Oxford Yanks Student Page Over Spoof DeCSS

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by rking · 2000-05-19 17:34 · Score: 1

The MPAA is a multi-national and uses international copyright law to do this stuff. They can sue in every country that's part of the international law treaties, which means just about everywhere.

If they're alleging that publishing DCSS breaches copyright then it's the first I've heard of it. You mean they're claiming to have written it themselves and therefore to have copyright over it or what?

Reverse engineering does not breach copyright. The provision of tools that could be used to breach copyright (e.g. photocopiers, cd-recorders, pencils and paper) does not breach copyright.

I don't see how they could be argued to have any case at all in a country with conventional copyright laws.

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by rew · 2000-05-19 17:36 · Score: 1

What law would you say it could possibly violate? Remember we don't have things like UCITA and DCMA here [yet].

If I remember correctly, there is an English court ruling effectively with the same results as the DCMA: If a copyright holder informs an ISP of a copyright violation, the ISP should take appropriate action.

On the subject of "lawyer fees", it would be fun to send a few law-students into a fight over this with the MPAA (or whomever). Costs the MPAA real money, the university has a chance of training the students "for real", with a very, very small chance of losing the case....

Roger.

Re:Look before you pull by kwsNI · 2000-05-20 12:12 · Score: 1

Come on. A typical lawyer makes $200-$300 per hour. Would you want to do something that only takes 30 seconds at that rate when you could spend days getting paid your regular hourly rate?

kwsNI

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by FunkyChild · 2000-05-20 12:36 · Score: 1

How did the guy actually come up with the key? Didn't he not actually find it in some MPAA software somehow, but brute-force the encryption and find it himself..?

I really have not much of a clue, but AFAIK, Copyright law is only concerned with direct copying. For instance, if you had lived on the moon for the last 50 years, and came back to earth by absolute co-incidence with an exact replica of 'The Lion King' that you had made yourself and could prove was completely your own work, and contained completely your own ideas with absolutely no influence from Disney's version, then technically you would be ok (although Disney's lawyers would get for for something).

An example this complex is just silly and unimaginable, but in the case of something which is much simpler - the key.. Would it be at all possible to prove that it was completely his own work, since he didn't actually copy it from anywhere, but found it and generated it himself..?

Re:Universities by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 17:36 · Score: 2

As it is, universities don't have all that much money
Oxford University doesn't have all that much money? Come-on. Look at those colleges. My college alone apparently has investments totalling 40 million pounds! When you get your account, you sign an agreement saying that you give the university the right to your data, especially if they're getting sued over it.
I'm at Oxford Uni, and I didn't sign any such thing. All my data produced 'during working hours' is owned by an external funding body that pays for my research.
Incidently my home-page also has a link to OpenDVD.org and the (non-spoof) DeCSS source code, but I guess the Oxford Uni Computing Services haven't found that! They're not particularly switched on I guess.

Bravo!. by Malcontent · 2000-05-20 14:44 · Score: 1

Brilliant culture hacking. Please mod this up. This is an excellant way to dilute the power of the "lawyer letter".

--

War is necrophilia.

Oxford is upset? by Kujo_42 · 2000-05-19 23:01 · Score: 1

"The result of this is that the University has spent, and is still spending, a vast amount of administrative effort and lawyers' fees over something that has nothing to do with it, and is just a game to you."

Okay, so basically what he's saying is that the student who posted the DeCSS parody should be blamed for the administrative staff not doing their jobs and looking at the site before they pulled it down to actually, *gasp*, see if it was an offending page. I don't see how anyone can have sympathy for them.

--

"May the Code bless you and keep you until the day of your Compiling." ~Requiem

Re:This has nothing to do with free speech by mpe · 2000-05-19 23:03 · Score: 1

Furthermore, it is _NOT_ the job of Universities to defend some random student's pet cause.

Nor is it the job of universities to defend the "pet cause" of some random organisation which isn't even in the same country.
The point here is that Oxford did in effect take sides.

Re:Where are we? Where we always were! by Seth+Finkelstein · 2000-05-19 20:29 · Score: 2

Support them? I did not advocate that. Far from it. But I think it makes sense to understand the institutional incentives at work here. There was no Golden Age when every University employee, from the president down to the janitor, was happily willing to go to the wall at the drop of a hat.

For some perspective, take a look at the American Association of University Professors report, Developments Relating to Censure by the Association

Re:Hmm... by jerdenn · 2000-05-19 23:10 · Score: 1

That may be so, but sometimes I really wish "Trial by Ordeal" were still around. That would solve most of our problems.

Why, I'll bet I could handle three of those MPAA pencilnecks at a time. Would make for some mighty fine late-night programmes as well!

Yes, too bad instead of hiring lawyers, they would hire thugs.

-jerdenn

Re:Free Speech at Universities by rfc1394 · 2000-05-19 20:31 · Score: 1

I can hardly say I blame them. ... I don't think that the administration should be under any imperative to check up on allegations before they act.

Hmm, so if some student accuses another student of assault, or rape, or theft, or cheating, the administration should suspend the person accused immediately without bothering to even investigate the matter, see if the complaint makes any sense, or is more than groundless.

In fact, I think they've done the right thing by pulling the page immediately. That may not make most people happy, but it would certainly keep them out of legal hot water. Once the page is down, *then* they can go back and do more research and see what is really going on. (Not that this has happened in this case, but it sounds like a good idea.)

If they use the same guidelines, if anyone accused a student of anything serious, the university should suspend the student and bar them from classes first, then bother to check and see if the accusation has any grounds at all. (Then again, perhaps most universities go that way anyway.)

Paul Robinson postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us
http://paul.washington.dc.us

--
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.

Re:This has nothing to do with free speech by mpe · 2000-05-19 23:12 · Score: 1

If my landlord cuts the phone cable cos someone tells him I'm making nuisance calls, I'll sue him. But if you signed a tenancy agreement saying you wouldn't use the phone for nuisance calls you won't have much of a case. Wrong, in such a case it will be the landlord who will be in very hot water. You are making a whole set of assumptions. Specifically that the complaint was true and honest.
The landlord action on an unsubstatiated allegation effectivly means that they will do the bidding of someone who wishes to herass the tennant. Which the law does not view differently from a landlord herassing a tennant for any other reason, which is against the law.

Finally... a story where this is *not* offtopic... by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 20:38 · Score: 5

and I'm asleep at the keyboard. Doh!

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

This announcement brought to you by the DeCSS Polar Bear.

Re:I find this fascinating... by ranton · 2000-05-19 23:12 · Score: 1

>>Universities are certainly not meant to foster new and original thought...

WHAT?

I dont know which university you attend, but colleges as a whole are very concerned with fostering new and original thought. Well, maybe the actual admininstration could care less, but most teachers care.

Now I dont mean radical ideas or the belief that you need to stick it to "The Man". You must realize that most profesors are old and of a different generation. They can be expected to treat people who follow the norm and people who rebel against society equally. It may not be "right", but the world is full of unfair situations. If you want to be rebelious, then you have to pay the concequences.

(and yes, I know that I am a bad speller)

--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke

Re:Universities by illtud · 2000-05-19 23:16 · Score: 1

I'm afraid you're wrong. Oxford University (and Cambridge, and Harvard etc.) is unbelivable rich. This is common knowledge in the UK.

That's irrelevant. While the combined wealth of the colleges may be considerable, currently the colleges do not make any contribution to OUCS. OUCS is run entirely by university central funds, with the same budget as any other UK university.

As somebody who used to be network & systems admin at one of the Oxford Colleges (Hi Dave!), the amounts available for IT are really rather pityful, similar to the situation in most British Universities (outside CS depts). Alan Gay (who is a reasonable chap) doesn't have hordes of lawyers at his beck and call, but he does have some serious hackers working at OUCS (Malcolm Beattie, of perl5 fame, for example) who should have been able to tell him enough about DeCSS (real, not the fake one) to enable him to stand up to this sort of legal bullying. There should be plenty of people in Oxford who can and will fight this battle. Leave 'em to it.

Re:Universities by Hotaine · 2000-05-19 20:55 · Score: 1

The university owns the machines.
Nope. This was a student's personal machine.

The student was hosting his web page on his personal machine? Or was it actually hosted on a University machine? Either way, it was probably going through the University's lines.

Not that that makes it right...

Re:Universities by Ig0r · 2000-05-19 20:59 · Score: 1

Whether it's illegal or not in your particular section of the earth doesn't seem to matter to the MPAA. :(

--

--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.

Universities == ISP (?) by MartyJG · 2000-05-19 17:36 · Score: 1

Also as a person who studies at and works for a university, I'd like to think my University would have stood up to this kind of abuse. Yes, official looking letters can be threatening at first - but I'd have liked to seen them take it further, especially here in the UK where this hasn't been legally tested (Demon Internet issue known and understood - thank you).

As the content was supposedly only a spoof version of DeCSS, that only leaves a link that could be remotely contentious. A whole page removed because of a free-speech link? This is getting crazy.

Fight this - make more DeCSS 'spoofs' and put the links everywhere. ISP's will start to question this for themselves eventually, especially if they're asked to remove dozens of pages rather than one single one - they will bow to the user at the end of the day.

--
insignificant sig

Re:Universities == ISP (?) by rking · 2000-05-19 18:54 · Score: 2

There is currently NO right to Free Speech under UK Law

Correct, anything is lawful that isn't explicitly unlawful so unless actually forbidden by law you do have the right to speek freely but there are no limits in parliament's powers so no guarantee that they can't restrict speech anyway they please.

And a UK national isn't even a citizen - he's just a subject of the Royal family.

Nonsensical. You are correct that a British national is a subject of the crown (or of the queen if you like, certainly not of "the royal family") but that doesn't mean that he/she isn't also a "citizen", look the word up if you don't know what it means.

An EU directive, to all intents and purposes, introduces a Freedom of Speech rule into UK governance - HOWEVER, to get it to take effect, you'd have to bring your case all the way to the European Court, and, since there's no Free Speech rule in the UK, you'll never get that far...

What on earth is that supposed to mean? What do you think would happen to you first, and how would it be prevented by a free speech provision in British law? The British government can't (lawfully) prevent you from bringing such a case, and if they wish to act unlawfully then a free speech guarantee would be irrelevant anyway.

Re:Janet vs the World? Hardly. by divec · 2000-05-19 17:36 · Score: 3

9.2 seems incredibly sweeping. If I put up a research paper showing that racism is endemic in the police, that will cause annoyance and inconvenience [to the police]. If 9.2 is enforced properly, JANET should be sued for misrepresenting itself as a network suitable for sharing academic information. As for "needless anxiety", who is to say what "needless" is? This website has illustrated an important point so I would say it was arguable whether the anxiety was needless.

Hmmm, it pisses me off that Oxford has a women-only college. There must be many people like me who find that annoying. So their website is "likely to cause annoyance" and should be yanked under 9.2.

--

perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

Re:The power of ignorance. by Pengo · 2000-05-20 15:21 · Score: 1

You do realize Oxford is in the Uk? :)

Re:As a former Oxford student... by MROD · 2000-05-19 17:38 · Score: 4

I'm sorry you feel that way about Oxford in general.

As a sysadmin at one of the science departments here at Oxford I can say that not all the people in the University should be tarred with the same brush.

Knowing the way the University works, it's probable that the decision to pull the page was probably made at the Proctor's office level and not at the OUCS (Computing Services) level.

I cannot talk for the people in the Computing Laboratories (CompSci department) but there ARE some really knowledgable and on-the-ball hackers (original meaning) running computers around the University.. and their average age is WELL below the 65 you state.

Myself, I would have tried to explain the technicalities to the powers that be.. however, in the end if this had happened within our department I would probably have had to bow to the pressure also.

I'm not saying that the student was right or wrong in putting the page up as he did, but every person who gets an account on any system within the University has to sign an agreement that includes the proviso to remove any service pending an investigation.

All this sort of stuff is new territory for everyone and there seems to be a great worry over setting the wrong president for the future.

Stephen Usher

(Note, I'm speaking for myself and not for the Department of Earth Sciences or the University of Oxford in any official manner. These are my opinions and mine alone.)

