY from their website. There is no damage to the copyright value, and no money is being made from Slashdot carrying it. Since it was FREELY available to anyone, it can even be argued that carrying it in its entirety is a case of fair use.

You do not own a copyright in the same way that you own a car. No one stole Microsoft's car. They reprinted their copyright - without damage to Microsoft or its copyright in so doing.

Since copyright violations are civil cases and no damages could be named, there is no violation. This is very different from someone posting something like the Windows source code, which WOULD decrease its value.

Microsoft is trying not only to prevent the carrying of their copyrighted material, but also to prevent carrying of people saying you can use WINZIP TO OPEN THE EXECUTABLE AND EXTRACT THE PDF WITHOUT AGREEING TO THE BOGUS AND WORTHLESS LICENSE AGREEMENT ANYWAY.

You see, in the license agreement, Microsoft wants to forbid you from reverse engineering its protocol by your click through. In short, by use of its copyright, it wants to deprive you from the ability to reverse engineer copyrighted materials. Guess what - that makes a copyright into a patent that NEVER expires. There is absolutely no way that is legal. No sirree Bob.

Microsoft and slashdot

[Digital_Quartz]

Ok, first of all, we have Microsoft which takes an open source specification, modifies it in a few near-trivial ways, then claims it's their own copyrighted work. This is pretty classic "Microsoft innovation" for you, but let's put the fact that Microsoft doesn't actually own Kerberos aside.

I don't know if Slashdot has already modified the story in question, but when *I* look back over the story at the articles MS claims contain actual copies of the specification, all I find is links to the specification. Also, it seems that all the timestamps in MS's letter are off by an hour (although this could just be a result of some crazy database porting to the new /. server?). So overall, MS's letter is grossly innacurate.

There's about a dozen differnt ways slashdot can fight this.

A link to a site should never be illegal. Microsoft doesn't own links (although maybe they'll copyright the 'A HREF="" COLOR=""' tag when they're done butchering kerberos, they have to be free to innovate after all). If Microsoft has problems with the content of a page, then they should go to that page to solve their problems, not pages which link to it. This is common sense, although I don't know if the law in the US upholds common sense anymore, so we'll have to see.

It's arguable that Slashdot is only acting as a conduit for information. An ISP if you will. (Hey, wait a minute, where have I heard /that/ argument before?). That has some unpleasant conotations under the burdensome DMCA, but it's still worth looking into.

Under fair use, copyrighted materials can be reproduced for commentary in an educational or journalistic environment, which Slashdot quallifies as IMHO (the latter, at any rate).

I'm at work right now, so I'm gonna cut this off and get to my point; I originally thought that slashdot should remove portions of the document actually posted to the discussion groups, and leave the links etc... but the more I think about it, the more I realize how wrong this would be. I don't think the messages should be modified at all.

If we're forced to change them, I think we should replace offending content with "***CENSORED BY MICROSOFT***" to express our disconent (I'd suggest a boycott, but I hardly think that'd be effective amongst slashdot readers, since I doubt many of us use MS's software except under extreme duress ;).

It's an interesting kind of "censorship"

[seebs]

I'm not sure it's really censorship to say "you may not reproduce my material without my permission". That's just *copyright*. They're not saying you can't have a given opinion...

Now, when they get into saying you can't analyze their work, or discuss their license... That loses, and I think they already lost when they put a trade secret out on the web, because the "terms" of the license agreement make no sense when applied to non-proprietary entities.

But still, be aware that they aren't demanding that people not say that Microsoft sucks. They aren't saying it's forbidden to speak against them, just that they think you can't post instructions for "defeating" the protections on their "trade secret". Now, in practice, I think it's a little late for them to realize that, and I think their targeting is a little broad... Hell, a lot broad... but it's not "censorship" the way it would be censorship if the letter had read:

Please remove any posts which do not recognize Microsoft's glorious hegemony in the personal computing industry.