PS. What's wrong with Solaris or any other UNIX type OS for servers in a university? (Oh dear, I can hear those flame burners being lit as I type.. :-))

--

Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"

Re:DeCSS Napster and the DMCA by mpe · 2000-05-20 15:46 · Score: 1

Every time DMCA issues come up on Slashdot, some wiseass points out that it only applies in the U.S. Technically, that's true. But the DMCA is just the U.S. version of the WIPO Treaty,

DMCA may have some connection to WIPO, which itself refers in many places to the Berne convention. Article 11 which the apparently the one relevent to DeCSS is very relient on both the rest of the treaty and national law.
Indeed reading the entire treaty it's questionable if DeCSS is a violation at all. It requires some twisting of the wording to make control of the playing of digital media (aquired in accordence with article 6 or article 7) entirely on the basis of the operating system of the player an issue covered by the treaty. (Similarly the region coding scheme is questionable, about the only way in which it might make sense would be for the MPAA to persue DVD wholesalers who sold DVDs out of region, which AFAIK they are not doing.)

Re:DeCSS Napster and the DMCA by mpe · 2000-05-20 15:49 · Score: 1

I've heard that the US was fully in compiance with WIPO even -without- the DMCA; the DMCA was just icing on the cake for American IP owners.

Maybe it also extends the law, but it only applies in the USA. Nowhere in the treaty does it say anything about the national laws of one signatory applying to all others. Indeed it explicitally allows for national laws to restrict its applicibility.

Re:DeCSS Napster and the DMCA by mpe · 2000-05-20 15:55 · Score: 1

the DMCA is just the U.S. version of the WIPO Treaty,

What part of the DMCA encompasses article 8 of the treaty? Which the actions of the MPAA would appear to be in breach of.

Re:Universities by JATeXH · 2000-05-19 17:39 · Score: 1

universities don't have all that much money, especially for lawyers.
Well, others have said that this is untrue.

The university owns the machines.
Nope. This was a student's personal machine.

The students don't pay for their access.
In this case, you're right, but in general students are charged a connection fee for access.

When you get your account, you sign an agreement saying that you give the university the right to your data
Nope, not in this case.

It all depends what you find important. If all that's important is a quiet life, and you'll allow anyone with lawyers to trample your rights to protect it, then Oxford did the right thing.
I don't find that terribly important.

Re:As a former Oxford student... by divec · 2000-05-19 17:40 · Score: 1

the average Oxford student is [overprivileged or geeky]

Maybe true on average but not in all cases. The best physics teacher I have ever met got into to Oxford from a crap state school. Hello Philip Britton if you're reading this! (which I doubt)

--

perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

Bwahahahahahaha!!!! by MisterBad · 2000-05-20 16:47 · Score: 1

This is fabulous! We're wasting precious MPAA legal $$$ on obvious hoaxes. Beaujolais to the fine young Oxford student who's Fighting the Power!

--
Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/

MPAA in UK ? by javaDragon · 2000-05-19 17:41 · Score: 1

Is it a nightmare or, once again, MPAA is strechting its arm across the oceans to annoy non-US citizens ?

By what miracle people react to its whining ?

--
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.

Re:MPAA in UK ? by mpe · 2000-05-19 23:20 · Score: 1

Is it a nightmare or, once again, MPAA is strechting its arm across the oceans to annoy non-US citizens ?

The problem is people taking it seriously, rather than it getting riduculed, bruised fingers (and maybe a few unpopular passport stamps if MPAA people try things in person.)

the real University policy by infractor · 2000-05-20 19:11 · Score: 1

Look, this isn't a commercial web host, this a university system on the JANET network. (http://www.ja.net)

If you read the letter of university regulations, facilities are only for academic purposes.

Being fairly open and nice, universities will let you put pretty much anything up on your webpage (after all you're learning!)

If they get complaints about this, they can pull your page and even your access. You don't have any rights, if you want your page to have rights, put it on a commercial webhost. If they pull the page then, you can argue the toss about their AUP.

One thing I remember from the JANET regulations, which is a whole book, is that you must not do anything to damage the university's reputation. Your webpage reflects on the whole university, not just yourself.

The actual merits of any case are not important, if the university doesn't like it, they can pull it!!!

I think the best thing anyone can do whenever a page is taken offline like this is to ensure its mirrored 10x around the world.

Each time you strike us down, we will rise up more powerful than before!

Re:Free Speech at Universities by divec · 2000-05-19 17:43 · Score: 1

a.b.c.d == d + 256*c + 256^2*b + 256^3*a. It's just the IP number written slightly different - you can also do it in hex or octal IIRC.

--

perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by 3247 · 2000-05-20 19:31 · Score: 1

Nope, being a treaty of the Council of Europe (and not the European Community/Union) you don't have to go to the European Court of Justice (Luxembourg) but to the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg).

--
Claus

Re:A way to manipulate Oxford University by Yarn · 2000-05-20 20:53 · Score: 1

I wasnt bragging. I got b/b/b/b for my a-levels, and I'm going for a PhD. Finals await.

--
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent

Re:This has nothing to do with free speech by Jon+Peterson · 2000-05-19 23:23 · Score: 2

"The point here is that Oxford did in effect take sides. "

Not the way I see it. I think Oxford took the path of least resistance, which given how trivial the matter is to Oxford's core concerns seems pretty reasonable.

If some CS grad student had written a paper for publication, and that paper discussed the technology involved in DeCSS or whatever, and then MPAA got involved, that's when Oxford should put up a fight, because allowing its students to freely publish academic papers and pursue academic research is Oxford's core business.

--
----- .sig: file not found

Last stronghold of intellectual freedom ?? by AppyPappy · 2000-05-19 23:33 · Score: 1

the last stronghold of intellectual freedom
-------------------

Obviously not written by someone who has been to a college or university in a few years. Freedom of speech and non-comformity are almost dead on campuses these days. You conform to the rigid standards of thought or you pay.

I went to school in the 70's and groups used to stand up in the cafeteria and announce rallies and forums. Opposing people would boo them when they were through. You stand up and announce something in the cafeteria today and they will arrest unless you conform to the university standard and then they will bust the people who boo.

--

If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by RatFink100 · 2000-05-19 23:34 · Score: 1

This isn't true for the UK or the US

Re:This has nothing to do with free speech by Art+Tatum · 2000-05-19 23:39 · Score: 2

It's their network, they say what goes on and what comes off, end of story. If I come back from work one day to find someone has stuck a poster on my front door championing human rights in Burma, I'll take it off thanks very much, because whilst I agree with the cause it's my front door and I say what goes on it.

Actually, it's more like you come home from work one day and find that your landlord has removed *your* poster championing human rights in Burma because lawyers for the government of Burma don't like the message it portrays.

Furthermore, regardless of the free speech involved I don't want my windows smashed by some SLORC party apparatchik.Silly. This only happens if you're *in* Burma. In this case, the MPAA is the Motion Picture Association of *AMERICA* and the University is in the *UK*. Despite all the globalist garbage being spewed today, the UK is still a *SOVEREIGN* nation.

Furthermore, it is _NOT_ the job of Universities to defend some random student's pet cause.

That isn't what happened. Rather, the University caved into being mugged by a bunch of common criminals (AKA lawyers) hailing from an organization engaged in illegal activities in their own country (violating our Constitution) who have no proper jurisdiction over the place in question.

Re:Universities by Mr_Ceebs · 2000-05-19 21:03 · Score: 2

The way I would have looked at it if the same letter had arrived at my site would have been this. When the LKawyers letter arrived I would have straight away, before anything else happened, taken it down. I would then straight away inform the user that this had been done. At the moment following the Demon case this is what we have to do. After this when I could fit the job into my schedule I would get around to looking at the work. If in my opinion it does fall inside that category, then I would have to go to see a representative of the colleges managent committee, explain the legal situation, and see if they wish to let one of their students fight for academic freedom. but I cannot make the decision to place the college in the firing line against a group of large corperations. Looking at what is supposed to be on these pages, the colleges lawyers would then laugh at their lawyers, and we would probably send a bill for our time to whatever organisation had asked for the site to be shut down.
It has been said that it is part of my job to deal with Buraucracy and lawyers. My responsibility is to provide a service to more than just one student. If one student placed me in a position where I could loose my service for all the others then I would have to drop his service till I could be sure that the others would be unaffected

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by luckykaa · 2000-05-19 23:41 · Score: 1

Well, the Criminal Justice Act's item about infering guilt from silence could be considered guilty until proved innocent.

I believe that in a Libel case in the US, its up to the person accused to prove that the allegations are lies, but I could be wrong there.

the last stronghold of intellectual freedom... by superdoo · 2000-05-19 21:05 · Score: 1

Perhaps this is flamebait, troll, whatever... From my own (admittedly limited) experience (McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada) universities are practically glorified high schools. Almost anyone willing to pay the tuition can get in and get a degree. It seems that universities are stuck in a growth pattern that requires ever-increasing funding resulting in an educational institution that is more like a corporation. Perhaps it's different at a prestigious school. Between professors who don't give a shit about their classes (not _all_, I didn't say _all_), teaching assistants that are unqualified to teach anything, having classes taught via VCR, and the other students who somehow made it through high school without fundamental skills, I felt ripped off. I don't think we can rely on universities to be the elite places of higher learning that most people still believe them to be. Am I on crack, or do other people feel this way?

Re:Universities by fishbowl · 2000-05-19 23:41 · Score: 2

>universities don't have all that much money

This is Oxford we're talking about.
I believe they *do* have all that much money.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Look before you pull by grahammm · 2000-05-19 16:53 · Score: 3

Shouldn't the university have looked at the page (which would take no more than 30s) before spending much administration and legal time on the matter?

Re:Janet vs the World? Hardly. by rfc1394 · 2000-05-19 21:08 · Score: 1

Freedom of speech appears to be a myth.

In case you didn't notice, he's at Oxford, University which is in the U.K. Great Britain does not have free speech in the sense that the U.S. does, (it is merely a custom, it is not protected in law) and I think Oxford is a private university meaning even if it was in the U.S., the rules on free speech would not apply.

Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
http://paul.washington.dc.us

--
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.

That is a complete lie by kojak · 2000-05-19 23:46 · Score: 1

No: Oxford did not do the right thing. A reasonable interpretation of the Janet Acceptable Use Policy should not be subject to executive fiat.

No: students do pay for their access, via tuition fees and connection charge (or haven't you been awake for the last 5 years).

Go read the Janet AUP. Go learn about freedom of speech, expression and academic discourse. Get with the program!

It's called 'civil disobedience' by freakho · 2000-05-19 16:53 · Score: 1

That Oxford official was a blithering idiot. The whole damn point was to show how phobic most people are of Official Lawyer Letterhead, it was explained to him that he proved the damned point, and he still doesn't get it!

I could post a long written interpretation of a growl right here, but I think you get the point already.

Re:It's called 'civil disobedience' by mpe · 2000-05-21 20:23 · Score: 1

I work for an ISP and we NEVER blindly delete a user's account for TOS violations without thoroughly checking into it first. For spam reports, full headers with IP addresses and date stamps must be received, and it usually takes a few reports from different people before it's looked into since some individuals like to frame others with phoney headers

Maybe you should write "system administration for dummies" and send some complimentry copies to Oxford :)
Immediate punitive action in response to unsubstatitated complaints is very dangerous. It only takes a few incidents before on the balance of probibility the majority of such complaints will be motivated by malice. That is the problem when people in authority start taking accusations of "witchcraft" seriously.

Re:Not this time by luckykaa · 2000-05-19 23:46 · Score: 1

Well, if he's really the average, he would be half one of those and half the other. Assuming we're talking means here rather than modes or medians.

English legal system by JJ · 2000-05-19 21:11 · Score: 1

Oxford is just responding to the possibility of needing to defend itself against a frivolous lawsuit. In this case the lawsuit would be in English court which means that the loser pays the winner's legal bills. Since the university has the deep pockets, they would certainly be forced to pay. They are just trying to protect themselves. I don't like it but I understand why they do it.

--
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!

Administrative effort and lawyers fees? by timbo_red · 2000-05-19 16:54 · Score: 1

I just clicked on the link in the ./ story. It took me about 30 seconds to determine that there was no case to answer about the material being linked to. Why couldn't someone in Oxford do that?

Don't worry by drwiii · 2000-05-19 23:46 · Score: 1

They've been sending me nastygrams even though I took my mirror down in January. (Read the link, funny stuff.) At this stage they're just looking to harass people.

Re:Amazed that Oxford doesn't see the student's po by RedGuard · 2000-05-19 21:13 · Score: 1

Yes. But if I go and throw a custard pie at a
British politician, Oxford university aren't go
to pay my legal bills. If this student had just
written controversial then the university should
defend him. If he wants to do something illegal
then he should take responsibility for it himself.

The power of ignorance. by DustyHodges · 2000-05-19 16:56 · Score: 1

This is ridiculous. There is no way in hell something like this should have been done. I think it just shows the fact that people aren't paying any attention to technology that they have control over. It's all a bunch of stuffed shirts who wouldn't know a GB from a BK Kids Meal who make the decisions about technology. Now that it's something a generation has been forced to grow up with, I just hope that people who understand it get into office before there's not much left in America to defend.

-Dusty Hodges

Re:The power of ignorance. by DustyHodges · 2000-05-21 05:36 · Score: 1

Yes, I realize... I was talking about the MPAA actually... I realized when I re-read my comment that it looked a little backward. My bad... =)

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by PCPete · 2000-05-19 21:21 · Score: 1

Disclaimer: IANAL

A friend of mine recently did a course, as part of his degree, in British software copyright law.

From discussions with him, I got the idea that:

Reverse engineering a piece of software with the intent of making software to interoperate with it is perfectly legal.

Perhaps this could be interpreted to mean that reverse engineering the encryption scheme on DVD players & discs should be legal here because we want to write software to interoperate with it.

(This would probably mean the Microsoft's click-wrap licence for it's proprietary Kerberos extension might not be enforcable here, though this is off topic).

Can anybody back up this or is it complete rubbish?

Peter Liniker.

Universities by yonderboy · 2000-05-19 17:00 · Score: 3

As a person who studys at and works for a university, I can say that Oxford did the right thing. As it is, universities don't have all that much money, especially for lawyers. This also has nothing to do with censorship. The university owns the machines. The students don't pay for their access. When you get your account, you sign an agreement saying that you give the university the right to your data, especially if they're getting sued over it.

Re:Universities by Snaller · 2000-05-19 17:48 · Score: 1

When you get your account, you sign an agreement saying that you give the university the right to your data, especially if they're getting sued over it.
Yeah, but you sign that under duress, so its probably not valid, eh?

--

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Re:Universities by Mr_Ceebs · 2000-05-19 18:14 · Score: 1

Cheapness and Apathy. er no speaking as someone who runs a UK university network we are placed in an impossible position. We have to follow the JANET acceptable use rules.
If he was on my machines he would have been booted off under

JANET acceptable use policy
9.7. deliberate activities with any of the following characteristics:
wasting staff effort or networked resources, including time on end systems accessible via JANET and the effort of staff involved in the support of those systems;

To my way of thinking anything that gets me involved with Lawyers and the college bureacracy more than necessary falls under that category
Re:Universities by drin · 2000-05-20 21:45 · Score: 1

Interesting, if somewhat misguided point. As a point of fact, there *are* universities where you pay computer access fees - I attended one. We paid a not inconsequential fee for computer use, as well as another one for library use, another for sports facility use.... the list goes on. I don't know if Oxford charges computer use fees, but you should check your facts before making blanket statements.....
Re:Universities by Mr_Ceebs · 2000-05-21 00:18 · Score: 1

I don't think you quite understand the angle I'm coming from, If I get a letter from anyone's lawyers, as a responsible member of staff I have no choice but to inform my employers. they will then order me to take the offending pages off the server, legal or not, thehen I have to take the pages off, after all it is their computer ofr their network, and they don't particularly want to fight.
If however I take the pages off and then look at them at some point in the future, when I have time (we are after all running with approximately one third of the staff that are required to run a network of our size.) then when I see that The pages are not in fact a copyright violation (either because i can actually think, or because the pages owner will have come and told me.) then I can take the lawyers letter to my boss and say 'well we got this letter so we took the site off our webserver, but as we have now had time to look at it, it appears that the lawyers that have threatened us don't have the first clue as to what actually constitutes copyright infringement. I think we have no choice but to put it back up.' then he is put in the position where putting the site up is his decision, and so when the lawyers come back at us again ( because he will let me put it back) I can say that the college insists on the page staying up for reasons X Y and Z in the knowledge that I will not have the rug cut out from under me a few minutes later.
When they have made a decision, it's hard for them to be seen as having made the wrong one, by doing things this way round, they can't just pull out on me and apologise for rogue decisions made by an underling.
Re:Universities by gilroy · 2000-05-21 01:33 · Score: 2

Quoth the poster:
If however I take the pages off and then look at them at some point in the future, when I have time ...
Meanwhile, of course, you've silenced a legitimate user, chilled the expression of other legitimate users (who might now be very circumspect in the criticisms, parodies, etc. that they levy), and handed management of your site over to external lawyers. Your own argument is that you have "one third the staff" -- how long will it take until it's "some point in the future"? A day? A week? A month? A year? Will your bosses really back you up when you say, "Oh, we actually should take on these lawyers over this page that we removed a year ago"? Or will they figure that the battle is already over?
Again, I can't speak for the UK. In the States, we are told over and over again that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Notification by an interested party does not constitute proof. I believe the only morally responsbile thing to do is to immedaitely archive the site in question and begin looking into it at (as you say) a reasonable time. But side with the student, because he is your constituent.
In fact, the most reasonable response is to fire a letter back demanding documentation for the alleged infringement. Have them have to assert, under penalty of perjury, that they are indeed the copright owners. But you do not have to roll over immediately. Make them get formal and involved. Otherwise you are surrendering your responsibility and you are failing your bosses and your students.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Re:Universities by luckykaa · 2000-05-19 23:51 · Score: 1

This didn't go to court though. The publishers were just being excessively paranoid.
Re:Universities by RomulusNR · 2000-05-21 04:57 · Score: 1

As it is, universities don't have all that much money, especially for lawyers.

That may or may not be true, especially for Oxford which is arguably one of the most well-known schools in the world, and which probably has world-renowned lawyers teaching at it...

...but, the point is, universities used to have balls. That is to say: integrity, backbone, and expressional priority.

I imagine universities will soon start revoking tenure for professors who embrace MP3, to avoid litigation, under the defense that they are just poor, dejected institutions of knowledge which can't afford to respect or defend unpopular opinions anymore.

Universities used to protect socialists, for heaven's sake. Now they can't even protect parodists.
--

--
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Re:Universities by gargle · 2000-05-20 01:05 · Score: 2

My former university (Cornell) has always stood up for its students right to free speech on the internet. e.g. Godfrey vs Cornell. This is important, because it goes to the heart of what a university is - an institution where freedom of expression is respected. And yes, Oxford does have all that money.
Re:Universities by luckykaa · 2000-05-19 21:41 · Score: 1

I suppose I can't comment on UK free speech laws, but in the US, parodies are protected

According to a friend of mine who studied law, legal precedent is a lot more protective of parody in the UK than the US. Anything that had to be copied to make the joke is protected.
Re:Universities by Paul+Wright · 2000-05-21 19:21 · Score: 1

Unless they are an independant state they in fact can't simply make up rules and regulations as they go along. However if they were an independent state they are certainly not a signatory to WIPO on which the US DMCA is based. Either way the MPAA has no case.
Neither Oxford nor Cambridge are independant states (cool idea, but I'm not sure where the borders would be as both universities are located within the cities: there is no campus as such). Some Cambridge University statues some kind of legal status, ISTR, but I don't remember the details.
The point is that when you enter the university you sign up to obey the Statues and Ordinances of the university. This includes their policy on computing equipment. Hence you have very little recourse if they yank your pages because they're about to cost the university time and money.
One thing I do remember is that some of the Statues at Cambridge specifically relate to the protection of free speach. I can't remember any more information that that, however. Anyone else know?
Re:Universities by mpe · 2000-05-21 19:41 · Score: 1

This was a student's personal machine.

If they actually removed the page from a student's personal machine then they broke the law. If they simply blocked access then they stayed within the latter of the law.
Re:Universities by mpe · 2000-05-21 19:59 · Score: 1

Meanwhile, of course, you've silenced a legitimate user, chilled the expression of other legitimate users (who might now be very circumspect in the criticisms, parodies, etc. that they levy), and handed management of your site over to external lawyers.

As well have made a public statement to the effect that any complaints will result in immediate punitive action. To the delight of anyone who dislikes your users or general bullies who want a soft target.

Effectivly the message being sent out is "Don't like an Oxford student (or something they say on line), send a lawyers letter (or something which looks convincing.)"

But side with the student, because he is your constituent.

A concept apparently beyond the understanding of the people involved, who appear to be graduates from the BOFH school of user management.

In fact, the most reasonable response is to fire a letter back demanding documentation for the alleged infringement. Have them have to assert, under penalty of perjury, that they are indeed the copright owners. For that matter that they are who they claim to be, its not exactly hard for someone to put together something which looks convincing by DTP. Also any decent lawyer should be able to cite the right statute...
Re:Universities by Nilatir · 2000-05-20 01:24 · Score: 1

The students don't pay for their access. When you get your account, you sign an agreement saying that you give the university the right to your data, especially if they're getting sued over it.

As a matter of fact most students pay for their access through fees and tuition. Because of this the students should have some say in what thay can use bandwidth for.

--

"We were half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold."
-- Hunter S. Tolkien
Re:Universities by gilroy · 2000-05-19 21:44 · Score: 2

Quoth the poster:
If one student placed me in a position where I could loose my service for all the others then I would have to drop his service till I could be sure that the others would be unaffected
"In Germany, they first came for the XXX, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a XXX.... Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
Why can't people see that we are all in this together? It's not good enough to protect some users by sacrificing one. It's not good enough to allow "just a little" intimidation to keep your job, or keep your job easy. It's not enough to say, "Well, it will all be sorted out eventually, but it's not my fight."
It is your fight, and it is my fight, and it is the fight of all people everywhere who have not yet surrendered their humanity, who believe that human dignitiy trumps economic imperative, who value freedom and crave freedom and breathe freedom. Ligitgation through intidation, like legislation through litigation, eats away at the core values that make life worth living and the democracies worth defending.
It will not be the computer that will dehumanize us. It will the powers that use the computer to strip away our freedoms and our dignity ... and it will be the sheep who roll over rather than raise a fuss, who acquiesce in the smothering of others, just so long as it's quiet until their turn comes.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Re:Universities by luckykaa · 2000-05-19 21:44 · Score: 1

Anything that had to be copied to make the joke is protected.

I mean fair use. Not protected
Re:Universities by FooRat · 2000-05-20 01:41 · Score: 1

"In what way did they do the right thing ? deCSS is only illegal in the US."
What makes this worse is that the site didn't have deCSS on it anyway, just some spoof software. They just saw a scary looking lawyer letter and killed the site without even checking the site, presumable in order to avoid the controversy of a possible lawsuit (nobody has the guts to fight anything these days.) The irony is that this action brought just as much, if not more controversy. Idiots.
Re:Universities by Ed+Avis · 2000-05-20 01:44 · Score: 2

Something to try would be to send another threatening letter to Oxford, pretending to be the MPAA. Claim that their discussion of why they pulled DeCSS infringes copyright / trade secrets or some other bullshit, and demand they remove it. It would be interesting to see just how ridiculous the demands have to be before they'd start to question them.

You could take this further; start writing to universities, ISPs and small companies up and down the land, with letters written in threatening lawyerese demanding that they pull particular Web pages. There could even be a 'form letter' program that puts something together from a set of stock phrases, adds a convincing-looking letterhead, and prints it out to be signed and posted. 'DIY Internet Censorship Kit' or something.

All this would be fairly pointless, unless it managed to generate a public outcry over freedom of speech and censorship. (I'm thinking of the UK here, but there's no reason it shouldn't apply to other countries.)

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Re:Universities by MillMan · 2000-05-19 21:47 · Score: 3

I hate to break it to you, but universities have always been this way. The institution was never radical, it was always the students. Whenever you see footage of protests from the 60's or today, they usually occured in direct opposition to the demands of the management (whatever they're called at your local U) of the school.