It's not that simple...

[MenTaLguY]

Perhaps if Slashdot allows moderators to report comments containing illegal material and appoints someone to remove such material, we could avoid future conflicts...

...Slashdot should not be held responsible for users' comments.

Unfortunately, the moment that Slashdot directly or indirectly removes a post due to content, Slashdot becomes responsible, both in conventional and legal terms, for all user-submitted content on the site.

This is one of the primary reasons that the Slashdot editors have refused to remove posts in the past -- to do it voluntarily once (for any reason) means that they would be legally obligated to do so in the future (for any reason).

I think it's also important to draw a distinction between legality and ethics here: what Microsoft has done is to effectively apropriate an academically developed public standard, developed in large part with public funds. Think about that a second. Is that very ethical?

Ironically, due to the current state of law, what Microsoft has done is legal, and the public really has no direct legal recourse (the DOJ trial doesn't count, you can't add new charges after the verdict). Under these circumstances, while Slashdot readers posting the specification is unquestionably illegal, I have a very hard time convincing myself it was unethical.

In the long view, I think that this is (deliberately or not) about changing unethical laws, not just challenging unethical practices.

I just hope that the people posting the specifications really understand what civil disobedience is about -- they can be tracked down, and they should fully expect to be punished for breaking the law. As I understand it, under the DMCA, their circumvention of a copy-protection measure for any reason is a felony.

Re:It's not that simple...

[G27 Radio]

Unfortunately, the moment that Slashdot directly or indirectly removes a post due to content, Slashdot becomes responsible, both in conventional and legal terms, for all user-submitted content on the site.

This is one of the primary reasons that the Slashdot editors have refused to remove posts in the past -- to do it voluntarily once (for any reason) means that they would be legally obligated to do so in the future (for any reason).

This is exactly my concern here. If they had to be required to check every single post, it would effectively kill Slashdot. Could you imagine the field day the trolls would have posting that over and over again if Slashdot is required to take it down? We'll see it reposted over and over just to cause Slashdot the trouble of going back and deleting it.

Anyone, including people at Microsoft, then has the opportunity to make Slashdot useless by repeatedly posting that same copyrighted document over and over. Anonymous posting would have to go away. Each post would have to be checked over by an editor before it was posted to the discussion. Slashdot would never be the same and we'd all be back on Usenet.

I'm sure the crew at Slashdot understands this. If all it were about was removing Microsoft's silly little document, I doubt that they'd mind. It's not as if it's not publicly available anyway from Microsoft's site.

Basically I think Slashdot has been backed into a corner. They don't have a choice but to fight it. If I ran Microsoft and wanted to crush Slashdot I would have been the one that posted that article as an AC, then sicced my lawyers on them--assuming I'd resort to that kind of tactic.

One other thing. There was only one post that could even be considered infringement. Microsoft's lawyers demanded that seven be removed. Forgetting common carrier status for a moment, would Slashdot have the right to deny Microsoft's demand in their entirety because parts (most of it in fact) aren't legitimate claims? Would it be different if the demand only asked for the removal of the infringing material and nothing more?

numb

Get your readers actively involved

[messman]

While there are many different points of view among Slashdot readers, I think many readers would like to do something besides just passively read the story or whine. Slashdot needs many posts to because it is financed by advertising. However, there is a community leadership aspect of Slashdot that is not being taken care of properly. With Slashdot's readership, much more could be accomplished than it currently is if some guidance was provided on what to do.

For example, I saw this post yesterday lost in the more than thousand replies to the Microsoft threat:

1. Send an email to Mr Weston with the following text:

   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 suppress 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 ......

2. Email to the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice with the following text:

   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 purposefully 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.

3. Write your congressperson with the following text:

   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 amendment 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,

4. Email the New York Times with the following text:

   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 extend 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.