Universities are pretty passive when it comes to defending freedoms...it's a never ending tug of war, really. Thats why people need to stay active: institutions are never going to keep us on track. They'll cave in to corporate and government demands without students yelling and screaming. The university I just gradauted from did this kind of thing ALL the time. Corporations have been really increasing their presence on campus, from the corporation funded research lab to the coke contract for all soft drinks on campus (I want my mountain dew, god damn it).
Re:Universities by gilroy · 2000-05-19 19:20 · Score: 5

Quoth the poster:
To my way of thinking anything that gets me involved with Lawyers and the college bureacracy more than necessary falls under that category
Which simply underscores that many people working at universities are, sadly, unaware of issues of academic or social freedom. He posted a "spoof" -- a parody, a "a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). I suppose I can't comment on UK free speech laws, but in the US, parodies are protected.
If you don't think that the parody could serve a legitimate purpose as social commentary, consider the agitation it caused in this case.
This trouble isn't "unnecessary", unless you feel that the student's right to free speech is "unnecessary". I'm sorry, but the student's web site was legitimate and any trouble you'd have with the lawyers or the college bureaucracy would have been part of your job.
I wouldn't have been so surprised or even incensed if this had been a corporate site. We expect that kind of reasoning in the Corporate World. I had hoped a university -- especially one as venerable as Oxford -- would see matters more clearly. Sadly, the business of higher education is becoming business.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Re:Universities by BigGaute · 2000-05-19 19:21 · Score: 1

As a person who studys at and works for a university, I can say that Oxford did the right thing. As it is, universities don't have all that much money, especially for lawyers.
I'm afraid you're wrong. Oxford University (and Cambridge, and Harvard etc.) is unbelivable rich. This is common knowledge in the UK.
Re:Universities by pq · 2000-05-20 02:51 · Score: 1

Sadly, they might be caving over Napster though... Check this link - what I'm hearing doesn't sound so good.

--
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
Re:Universities by grahammm · 2000-05-20 03:04 · Score: 1

Especially as this DeCSS is not for decoding DVDs but to remove Cascading Style Sheets from HTML sources.
Re:Universities by Yardley · 2000-05-22 01:37 · Score: 1

1. Oxford was not being sued over it. Oxford received a standard cease-and-desist letter.

2. Students do pay for access. It's this little-known fee called tuition.

3. As it is, Oxford has a hell of a lot of money.

4. The page contained no copyright violating material. The content of the page was a parody of the whole DeCSS battle. Parody is a protected form of speech. Since the parody used entirely new material in order to create a Cascading Style Sheet filter, the parody protection (of fair use against copyright violation accusations) is not even necessary. Anyone can use the name DeCSS to refer to anything they wish. It is not a trademark. A claim of copyright infringemnet against the page is completely without merit, obvious to anyone who spent even half a minute reading the page. The page in question contained all new material authored by the student (until it was removed without due process from a false accusation).

5. Oxford did not do the right thing.

--

--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
Re:Universities by mpe · 2000-05-19 22:00 · Score: 2

Whether it's illegal or not in your particular section of the earth doesn't seem to matter to the MPAA. :(

This will continue until someone has the good sense to tell them where to get off. If the Oxford admin people had any sense they would have sent the MPAA letter back with an altas and an invoice for their time.
Re:Universities by Salsaman · 2000-05-19 19:31 · Score: 1

In what way did they do the right thing ? deCSS is only illegal in the US. If any lawyers had asked them to remove it, the proper response from the university should be 'f**k off back the States'
Re:Universities by pjc50 · 2000-05-19 19:32 · Score: 1

At Cambridge, at least, when you matriculate you sign on to the Statutes and ordinances as amended ; which includes following any rules they make as and when they make them.
Re:Universities by ranton · 2000-05-22 21:39 · Score: 1

Yes, I know that this kid did not do anything illegal. I explicitly said that in my post. I was simply saying that if the university thinks that they did something wrong then they have every right to do what they did.

The problem is him being punished for doing something that actually wasnt bad, not that his actual punishment was out of the school's rights.

--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Re:Universities by scruffyMark · 2000-05-20 05:19 · Score: 1

The students don't pay for their access.
Wow. What University is that, you didn't mention? We not only pay here, we don't have the choice of not paying, even if we have computers at home, and we happen to be students of, say, drama, who need a computer lab account to type the odd essay, if at all.

--
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
Re:Universities by gilroy · 2000-05-26 14:22 · Score: 2

Quoth the poster:
The university server is a private server, therefore they can shut down whatever page they want. U.S. first amendment rights are placed there to prevent government censorship ("Congress shall make no law...")
Fair enough, except (I believe) that Oxford is taxpayer-supported. That means that, were it a US university, it would have to respect First Amendment rights.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Re:Universities by mpe · 2000-05-19 22:13 · Score: 1

At Cambridge, at least, when you matriculate you sign on to the Statutes and ordinances as amended ; which includes following any rules they make as and when they make them.

Unless they are an independant state they in fact can't simply make up rules and regulations as they go along. However if they were an independent state they are certainly not a signatory to WIPO on which the US DMCA is based. Either way the MPAA has no case.
Re:Universities by dieman · 2000-05-19 17:08 · Score: 3

Two issues here:

A) a univ. just said "yeah, even though its not it, We dont care, free flow of information means shit to us! We just dont want your corp lawyer dogs coming at us!" What kind of implications does this have in the future for them kind of scares me.

B) the data was not illegal or anything

This is censorship via corp. strongarming. I think people who value their data in public access on these systems should *move* immedately to ensure that the freedom of their information is continued.

--
-- dieman - Scott Dier
Re:Universities by gad_zuki! · 2000-05-20 06:07 · Score: 2

What about the student's free speech rights? Should all legal matters fall into a 'is it cost effective' approach? Should threats of lawsuits replace any freedoms the law affords? If they're so damn poor they can get free representation, with a big name like Oxford it shouldn't be too hard.

And exactly what make you think such a case would cost millions of dollars to defend? I doubt they'd have to cancel the rugby program. Not to mention their ethical responsibility to provide intellectual space for the free exchange of ideas.

If you goto school so you can get ahead in the rat race, then yes this is the proper thing to do. You could *gasp* insult your corporate masters.
Re:Universities by pnot · 2000-05-19 22:17 · Score: 1

I suppose I can't comment on UK free speech laws, but in the US, parodies are protected.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Turns out they're not. For example, the excellent cartoonist Martin Rowson produced an excellent, inventive parody of T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land. It was published in full in the US. In the UK, the estate of T. S. Eliot threatened to sue the pants off the publishers unless they removed *every* direct reference -- even including lines which were merely quoted from other sources by Eliot! Needless to say the publishers complied.
Protection of parodies? We don't even have a written constitution. And if the govt keeps introducing legislation like the R.I.P. bill this place could be a police state within a decade...
Re:Universities by pugugly · 2000-05-20 06:23 · Score: 1

Cheapness and Apathy. er no speaking as someone who runs a UK university network we are placed in an impossible position. We have to follow the JANET acceptable use rules. If he was on my machines he would have been booted off under
JANET acceptable use policy 9.7. deliberate activities with any of the following characteristics: wasting staff effort or networked resources, including time on end systems accessible via JANET and the effort of staff involved in the support of those systems;
To my way of thinking anything that gets me involved with Lawyers and the college bureacracy more than necessary falls under that category
So, by 'your way of thinking', not only is it feasible for an organization to suppress any commentary it finds inconvenient, it is acceptable for it to do so?!? I have to admit - I would be insulted at being ordered to be that spineless, nevermind to publically attempt to rationalize it.
I am sorry, but that's the way that comes across to me. as an attempt to rationalize spineless behavior. I can't get my mind around it any other way.
Pug

This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .

--
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Re:Universities by dboyles · 2000-05-19 22:20 · Score: 1

The university owns the machines. The students don't pay for their access.

I think this is a rather narrow view of the subject. Universities don't let students use their resources (libraries, computer networks, etc.) out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it because students pay tuition. I assure you, if Harvard (or any school) decided that they weren't going to allow student access to their computer resources, they would lose a large portion of their top students.

Oxford did what was in their best interest by pulling the page. It's not the right thing to do in the scheme of things (cave under a little pressure rather than stand up for your rights), but sometimes you have to conceed a battle. But this can't be justified by the fact that they own the machines. It is because of the students that those machines exist.

--
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
Re:Universities by cehf2 · 2000-05-19 19:08 · Score: 1

You should read the rules for use of University equipment. Although I am "at the other place" (tm) I imagine that the rules will be much the same, and if they are anything like they are here, they will be buried somewhere in the midst of the comptuer service web site. The rules will probably say that they reserve the right to pull web sites or some other such thing.
Re:Universities by Dyolf+Knip · 2000-05-19 19:42 · Score: 1

If they had bothered to actually look at the page, they would have noticed that the DeCSS had nothing to do with dvd's and there wouldn't have been any "wasted staff effort". That's the whole issue here: a panicked, unfounded, knee-jerk reaction by an educational institution when it was threatened by a corporate body with no power over them.
Dyolf Knip

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:Universities by Pyotri · 2000-05-19 19:54 · Score: 2

Point of fact:-

Oxford (and Cambridge) University are run on a collegiate system. Each college functions as an independent institution, although they share many teaching resources. A couple of examples from Cambridge:

New Hall College has been technically bankrupt for about ten years.

Trinity College is one of the richest institutions in the country. If I remember rightly, it is #3 landowner after the church and the crown.
Re:Universities by www.sorehands.com · 2000-05-20 08:32 · Score: 2

It might be because they have the fear of the MPAA!
This is the main reason that they (MPAA, RIAA, Mattel) fight litigate the way they do. If put the fear into ISPs(and the university is their ISP), and companies will not dare go after them or speak up against them.

--
Fight Spammers!
Re:Universities by Anonymous+Elf · 2000-05-19 17:15 · Score: 1

The university owns the machines. The students don't pay for their access. When you get your account, you sign an agreement saying that you give the university the right to your data, especially if they're getting sued over it.

Well that's just fine and dandy. Perhaps its time to call the universities by their traditional name: high schools.
Re:Universities by divec · 2000-05-19 17:20 · Score: 2

universities don't have all that much money, especially for lawyers

As has been pointed out, that doesn't apply to ox.ac.uk. But anyway, if you're a level B domain and your users are allowed and expected to run web servers, there's no excuse for not knowing at least a basic amount of the legality of stuff, for example that DeCSS isn't even remotely illegal [in the UK] and so any attempt to litigate would get thrown out of court.

--
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Re:Universities by mpe · 2000-05-19 22:29 · Score: 1

no speaking as someone who runs a UK university network we are placed in an impossible position. We have to follow the JANET acceptable use rules. If he was on my machines he would have been booted off under JANET acceptable use policy 9.7. deliberate activities with any of the following characteristics: wasting staff effort or networked resources, including time on end systems accessible via JANET and the effort of staff involved in the support of those systems;

So if one of your users is herassed by someone outside the university you not only do nothing about source of the herassment you boot off the user? Though this might get you a BOFH award it probably isn't the best way to run a network. If anyone has broken section 9.7 of the JANET AUP then it is the MPAA. Maybe the appropriate action is for the appropriate jANET admins to "blackhole" any systems operated by the MPAA.
Re:Universities by mpe · 2000-05-19 22:34 · Score: 1

The student in question has done nothing illegal. Nothing at all. The costs and administrative time expended on this case are only due to the MPAA's actions. Is someone complaining about what you've put on the web important enough to revoke someone's access? Furthermore, if I personally wrote a letter complaining about something on an Oxford server, would I get the same response?

Maybe or maybe they might realise that this was an attempt to enguage in "herassment by proxy". Which is something which will happen where a complaint results in action without either critical examination or investigation.
Re:Universities by ranton · 2000-05-19 22:56 · Score: 1

Yes, and since my taxes help pay for road construction, I should be able to drive in the US regardless of things like a revoked driving lisence?

Take note that I am not debating that what the student did was illegal, I just believe that thinking that you partly own something that you payed for this indirectly is ludicrous.

--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Re:Universities by Mr_Dyqik · 2000-05-19 20:10 · Score: 1

It's common belief in the UK, not commonly known fact. It's not entirely true, as most of the funds available to the universities/colleges (that bit is really complicated) are donated with conditions attached. My College gets donated funds on the condition that they are used to repair the chapel, or to pay for a scholarship etc, and I won't even go into the amount the college is rumoured to have lost on the Far Eastern stockmarket.
Re:Universities by davehiggins · 2000-05-19 20:10 · Score: 1

> I'm afraid you're wrong. Oxford University (and Cambridge, and Harvard etc.) is unbelivable rich. This is common knowledge in the UK.

That's irrelevant. While the combined wealth of the colleges may be considerable, currently the colleges do not make any contribution to OUCS. OUCS is run entirely by university central funds, with the same budget as any other UK university.

Where are we? Where we always were! by Seth+Finkelstein · 2000-05-19 17:44 · Score: 2

As a general rule, University employees advance in their careers by avoiding trouble. Tenured faculty may get to be firebrands. But for the average administrator, there are no rewards to being a no-holds-barred defender of academdic freedom.

Re:Where are we? Where we always were! by gilroy · 2000-05-19 19:23 · Score: 2

Quoth the poster:
But for the average administrator, there are no rewards to being a no-holds-barred defender of academdic freedom.
Except maybe the defense of your soul... just because administrators often cave doesn't mean we should support them when they do. There is a right response here, and Oxford didn't give it.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach

Re:I find this fascinating... by ptbrown · 2000-05-19 17:44 · Score: 1

first off. anyone remember what the last A stands for in the 'MPAA'??? I just....can't...seem...to...remember...

Yeah, I was sorta wondering that myself. Especially highlighted with the action taken against Jon Johansen. You can blame it on rampant commercialism, or the bad side of "free" trade, or some government conspiracy or all of the above. But I take some solace that the actions taken against DeCSS in the US have at least tried to follow normal legal protocol. As much as US-bashing is in style these days, it's nice to know that we are still a basically free society and don't have to fear our government.

. . . . .

Okay, fine. So reality doesn't want to agree me. But... well... Dammit, the world is just ****ed up.

--
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.

Incorrect, Students Do Pay For Access by rapett0 · 2000-05-19 17:52 · Score: 1

One way or the other, either in tuition, technology fees, or hell indirectly through government fund which are fuled by taxes. This includes hardware and software, and internet access. Name one privately funded university?

This has nothing to do with free speech by Jon+Peterson · 2000-05-19 18:01 · Score: 2

Oxford acted perfectly reasonably.

It's their network, they say what goes on and what comes off, end of story. If I come back from work one day to find someone has stuck a poster on my front door championing human rights in Burma, I'll take it off thanks very much, because whilst I agree with the cause it's my front door and I say what goes on it. Furthermore, regardless of the free speech involved I don't want my windows smashed by some SLORC party apparatchik.

Furthermore, it is _NOT_ the job of Universities to defend some random student's pet cause. I, like the rest of UK taxpayers, pay Oxford and other universities to educate people, hopefully in a broad way, hopefully including such issues as will help them generally in later life. I'd say this student has learnt a pretty important lesson - if use use facilities kindly made available to you at no cost to make trivial provocative statements about something you feel is important, you will get nowhere.

Way to go Oxford, I say.

--
----- .sig: file not found

Re:This has nothing to do with free speech by mpe · 2000-05-21 19:20 · Score: 1

If I ran a University and some lawyer from another country came along telling me they were going to sue me for something some student did,

Something completly legal BTW.

I would tell them to buzz off. If that didn't work, I'd complain to the government that we were under attack by a foreign power and we needed to go to war with them. I'm only half kidding.

IMHO deporting the "lawyers" would probably be sufficent...
Re:This has nothing to do with free speech by divec · 2000-05-19 18:35 · Score: 1

If I come back from work one day to find someone has stuck a poster on my front door championing human rights in Burma, I'll take it off thanks very much

What if the poster is your tenant and has paid to use your front door as a forum? That's more like what's happened here.

if you use facilities kindly made available to you at no cost [...]

It isn't at no cost. Students pay rent and tuition fees. A student's choice of which university to attend may be influenced by things like "you can run a webserver from your bedroom". So network access is *not* free, it just comes bundled with rent/tuition fees. If my landlord cuts the phone cable cos someone tells him I'm making nuisance calls, I'll sue him.

--
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Re:This has nothing to do with free speech by wlf · 2000-05-19 21:46 · Score: 1

It's their network, they say what goes on and what comes off, end of story.
Obviously, 'some random MPAA lawyer' is not identical to Oxford university, so has no rights at all to make or enforce any decisions about students' pages over there (in theory, not in practice). Just because I have a right to do certain things doesn't automatically ensure that all my actions based on that right are indeed 'the right thing' to do or that I must not be critized by people who might not agree with me.
Furthermore, it is _NOT_ the job of Universities to defend some random student's pet cause.
Defending some american corporations' right to prevent people from naming their programs in ways said corporation doesn't like is of course exactly what network admins at universities are paid for.
I, like the rest of UK taxpayers, pay Oxford and other universities to educate people, hopefully in a broad way, hopefully including such issues as will help them generally in later life.
Like 'shut up and mind your own business whenever someone bigger than you doesn't like what you did, regardless of how irrational or far fetched his reasons might seem'? A very useful standpoint. Regarding a couple of centuries of European history, its outcomes were often less than appealing, though probably profitable most of the time. "You have the right to free speech, unless you're not dumb enough to actually try it." (The Clash).

--
SIGBUS
Re:This has nothing to do with free speech by Art+Tatum · 2000-05-20 09:57 · Score: 1

Clearly, you see the University as a business. Fine. But what about the rights of the University and the citizens that comprise it? What about British sovereignty? This is a lot like 1776 in reverse (except that the MPAA doesn't even have a cursory claim to rule over British citizens and organizations).
If I ran a University and some lawyer from another country came along telling me they were going to sue me for something some student did, I would tell them to buzz off. If that didn't work, I'd complain to the government that we were under attack by a foreign power and we needed to go to war with them. I'm only half kidding.
Far too few people recognize the importance of national and municipal sovereignty. I do, so if you folks need support in "dissolving the bands" I'll be glad to help on this end when the time comes.

Re:Oxford did absolutely the Wrong Thing by RedGuard · 2000-05-19 18:06 · Score: 1

Alan Gray denied in another post to the same
newsgroup that he said anything about education
not controversy.
I would also add that this student wanted to
engage in civil disobedience and piss off the
MPAA. Fine. But if protests are to mean anything
there has to be some sort of risk. If a
university web page is used then its them who
will be sued and they (and other students) who
will suffer as a result.

Duress by BlueUnderwear · 2000-05-19 18:06 · Score: 1

There's a way around that: the university only needs to put the phrase "I acknowledge that I am not under duress while signing this agreement", and they are ok. Sounds crazy? Well, then have a look at the papers that some French Grandes Écoles hand their students for signature...

--
Say no to software patents.

Re:Duress by uid8472 · 2000-05-20 04:48 · Score: 1

Hmm... IANAL, but it seems to me that that kind of statement should be invalid if signed under duress. So essentially it says "If I am not under duress, I am not under duress", which is a trivial tautology and as such means nothing.

Re:A letter to Mr. Alan Gay by madprof · 2000-05-21 03:24 · Score: 1

Adrian should have been more careful. The university have acted lawfully here. Under UK law if they have reason to believe there MIGHT be an infringement of the law then they must pull the page. They can put it back up again if there is nothing illegal of course.
ZDNet are quoting it as the college computer officer who asked him to pull the page when I have been told he's not to blame.

Re:A letter to Mr. Alan Gay by Gerv · 2000-05-19 23:51 · Score: 2

I doubt that our network Admin will be all that impressed with a letter which goes on about the Motion Picture Association of America...

Gerv

Re:Janet vs the World? Hardly. by mpe · 2000-05-19 23:52 · Score: 1

Hmmm, it pisses me off that Oxford has a women-only college. There must be many people like me who find that annoying. So their website is "likely to cause annoyance" and should be yanked under 9.2.

Also IIRC part of the JANET AUP covers not promoting law breaking activities. Unlike the DMCA the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act is part of UK law...

Re:What a stupid thing to do by mpe · 2000-05-20 00:08 · Score: 1

The MPAA were quite right to ask for this page to be removed from Oxford's servers. Until the court case in concluded one way or the other this kind of publicity stunt detracts from what is going to be a serious test case, and web pages like this are childish and in very poor taste.

Except that the court case is in the USA. The MPAA have presented no case to the High court in London (or the European court or the UN.) The decisions of a US court are meaningless outside of US borders. Oxford university is not a US embassy, it's not a US military base, not is it a US flagged ship or aircraft.
The MPAA is simply a trade association, not an endity created by international treaty. The correct behaviour from Oxford would be a response of "Get lost you have no standing here"
Also "childish and in very poor taste" effectivly describes the MPAA.

Re:Oxford did absolutely the Wrong Thing by Delos · 2000-05-21 07:57 · Score: 1

I agree that it would be great if Oxford would stand up to the MPAA, but it's not realistic. The fact that the case wouldn't stand up in court doesn't matter. It still takes many hours of preparation for a lawyer to demonstrate to a judge that the case has no merit. At the absurd rates that lawyers charge, it could be thousands of dollars. That is where the deep pockets of the corporations get their strength. They can win without being right, because their opponents usually can't afford to get to the point where the correct ruling is handed down.

Are they trying to shame him now? by Kanasta · 2000-05-19 21:27 · Score: 1

all this fuss is because you wanted to wave a red rag at the bull by *pretending* you were offering decss software. -snip- just a game to you.

OK, so the student is an evil troublemaker because he believed in a cause and wanted to alert others to the cause.

Does that mean we should all maintain the status quo to please every single entity out there that may be upset by something we do? Are they denying the right to protest a perceived injustice?

I'll leave others to discuss the sense of that.

---

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by kfg · 2000-05-20 00:35 · Score: 1

I've been warning about this for months, both here on Slashdot and in person with friends and colleages.

The MPAA and its ilk have kept the legal argument running around in circles on the fringes of the issue. Not one single charge or court ruling has even come close to the core issue, and ultimate weapon, of the MPAA.

Reverse engineering has nothing to do with it. The algorithm has nothing to do with it.

The key, legally, to the whole issue is, well, the KEY people!

The key is a unique sequence of binary numbers. This sequence is the original work and the IP of someone. The KEY is covered by copyright law.

Take DeCSS and strip out only the key and it is worthless.

UK vs USA by roman_mir · 2000-05-19 21:34 · Score: 3

British are basically scared of litigation. Unlike the USA the rest of the world is not as used to court rooms. It seems that the USA is one large court room where the plaintiffs and defendents are constantly rotated. It also seems that all this is done for only two reasons: 1.To enrich the lawyers; 2.To enterntain the public.

However, this does not mean that the truth always wins in US courts. Remember O.J. Simpson? On the other hand the cases sometimes are simply ridiculous, remember Monica vs Clinton?

So, I would say, the rest of the capitalist world outside the USA is scared of the USA litigation system, and the non-capitalist countries either simply ignore the USA rules or suffer from it without even being given a chance to defend themselves.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Pathetic Loser Sysadmin/Troll alert! by No+Such+Agency · 2000-05-20 00:59 · Score: 1

For starters, if a university pays you to administer their server, the contents aren't "yours" to sell or even jerk off to. It's obvious why you have your own company, nobody else can tolerate your attitude!

Does that make it clear enough? It's time you college students, riding on daddy's money in your paid for apartment driving about in your paid for automobile, slacking about campus, wearing Birkenstocks, Bob Marley T-shirts, with backpack slung over one shoulder with your 'save the rainforest' anti-free market business, plastic petroleum made coffee mugs, gets a clue about the real world if like and learns that no one's going to pay for your screw ups anymore and that you, and no one else, must bear the full brunt of responsibility for your actions.

Hmm, a little bitter are we? Those of us from less affluent families go to university too you know. My "daddy" needs his money to pay the mortgage and keep his car running, he doesn't have any extra to buy me a car or pay my tuition.

Oh yeah, and if there's one thing I *did* learn from higher education, it's that I AM the only one who'll pay for my screwups and nobody else. So there. I doubt you're even reading this, bitter Sysadmin man, but if you are, think next time you make a sweeping, insulting generalization.

--
Freedom: "I won't!"

Re:What a stupid thing to do by GPierce · 2000-05-19 21:42 · Score: 1

I'm sorry Dave, you are not allowed to discuss what brand of breakfast cereal you like.

The agreement that you accepted when you opened the box precludes any criticism of the product.

--

When you are dancing with wolves, never limp

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by Jon+Peterson · 2000-05-19 18:15 · Score: 2

"But the British don't have a right to free speech"

This is true, and unfortunate, but then I'm pragmatic about this stuff. I can actually say more (of what I want to say) in the UK than I can in the U.S. UK newspapers and t.v. are actually freer to publish a wider range of opinions than in the US because they don't have pressure groups and commercial interests holding the advertising leash. Magazines in the UK have published articles that in the US would have seen the magazine lose all its advertisers, and probably have personal threats made to, if not carried out on, its senior staff.

As for the monarchy I'm damned if I can see what difference that makes to anything much, although I'm told it helps the tourist industry. Mind you if recent news about Baby Blair is anything to go by there are people who are just as idiotically interested in the inside of Number 10 as the Palace. Very strange.

--
----- .sig: file not found

A matter of responsibility by Far� · 2000-05-19 18:24 · Score: 1

I'm very angry at university eggheads, who both accept to endorse responsibility for personal student pages (since they censor them on demand) and refuse to ever act responsibly by pondering all points of views when faced with this responsibility.