Re:There are Four Issues

[Anomalous Canard]

The reason I think it's a hard call is that I really think Microsoft has a legitimate claim that if they copyright something, and somehow it's on your site in violation of that copyright, somebody has to be responsible to take it down.

There are three types of things that Microsoft is demanding be taken down.

1. The posting of a complete copy of the document.

2. The posting of portions of the document.

3. The posting of links to the complete document.

4. The posting of comments describing how to open the document without running it.

#1 probably has to go and this is the point you've made. Slashdot can mark the single such post as -2 and it will disappear.

The remaining items must stay. #2 because the quoting in in the context of commenting on it is arguably fair use, but since the guidelines for determining fair use are deliberately not clearly specified, they have to choose between erring on the side of caution and erring on the side of freedom. The DCMA forces them to make determinations that only a court can make.

#3 must stay. A link is just a reference to another location. The contents of that location may or may not be infringing material. Slashdot has no comtrol over the other location and non-infringing material could be replaced with infringing material at any time. Microsoft needs to talk to the administrators of those sites.

#4 must stay because the DCMA section 1201(b) is not constitutional. I joked a few weeks ago about Microsoft suing someone on Slashdot because they told how to deencrypt the copyrighted phrase "Netscape engineers are weenies!" which had been encrypted by writing it backwards. The EXE file used to distribute the document does not run on Linux and other Open Source OSs, but the means to extract the content does. If Microsoft has given people the right to download the document, they have given people the right to read it.

The claims made by Microsoft are overbroad. The answer on three of them is clear.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected

Big mistake, Microsoft......BIG mistake

[finkployd]

Well, if you wanted to get the internet pissed at you, IE was a good start. ISS picked up the administrators, and your laughable attempts at security made us all livid. This is just the last straw with many of us.

Let's recap, you take a public, standard security protocol (one I'm fond of no less) and make your own modifications to it. I'm not sure what on earth made you feel you had the authority to do that, considering that your Benny Hill-like attempts at security are already well documented. Any sysadmin that trusts MS modifications to an already proven technology needs to consider another line of work.

Unless you just got into computer, you know that Microsoft's only motivation in this was to attempt to lock out other competing clients (I understand this isn't your first attempt at this trick, is it?), not to innovate. By the way, thank you for completly removing any meaning from that word. I know few people in the computer industry that can say "innovate" and keep a straight face thanks to you.

Back to the current problem. You publish your undesired changes to this protocol in such a way that you think users would have to agree to a restrictive license to read it. This way you can destroy anyone who creates a solution compatible to yours, claiming they violated the agreement.

Now (and here is the REALLY funny part), you place this 'restricted' information in a well documented, standard file format (zipped .EXE) that can be opened with any number of free unzip programs. If this doesn't frighten anyone away from your 'security' solutions, I don't know what will. This is the perfect example of how much people should trust you, if you can't even protect your own data.

So the cat is out of the bag. Once again the collective intelligence of the internet is miles above you, and you are once again being laughed at for having no concept of security and losing a trade secret to boot. I can understand perfectly why litigation is your only option in this case, it's the only skill you company has left. The only "innovation" is coming from your lawyers these days.

However, this is where you lose. There is nothing wrong with posting a perfectly legal, common, and (in the case of binaries on a windows machine), desirable method of opening a file. I'm sure the poster who posted the contents of the file opened it using winzip, completly unaware that there even was some kind of agreement. He probably just wanted to avoid executing a binary from a untrustworthy company (go ahead, try proving me wrong). Therefore, YOU HAVE NO CASE. No agreement was broken, none of this DMCA crap applies.

The bottom line here is, your own legendary incompetance is to blame here. Attempting to attack a small news site is only fanning the flames that are burning your company to the ground.

Slashdot crew, you have my complete support in this one. No NOT give up, make a stand against this monopolistic disgrace for a company.

Finkployd

Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet
The Internet: Designed for UNIX

Re:Big mistake, Microsoft......BIG mistake

[Pinball Wizard]

This is just the last straw with many of us.