Even ISPs don't censor at the whim of the first come complainant; they ask for backed arguments, and have someone check the validity of the claim, before they take any action. Why don't universities just disclaim responsibility for the contents of personal pages? In any case, censorship is not something to use lightly, and at the very least, the accused students ought to be able to defend themself before being censored.

-- Faré @ TUNES.org

--

-- Faré @ TUNES.org
Reflection & Cybernet

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by csteinle · 2000-05-19 18:41 · Score: 1

The ECHR is already law in Scotland, IIRC. Gotta love that Scottish Parliment. :-)

Low quality Geography teachers in the US? by csteinle · 2000-05-19 18:43 · Score: 1

Of course, Oxford isn't in the US.

Re:What a stupid thing to do by niagaracyber · 2000-05-19 18:44 · Score: 3

Sorry, but given the whole tense legal situation around the DeCSS fiasco at the moment, what was he thinking about doing this? Yeah sure it wasn't *real*, but anyone who thought about it for half a second would have realised that this would cause him trouble, real or not.

Right. Don't cause trouble. Don't make waves. The lawyers know best.

The major corporations are going to try to take a yard for every inch legislatures give them in the narrowing of civil liberties. The time to fight them is now, not when you're allowed only to post about what you did last summer and what brand of breakfast cereal you happen to like. [Sounds depressingly like an AOL chat room, doesn't it?]

Many university administrators are gutless wonders, although some were professors, and I would have hoped that someone at Oxford would have asked questions first and shot later.

Dave

Re:Does anyone remember Amstrad? by Yardley · 2000-05-21 20:49 · Score: 1

Go Video has the entire patent rights to dual-deck VCRs. They charge exhorbitant amounts for one of their machines -- the price is on par with buying two separate VCRs. In this manner, no copyright cartel has impetus to go after them, because anyone can buy two separate VCRs and do the same thing at the same price.

I'm guessing Amstrad violated Go Video's patents and that is why they went out of business.

--

--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.

Oxford is free? by FooRat · 2000-05-20 01:34 · Score: 1

"The students don't pay for their access"

Students attend Oxford for free? Thats pretty cool .. in my country we have to pay to attend University - and pay and pay and pay. We pay thousands and thousands to attend courses - students pay in the region of half of the University's expenses. Only half of the Univ's expenses are covered by taxes over here.

Re:Universities are not the last stronghold ... by torpor · 2000-05-20 01:37 · Score: 2

... of intellectual freedom. Anyone who's been to one can tell you that they're a pitiful excuse for intellectual exercise, mired down in the rigors of status quo intelligentsia and bureaucratic wrangling of science.

The truth of the matter is, the *INTERNET* is the last stronghold of intellectual freedom. Or, more accurately, its the *FIRST* stronghold of intellectual freedom, and that's why its so fucking cool.

So it hardly suprises me that Oxford bent to the will of the MPAA. As it has always been doing, pandering to the whims of the uberclass, which, in america, is now represented by corporations - as opposed to england, where it was all land barons and drunk kings.

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by mpe · 2000-05-21 21:14 · Score: 1

True, but we're not really talking about american law. The MPAA is a multi-national and uses international copyright law to do this stuff. They can sue in every country that's part of the international law treaties,

Except that the "rights" they are claiming over the distribution of DeCSS do not actually exist in the treaties concerned. They may not even, legitimatly exist, in US domestic law. Further DeCSS is protected by international treaties, including article 8 of WIPO.

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by rking · 2000-05-20 01:40 · Score: 1

I believe that in a Libel case in the US, its up to the person accused to prove that the allegations are lies, but I could be wrong there.

I would strongly suspect that you are wrong as it would undermine libel laws completely. If I accuse you of being a child molester then to ask you to have to prove that you have never molested a child would be an impossible task to set you. Where could you even begin, signed affidavits from every child you ever met?

Re:Please, explain me... by mpe · 2000-05-21 21:24 · Score: 1

Can the university fight back and ask big $$$ because the removeded page didn't contains anything illegal ?

Probably pointless, if they attempted to sue the MPAA a defence of "The plaintiff's actions caused the damage" would convince just about any court.

If they can't, what prevent the MPAA to send that kind of e-letter to every site in the world, regardless of the material contained here ?

If the complaint was sent by email then the correct course would be for Oxford (or JANET NOC) to block all emails from the same source. (On the basis of violation of the JANET AUP.) What sould stop the MPAA sending these out all over the place is people having a clue...

Re:DeCSS Napster and the DMCA by kaphka · 2000-05-20 01:40 · Score: 2

Now, I KNOW this isn't the US - BUT...

Every time DMCA issues come up on Slashdot, some wiseass points out that it only applies in the U.S. Technically, that's true. But the DMCA is just the U.S. version of the WIPO Treaty, which has been adopted by pretty much all of the "civilized" world. Unfortunately, I can't find a list of signatories, but it's a pretty safe bet that Britain is one. Any country that signs the treaty is obligated to adopt a law essentially identical to the DMCA.

Having said that, I don't see your particular point in the WIPO Treaty, so that provision might actually be an American twist. Even still, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was in the British version as well.

--

MSK

Re:Finally... a story where this is *not* offtopic by DoXaVG · 2000-05-21 21:35 · Score: 1

Hmmm, wonder if they'll try and sue /. for removal of this post. At the very least I would expect them to ask for it's removal. Oh well, guess I'll go download DeCSS now and copy all the movies I just rented from Blockbuster now (note: I don't have any way to play DVD's and don't expect to purchase a DVD player in the near to semi-distant future). BTW, does copying to /dev/null constitute copyright infringement?

Idiots on /. by gmhowell · 2000-05-20 02:10 · Score: 2

Okay, my karma on /. sucks. Why? Because I read articles and links BEFORE moderating/meta-moderating. So this likely leads to some unpopular moderation. But clearly, if anyone had read the link, they would have seen that what the university did was BULLSHIT!! The page had a link to a program called DeCSS.

Now, for the unwashed morons who didn't read the page, guess what THIS DeCSS does? It's a perl script that strips Cascading Style Sheets from html! How is that illegal? Clearly, any moron (even one from the MPAA) could see this.

And now to the fucking lamer(s) who upmarked this post: get a clue. I used to be quite in favor of the moderation system on /. Clearly, it doesn't work. If you aren't interested enough in the story to read the links, don't moderate the discussion.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Re:Information Nazi. by locust · 2000-05-19 21:51 · Score: 2

Because the request was to remove software that wasn't even there.

'Apparently the university computer services have talked to their lawyers and reckon it's against British copyright law (despite there being nothing on there except "DeCSS is a ludicrous thing to use to try to pirate DVDs, the code hasn't been here since January, try OpenDVD instead.").'

Adrian Baugh in http://cryptome.org/ox-chill.htm

But when I wrote it, I was talking in the general sense. I was trying to point out, that there was a false assumption that the MPAA sent people in different juresdictions the same letter.

--locust

Re:Information Nazi. by locust · 2000-05-19 19:12 · Score: 2

That admin is an information nazi? Why?

To some poeple/institutions the potential costs of ignoring even an official looking document from an organization that has vastly more resources than they do are greater than any benefit of ignoring it. This is especially true where some extranational (non-us) law applies. Bottom line, most people can not afford to pay lawyers. Did you think that that the MPAA or anyone else would go after somebody who did?

A) it should expend any legal expense other than 3.5 seconds to ignore the request on the grounds that it is baseless.

How do you know the request is baseless under the local law?! Are you an expert in british IP law? I keep reading about what somebody should do or how they should react. But a lot of it is a) the same points made over and over again to a different headline or b) people saying "yeah, I would have really given them hell." without knowing the situation on the ground. More generally, a particular individual may be willing to fight, but the people that depend upon him or her, would not be able to live (use the term loosely) through that fight.

Don't get me wrong I agree, that the guy may want to move DeCSS somewhere else, somewhere more willing and capable of fighting the MPAA, but I disagree completely with the way you said it.

--locust

Amazed that Oxford doesn't see the student's point by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 18:59 · Score: 1

The result of this is that the University has spent, and is still spending, a vast amount of administrative effort and lawyers' fees over something that has nothing to do with it, and is just a game to you.

Interesting that the Oxford Adminstrator doesn't realize that the point of the DeCSS (removing Cascading Style Sheet tags) software is a protest against the MPAA's practice of searching the web for all instances of the "real" DeCSS and threatening the people who posted it. The software was written to intentionally make the MPAA folks waste their time, as a way of fighting their Big Brotheresque practice. At no point in the thread posted at cryptome does anyone acknowledge that spoofing the DeCSS software is more than just a game - it's a political protest, the kind of free speech Oxford should be protecting, instead of whining about.

Re:Janet vs the World? Hardly. by csteinle · 2000-05-19 19:12 · Score: 1

Exactly, the JaNET Acceptable Uue Policy (AUP) is designed to allow Universities and Colleges to bar your computer access if you cause them any problems whatsoever. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to - you can go pay for an ISP.

DeCSS Napster and the DMCA by Adam+Selene · 2000-05-19 19:14 · Score: 4

Now, I KNOW this isn't the US - BUT, one of the interesting things I see is that to have the site pulled under the DMCA, they have to swear, under the penality of purgery, that a copyright violation has occured.

Maybe, we can bring a class action lawsuit against RIAA/MPAA for violating the DMCA - I'm sure some US lawyer would LOVE to get hold of some of their money

Re:DeCSS Napster and the DMCA by Another+MacHack · 2000-05-20 08:58 · Score: 1

I've heard that the US was fully in compiance with WIPO even -without- the DMCA; the DMCA was just icing on the cake for American IP owners.

Re:A way to manipulate Oxford University by BigGaute · 2000-05-19 19:16 · Score: 1

They's just ignore it--everybody knows Oxford is better than Cambridge anyway. And we appear to have a more-or-less sensible computing service to boot. Seriously, though, people have gotten away with stuff that's a lot worse than that god knows how many times.

smoke and mirrors by HalloFlippy · 2000-05-19 19:16 · Score: 1

It seems we're stumbling around the real problem. Oxford did the right thing, under the conditions: the student's page was not their fight, but unfortunately for all involved, they received the cease-and-desist letter. In an ideal universe, the school, as the ISP, shouldn't be responsible for the content of hosted pages, yes? The letter should have been sent to the student, never involving the university. Why should Oxford care about DeCSS? The real issue, imho, is making the individuals, not the ISP/university/etc, responsible for what they put up on a website (as well as insuring their absolute freedom of speech, not this watered-down "say anything you like as long as you don't say anything negative about MPAA/RIAA/Greedy Corporate Interests". Anyone remember when we had the 1st Amendment?)

--

I am a man of const int sorrows

Re:smoke and mirrors by Dyolf+Knip · 2000-05-19 20:12 · Score: 1

they received the cease-and-desist letter
Yes, they did, and rather than spending 30 seconds to make sure that they actually needed to cease-and-desist what it is the MPAA claimed, they have spend a large amount of time and money, started what is likely going to be a big PR smack-down for them, set a precedent for British institutions folding under American pressure, and made themselves look like idiots to anyone who knows what DeCSS is. Yep, they certainly did all right in my book, yessiree.
Why should Oxford care about DeCSS?
Because the MPAA is demanding that they take action because of it!
Anyone remember when we had the 1st Amendment
A better question would be, where on earth did you get the idea that the UK had a 1st Ammendment?
What would really have been funny would be if the MPAA made a typo when they sent it so that the wrong page got pulled. Oxford apparently didn't bother to check it, so how would they know?
I can just see the headline...
"Jane Doe's Studies in 15th Century Lit. Webpage Pulled for DeCSS Violations!"
Dyolf Knip

--
Dyolf Knip

Re:What a stupid thing to do by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-21 22:24 · Score: 1

I was threatened with pepper-spray and arrest if I did not allow an officer to search my glove compartment for "drugs" (the officer claimed he saw drug paraphenilia when I had opened the glove compartment to get my registration and insurance card). When the officer found no drugs (he found candy), he became enraged. He wanted to drag my younger brother (the driver) back to his squad car for the purpose of video taping him (the squad car had a low-res camera in it). Since the officer was acting very threateningly, I advised my brother of his legal right to refuse to leave the vehicle (he had only been pulled over for speeding). He refused. The officer would not relent and threatened arrest and a night in jail (for both of us -- apparently I was interferring with a "lawful act"). Finally, the officer reached into the car attempting to force the door open. He did not succeed as my brother had already begun to role up the window. Finally, without warning, the officer sprayed a full canister of pepper spray into the vehicle. This almost caused an accident, as when my brother ducked after being sprayed in the head he inadvertantly hit the accelerator. Forunately, the parking brake was fully engaged. I was sprayed direct in the face and eyes. I spent the next hour blind. We were pulled out of the vehicle, thrown to the ground, the officer struck my brother. We were then both handcuffed (I suffered nerve damage to my right thumb -- the cuffs were on way too tight) and placed in the back of the squad car (without being read our Miranda rights). Instead of taking us to the emergency room right away (as is required after pepper spray -- it can cause permanent damage to your eyes, including blindness), the officer spent 15 minutes with his buddies (who had arrived by then) searching our vehicle (for who knows what, drugs?!?). Finally, we were taken at slow speed and without seat belt to the hospital and kept there for as long as possible without benefit of an attorney.

This happened in the state of Iowa in the United States one year ago.

Re:Cock-up vs Conspiracy by Dyolf+Knip · 2000-05-20 02:34 · Score: 1

He also links to a page where you can get the original

I'm curious, exactly what site did he link to that has the real DeCSS software available? Cuz it sure as hell isn't OpenDVD.org. Granted, they might link to sites with it, but are we now prosecuting for 2-level deep linking?

The student had to sign an agreement to only use his website for academic purposes

Very true. Of course, if they decide to use this to excuse their actions, they will be forced to do the same to every other page at Oxford, and just image how well that will go over.

And yes, it is about Freedom of Speech. If anything I say has to be approved by a committee before it is deemed acceptable, I have just lost that freedom, plain and simple.

A good analogy for this situation is this: Cops get a tip from a foriegn agency that I am producing counterfeit money at my home, so, after obtaining a warrant so it's all nice and legal, they rush over to my house, where they find a bunch of twenties lying on the table. Guilty as charged! They promptly drag me off to the slammer, a situation which can only be reversed if I go through the proper channels, of course. But what they had never bothered to check was whether or not there was actually any funny money at my residence. Turns out I had just gotten those bills from the bank and were thus quite real. But even when this is made very public, they refuse to let me out.

Now who in their right mind would say these guys did the right thing?

Dyolf Knip

--
Dyolf Knip

Re:What a clever thing to do by sqlrob · 2000-05-21 23:31 · Score: 1

1. The site was a spoof (parody). The site contained no code covered by the DMCA. The site contained a CSS (cascading style sheets) filter -- nothing more.

I never said it did. I was talking about the DMCA broadly. Regardless, DMCA was used as a weapons in this although incorrectly.

2. Sorry, you are mistaken. The DMCA is U.S. legislation. It is not based on a WTO treaty. The DMCA can only be applied in the U.S. Unfortunately, the DMCA is clearly not constitutional

The DMCA is US legislation, but it is at least somewhat based on the WIPO Copyright Treaty (Geneva, 1996). References can be found here

So, what happens when a treaty is unconstitutional?

University bastions of burocrats, not freedom by FreeUser · 2000-05-22 01:33 · Score: 2

Many of us make the erroneous assumption that universities, especially in America, are a bastion (some say "the last bastion") of democracy, freedom of expression, free speach, and so on.

If this is true, then we are all sunk from the beginning. Universities like to market themselves as institutions of free expression, but the truth is that they have never been bastions of freedom at all.

Recall the purges in Germany that presaged the holocaust. Universities did not speak up or object when Jewish professors, students, and administrators were run out, nor did their collegues individually.

Universities did not object, and indeed in many cases supported, police actions against student movements protesting the war in Vietnam. In almost every case where universities claim credit for having supported free speach or controversial points of view, it has been the students or faculty who have spoken out, often despite administrative disapproval. Universities are happy to claim credit in retrospect for laudable actions of their staff or student bodies, but as anyone who has ever been involved in a protest knows, at the time those very so-called heros are generally being threatened with expulsion or worse.

Do not be fooled by marketing. As the actions of numerous American universities, including Oxford, show, they are anything but bastions of freedom. They are large, burocratic institutions run by civil servants who are far more interested in the political infighting of their respective departments, and arranging their careers in a politically expedient manner, than they are in going out on a limb to protect some student or professor's right to free expression, especially if it means going up against some well paid New York Lawfirm financed by one of the largest industries in this country (the entertainment industry, in this case).

In short, if you are serious about fighting the erosion of your freedoms, do not look toward American Universities (which are profit driven entities after all). Look instead toward the ACLU and the EFF.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Re:University bastions of burocrats, not freedom by FreeUser · 2000-05-22 01:39 · Score: 2

sigh

Yes, I know Oxford is in the UK. I was speaking of American universities because that is where I attended school, and the same myth ("universities are bastions of free speach") is repeated here ad nauseum. I was expressing strong opinions which I know apply to American Universities and, it is reasonable to assume, probably applies to academic institutions in much of the world, including the UK. I probably should have inserted this little disclaimer in the original post...

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Re:Janet vs the World? Hardly. by Unfallen · 2000-05-19 21:57 · Score: 1

Yeah, fair enough. Still, it'd be nice to think that people over here (the UK) are able to at least take the piss once in a while... -sigh-

Oh, if only I had webspace on my Uni account...

Re:Oxford did absolutely the Wrong Thing by DeepPurple · 2000-05-19 21:59 · Score: 1

However it is throttled to 8 Mb/s upstream. The vast majority of downstream bandwidth in Cambridge goes to feed personal computers in student rooms.
If Oxford have a more draconian policy on bandwidth allocation to students then they may well not need anything faster than 34 Mb/s. I suspect that a 34 Mb/s connect is vastly cheaper than a 155 Mb/s connect.

-dp

Re:"infringes the copyright of another person" by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2000-05-20 04:36 · Score: 1

Don't know about the UK, but in the US, a corporation IS a person. The law distingushes what we think of persons by calling them "natural persons". Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I've heard that term a lot to mean a person that ISN'T a corporation.

Does the UK redefine person to include corporations too?

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!

content style sheets by Barbarian · 2000-05-19 22:01 · Score: 2

If the MPAA stated that a DMCA violation was being made against them there, and swore to it, they are probably guilty of perjury, since the DeCSS program on this page was for removing C ontent Style S heets from HTML pages, not for decrypting DVD's with C ontent Scramble S ystem.

--

Re:content style sheets by onceler · 2000-05-20 10:15 · Score: 1

(IANAL)
If the MPAA used what appears to be the standard form for issuing notice of a DMCA violation, then their letter would read something like:
"We hereby state, under penalty of perjury, that we believe that blah blah violates our copyright blah blah"
In other words, the fact that the site which so offenced them did not, in fact, violate their copyright, implies that the author of the letter (the MPAA, or an employee/lawyer thereof) is either (a) guilty of perjury, or (b) incompetent.
Unfortunately, incompetence is not a crime...

No 'right' to use U resources for your cause. by SlushDot · 2000-05-19 22:03 · Score: 1

That Oxford official was a blithering idiot. The whole damn point was to show how phobic most people are of Official Lawyer Letterhead, it was explained to him that he proved the damned point, and he still doesn't get it!

No sir, the Oxford official was correct. Any third party is neither required no obligated in any way to fund or support your protest and practise of civil disobedience.

Was this student's protest part of a course related project?

Did the student seek permission from officials before using university resources on his own personal, non-school related project?

Did any of what the student violate the terms of service (TOS) that all universities now require their students to read and sign and adhere to?

Or did he simply take advantage of and abuse free, high bandwidch connections and file server space and waste the resources of the school and work time of its staff, who found themselves with a great mess to clean up after a student executed his 'rights'?

Sorry, I have difficulty feeling any shread of pity for a fool.

He should have protest on his own time and with his own self paid for internet resources. To do otherwise demonstrates a clear lack of honour and respect towards others on the consequences of one's actions.

--

Re:No 'right' to use U resources for your cause. by pugugly · 2000-05-20 06:07 · Score: 1

Was this student's protest part of a course related project?
No. Oxford has neither explicit rules nor enforced a policy saying that it was required to be.
Did the student seek permission from officials before using university resources on his own personal, non-school related project?
No. Same deal.
Did any of what the student violate the terms of service (TOS) that all universities now require their students to read and sign and adhere to?
Nope. As, I must point out, mentioned in the article. They looked for a violation of the TOS, and couldn't find it.
Or did he simply take advantage of and abuse free, high bandwidch connections and file server space and waste the resources of the school and work time of its staff, who found themselves with a great mess to clean up after a student executed his 'rights'?
Yep. Just took advantage of the connection to discuss his opinion of the DeCSS case, and publish a parody. Oh - He had a link too. Must'nt forget that tragic abuse of bandwidth.
I would say the resources of the school and work time of the staff were wasted by the MPAA's sending a letter trying to claim that his page, with no infringing material on it at all, somehow infringed upon their copyright, under the definition of a U.S. law. The respect the school has blown in simply knuckling under without the most cursory inspection of the issues has been wasted entirley by the staff of Oxford itself.
None of which was the fault of the student.

This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .

--
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media

European Convention on Human Rights by csteinle · 2000-05-19 18:59 · Score: 1

...and the EHCR, which guarantees Freedom of Speech and is already part of Scottish Law, becomes Law in England in October.

That means you don't need to take it to the European courts.

Non-academic use by csteinle · 2000-05-19 19:03 · Score: 1

The standard JaNET form forbids ALL non-academic use. Technically, a Uni can remove access just for writing personal email.

They wouldn't, but they have the right to.

Is this academic use? I doubt it.

Re:Non-academic use by Bradley · 2000-05-19 20:05 · Score: 2

I don't know about the UK, but Sydney Uni prohibits commercial use of their network. I seem to recall that the reason for this is that AARNET which provides the net connection for australian unis has been granted various exceptions from the communications act for academic uses. It may (I can't remember) even be illegal for commercial traffic to be carried.

Re:Information Nazi. by Syberghost · 2000-05-19 19:22 · Score: 2

How do you know the request is baseless under the local law?!

Because the request was to remove software that wasn't even there.

The guy posted an application to remove Cascading Style Sheets from html code. The MPAA asked them to remove an application for decoding DVDs.

--

No, that only applies if you have a DMCA agent. by plagiarist · 2000-05-19 19:29 · Score: 2

In order for an ISP to be protected by the DMCA the way that you mean, they have to have a DMCA agent registered with the US Copyright Office. That agent receives the contact from the complainant, which must have specific info explaining what was infringed and what was infringing.

I just checked The Directory of Online Service Provide Agents and Oxford University isn't listed. Probably didn't bother registering an agent because they're not in the US... or can non-US ISP's even register?

Re:Free Speech at Universities by gilroy · 2000-05-19 19:32 · Score: 3

Quoth the poster:

That may not make most people happy,

It's not about making people happy -- slashdotters or lawyers -- it's about doing what is right

but it would certainly keep them out of legal hot water.

As if that were a good thing?? They were being bullied by a lawyer and they rolled over. Guess what happens now? They get bullied by even more lawyers, for even less grounds.

Earlier, the poster said:

I don't think that the administration should be under any imperative to check up on allegations before they act.

This position is particularly untenable considering how easy it would have been to check ... thirty seconds, tops. Of course, then you'd have to stand up to the lawyers and actually defend a person entitled to your defense.

But even if it were difficult, the university should have checked first. A university is a privileged place. Part of the price is a larger responsibility to speak out, to defend the free flow of ideas, to resist conformity pressures. Sadly most universities fail to see this, but it's true nonetheless.

I would have thought that Oxford was more than a vocational school focused only on the bottom line. I would have thought that a venerable institution like that, having fought hard for its liberties and rights, would stand up to penny-ante scare tactics and drawn a line in the sand. I guess I was wrong.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach

The Uni acted correctly though could have been [.. by flend · 2000-05-19 19:35 · Score: 1

more communicative :)

Oxford University isn't that flush for cash: it provides a superb, individual, education for anyone who can pass the enterance criteria without charging any more than any other UK Uni.

Now, say I'm Alan Gay and I receive a letter from the MPAA throwing around legalese and veiled threats. What should I do? I've no idea of the legal situation? Inform all the relevant parties then pull the page pending further investigation.

I might not think the page is illegal, I might not even like the MPAA's tactics, but if I leave the page up, putting the University on the line because of my views, I run a possible risk (I don't know the legal status) of the University loosing lots of money to the detrement of the students, who are the guys who'd (eventually) have to pick up the bill. Maybe via American-style fees and hence destroy the `free education for all' ethos which is one of the corner stones of the British welfare state. It would have been irresponsible for Alan to act in any other way.