Hear, hear. This applies to me exactly. Previously, I did not buy that MS was a monopoly, and I would publicly defend them on /. whenever someone said something untrue about them. I even (almost successfully) contradicted Jeremy Allison, the Samba guy, on a statement he made about SQL Server. I didn't have a bias toward or against MS, and I have to work with both NT and UNIX systems.

I really wanted to see them work towards interoperability and standards compliance, and I thought they were going to move in that direction. I honestly thought we were going to start seeing a "kinder and gentler" Microsoft.

Now I recognize them for the bastards that they are, and I'm not likely to spend any more money on their products for a very long time. It almost makes me sick to think of all the time I wasted learning VB and ASP. I am now looking for a way out, and I totally want to get away from the Microsoft platform. Hopefully I can do this without damaging my career as a web developer/programmer.

Microsoft, you make me sick, and you have lost yourself a good customer. You have lost someone who used to like your products, and who used to recommend them to others. I'm guessing that from me alone, you will lose about $200,000 in both direct business and referals. Now multiply that with every other customer you've managed to alienate. I'm guessing for each of the 1,400 posters on yesterdays story, there are 100 more people that have read it.

What I want to know is, even if you are right about your copyright of your bastardized open source "kerberos", how can you justify your actions, given the massive bad publicity you have generated for yourselves. This is the absolute lowest your public image has ever gone, and it will take something on the order of a public apology from Bill Gates to Rob Malda to fix it. I'm not holding my breath.

Failure of copyright laws in a digital age

[markt4]

Let me put together a hypothetical that has close parallels to the situation under discussion here and see what you think.

Say a university library has a public bulletin board. (The original, physical kind. Not a BBS.) Students, faculty, and members of the general public are allowed to stick messages of any kind on this bulletin board - for sale signs, tutoring advertisements, requests for rides home, poems, ... whatever.

One day somebody sticks the photocopied pages of an article from the Microsoft Systems Journal onto that bulletin board. Did the person who stuck the photocopy up violate copyright laws? Possibly, perhaps even probably. Does the library then have an obligation to take the photocopy down? If so, why? The library did not make the copy. What has the library done wrong?

Would the scenario be any different if the person had instead just tacked the original pages ripped out of the magazine to the board? Why?

If someone stands outside the window of the Today show on Times Square and holds up a sign with the Microsoft Kerberos specification on it would NBC have any responsibility for the copyright violation? Would they have to erase all tapes of that show (or at least that segment)? What about all the people who recorded that show on the VCRs?

Copyright laws face severe difficulties in this digital age (as we have seen time and time again). I would say it is time to have open debates on this subject in Congress, but given that virtually every member of Congress in the US is beholden to corporate money for helping them get elected I think I could predict where that debate would end up. What to do...

Re:Get involved - it only takes a few minutes!

[phil reed]

Actually, much more attention is paid to letters that are different, especially if they are hand-written. Zillions of copies of identical letters are properly discounted as a campaign.


...phil

Re:Microsoft Email != Censorship

[emmett]

I wish I could go through and pick apart every line in the diatribe posted by emmet entitled "Censorship != Innovation". But it all stems from a single misconception-- what Microsoft is asking for is NOT censorship. It's a protection of their copyright.

Like everyone else exercising this logic on this issue, you're just plain wrong. Here's something from their E-mail that they want pulled.

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)"

You get that? They want us to pull instructions on cracking the thing open to get the specs out. I suppose if I post factory instructions for the mass production of AK-47's, I'll be a murderer, eh?

What Microsoft is asking for is censorship. Looking at this from the copyright angle is something I did for a long time before I wrote my editorial. This is not a copyright issue, this is a censorship issue, and never the twain shall meet.

Please email me at j.doty@gte.net if you want to argue this in more detail.

If you weren't so completely wrong, I wouldn't be bothering to send the link to this comment to you in E-mail.

--Emmett