The University IMO should have been far more communicative and 'mailed the guy early on: the whole embarrasing fiasco over the spoof deCSS on the page perhaps could have been avoided. As for Alan's comments on spoofing being irresponsible, I think he's just embarrased and looking for a target :p

My views are my own and do not represent those of Balliol College, Oxford University, The Elite Project or anyone else!

Re:A way to manipulate Oxford University by Yarn · 2000-05-19 19:37 · Score: 1

You could look at it that way, or you could realise that oxford students got into oxford because of their upbringing, and cambridge got in because they're actually intelligent.

(I'm at Exeter, heh)

--
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent

heck, who needs them fancy-pants city lawyers... by vsync64 · 2000-05-19 17:00 · Score: 2

...when all you have to do is send a letter on special paper with big words?

Seriously, though, things like the DMCA and UCITA may be irrelevant. In many cases, the person providing the material does not own his or her own server, and the people running such things have shown all too much willingness to remove anything that might be vaguely illegal or controversial. As long as corporations can bully the providers, there's no need for laws.

It's also rather sad that, judging by that message, the administrators are blaming the student for their own confusion and hasty decisions.

--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.

Re:What a stupid thing to do by Rares+Marian · 2000-05-22 23:27 · Score: 1

Administrative costs. Arer fucking kidding me?
There was no administrative cost. There has been no trial yet. God people love the air of a story but can't bother to read it.

--
The message on the other side of this sig is false.

Where's my letter? by delysid-x · 2000-05-19 17:05 · Score: 1

All these people seem to be getting letters from lawyers... I want mine! I guess I'll have to put up my very own DeCSS mirror and send the MPAA an email asking them to send my lawyer letter. Then I can frame it and pretend I fought the good fight.

I love downloading movies within days of them coming out in the theatre. $10 to see a movie? HAHA!

Post spoof DeCSS, set up MPAA for perjury? by Robin+Lionheart · 2000-05-23 08:40 · Score: 1

Interesting... So the next time the MPAA swears out affidavits under penalty of perjury, naming dozens of sites with files named decss.tar.gz, they're liable if any of them turn out to be spoofs?

The MPAA's lawyers must spend billable hours carefully checking each and every single site they name in any complaint, or they could end up arguing from the other side of the courtroom.

That takes the World's Largest Game of Whack-A-Mole to a new level, where you have to whack only the moles and not the rabbits. (Or perhaps a better analogy is not shooting the pop-up target of the old woman with the shopping bags.)

So users who can't post DeCSS (ex. those with accounts from craven ISPs or universities) may be able to help the cause by posting the easily defensible parody. It embarrasses those whose reflexive response to letters from corporate lawyers is to censor first and ask questions later. Even if the MPAA never swears out a false complaint, it costs them time (= money) to look into and perhaps bark at sites hosting the spoof. It may even raise public awareness.

Not bad for just posting a little joke file.

Another: by PhilHibbs · 2000-05-20 05:20 · Score: 2

http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/dvd

A way to manipulate Oxford University by divec · 2000-05-19 17:05 · Score: 5

Cool, somebody in Oxford put a page up saying "Oxford is better than Cambridge", and I'll send a faked letter, supposedly from the University of Cambridge, threatening to sue for defamation. Then let's see if they remove from their website all claims that they are any good at all.

--

perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

Re:A way to manipulate Oxford University by luckykaa · 2000-05-19 22:14 · Score: 1

They are ranked no. 1 in The Times listings of universities for this year, and Oxford are 2nd.

translation: More Times jounrnalists went to Cambridge.

The Cambridge Comp. Sci department is funded by microsoft.

Ummm.......

I got an offer to go there, and not to oxford...

Well they rejected me!
Re:A way to manipulate Oxford University by divec · 2000-05-20 08:49 · Score: 1

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll find a job when you graduate

Yeah, or maybe he can work in a patent office and process the Toblerone patent.

--
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Re:A way to manipulate Oxford University by divec · 2000-05-19 17:31 · Score: 1

Oxford IS better than Cambridge

But Hull is better than Oxford - just ask Blackadder.

and so Cambridge would have no grounds to sue for defamation. Oxford would laugh themselves silly

But the RIAA have no grounds to sue in this case, and I can't see Oxford cranking up its sense of humour. My thought was if they are that gullible, let's take advantage of it.

--
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

File - Save... by athmanb · 2000-05-20 05:22 · Score: 1

Could prove useful someday
Good work!

Information Nazi. by dieman · 2000-05-19 17:05 · Score: 2

That admin is an information nazi? Why?

Because he obviously didn't care about taking care of a legal issue without first contacting the parties at stake and finding out what it really is.

Then he goes off and makes fun of it because it 'expends' legal people.

The thing is:

A) it should expend any legal expense other than 3.5 seconds to ignore the request on the grounds that it is baseless.

and

B) I would run from this organization because they obviously do not care about the aviliablity of information and/or the legality of it, and any web pages on these systems might be at stake very easily.

I would move pages away from their systems if they can't figure out to effectively service their customers, the students and faculty.

---
at least umn.edu has decent admins who wouldn't pull shit like this.

--
-- dieman - Scott Dier

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by pugugly · 2000-05-20 05:44 · Score: 1

Yes, they don't have a right to free speech with which to overide a law as 'unconstitutional'

Unfortunately, I haven't seen that it ever went to that point - Oxford removed a page that was not in violation of it's rules, and was not in violation of the law. His page was removed merely because a letter was received, not because an investigation uncovered any illegal action.

Not having any familiarity with how such implied contracts (These are what we will remove pages for, implying pages will not be removed without cause) are enforced under UK law, I don't know if Oxford is in any way liable for it's actions.

This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .

--
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media

Re:Corrections to Mr. Gay's letter by TexasCowboy23 · 2000-05-27 12:42 · Score: 1

Michael,

You should send that corrected letter to Mr. Gay himself, just so he can contemplate his own future standing at Oxford... Hopefully, by the truth of your corrected letter, Mr. Gay will be suspended without pay and sued by the university for his undue harrassment of an innocent student...

Seth

--
Seth Anderson BTW, I'm not 23 anymore -- I am TexasCowboy26 now. =)

Free Speech at Universities by wageslave · 2000-05-19 17:06 · Score: 1

Although I hate to see what could be another case of a university backing down from a potential lawsuit, I can hardly say I blame them. The school is, to quote from one of the messages from Alan Gay, the "deep pocket" and would certainly suffer from any legal action taken against it. I don't think that the administration should be under any imperative to check up on allegations before they act. In fact, I think they've done the right thing by pulling the page immediately. That may not make most people happy, but it would certainly keep them out of legal hot water. Once the page is down, *then* they can go back and do more research and see what is really going on. (Not that this has happened in this case, but it sounds like a good idea.)

This particular incident also bring up a question: In regards to the computer resources of an institution such as this, what rights, if any, do students have? What data does a student "own" and what data does the university "own"?

--

darrell

Re:Free Speech at Universities by divec · 2000-05-19 17:15 · Score: 2

what rights, if any, do students have?

Well, if it's anything like here in Cambridge, he should at least be able to get his network connection fee back, because yanking a blatently legal page is probably breach of contract. But frankly it'd be better to get a page like that hosted by a free ISP who refuses to yank stuff until there's a court order. [uk2.net anyone?]

--
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Re:Free Speech at Universities by mpe · 2000-05-19 22:57 · Score: 1

Hmm, so if some student accuses another student of assault, or rape, or theft, or cheating, the administration should suspend the person accused immediately without bothering to even investigate the matter, see if the complaint makes any sense, or is more than groundless.

IIRC this has already been known to happen (including in situations where a criminal court has latter dismissed the allegations, but after the student has already been punished by the university.) There is another possibility that the complaints are Malicious thus in many cases the person making the complaint should be investigated as well as the person complained about (This cetainly should be applied to all cases of "rape" and "sexual herrasment", where malicious accusations may well be more frequent than actual incidents.)

I'm a user, you're an ass. Shut up. by roju · 2000-05-28 11:43 · Score: 1

From the general tone of your message, sounds to me like you're probably a supported of the DMCA (ugh), and so a firm believer in IP. Which means anything I store on your computer, even if it is random trash, is my IP, and if you touch it, we're talking sever penalties here. If you distribute it, well, that's copyright infringment, which is punishable by fines of thousands of dollars per infringment.

Re:What a clever thing to do by sqlrob · 2000-05-19 22:14 · Score: 1

when did the DMCA apply outside the USA? It's not a case of international copyright control

Unfortunately, I thought the DMCA DID apply out the US. More accurately, isn't the DMCA based on some WTO treaty?

(spread like butter) by LoonXTall · 2000-05-29 08:08 · Score: 1

At time of posting, Crosswinds mirrors are down (502 Proxy Error) and AngelFire shot it (404). .sig update please...
http://www.crosswinds.net/~loonthetall
http://www.crosswinds.net/~thesapphirecat
http://www.geocities.com/LoonXTall
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/synder
http://wpoison.netfirms.com/source.html
They're just the source, carefully designed to avoid search engines.

-- LoonXTall

--

~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.

American law doesn't apply in the UK by divec · 2000-05-19 17:09 · Score: 4

The MPAA were quite right to ask for this page to be removed from Oxford's servers.

What law would you say it could possibly violate? Remember we don't have things like UCITA and DCMA here [yet].

Remember what that lawyer tried so hard to get Ali G to understand. "American law doesn't apply in the UK. You can't *ever* ``plead the fifth'' here!"

--

perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by Minix · 2000-05-20 08:00 · Score: 1

>The key, legally, to the whole issue is, well, the KEY people!
>The key is a unique sequence of binary numbers. This sequence is the original work and the IP of someone. The KEY is covered by copyright law.

A key's not an `original work', it's a random number. I'd be prepared to argue that couldn't be copyrightable.

--
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by miracle69 · 2000-05-19 17:18 · Score: 1

But the British don't have a right to free speech.

Gotta love a monarchy.

--
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by divec · 2000-05-20 08:55 · Score: 1

You have correctly identified two areas of British law where "guilty until proven innocent" does (or will) apply - current libel laws, and the forthcoming Criminal Justice act. However, with any luck the European Court will shoot down both as violations of human rights.

--
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by Leto2 · 2000-05-19 17:20 · Score: 1

Hmm, as a Dutch guy I'd like this issue clarified.

How far goes the American jurisdiction?

Can the 4LAs (RIAA, MPAA, DCMA) do anything to my posting DeCSS (the real one) on my website?

I'm curious.

Ivo

--
<grub> Reading /. at -1 is like driving through Cracktown in a convertible that is stuck in 1st
Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by divec · 2000-05-20 08:58 · Score: 1

To reply to my own post, we also have tonnes of laws which obviously violate the European Convention. E.g. we have a special law against blasphemy in published media - but it only applies to Christianity! Mary Whitehouse successfully used it in about 1978 to bankrupt a gay rights magazine (one of its readers had written a poem asking if Jesus was gay, and they published it).

--
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by Cyberdyne · 2000-05-19 20:02 · Score: 1

On the subject of "lawyer fees", it would be fun to send a few law-students into a fight over this with the MPAA (or whomever). Costs the MPAA real money, the university has a chance of training the students "for real", with a very, very small chance of losing the case....
Better still: Get a few of the university's law lecturers to plead the case on the univerity's behalf. When they (inevitably) win - since there was no copy of that DeCSS involved! - they get to claim full lawyer's fees from the MPAA.
Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by AndyS · 2000-05-19 20:02 · Score: 1

This is true, and unfortunate, but then I'm pragmatic about this stuff. I can actually say more (of what I want to say) in the UK than I can in the
U.S. UK newspapers and t.v. are actually freer to publish a wider range of opinions than in the US because they don't have pressure groups and
commercial interests holding the advertising leash. Magazines in the UK have published articles that in the US would have seen the magazine
lose all its advertisers, and probably have personal threats made to, if not carried out on, its senior staff.

You have a right to freedom of expression. It's in the European Bill of Human Rights to which we're a signatory

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

ARTICLE 10

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information an ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

Of course, this is very difficult to use until the European Bill of Human Rights is enshrined in law - as you have to go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights in order to actually use your rights.
Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by divec · 2000-05-19 17:25 · Score: 2

But the British don't have a right to free speech.

Er, do as of 1993, under the European Convention on Human Rights. Although currently it's a bit useless because you have to go all the way to the European Court of Justice to get it enforced. As of October, the convention will be part of British law (not just European law) so it will be easier to get upheld.

Gotta love a monarchy.

It is a somewhat bizzare form of government we have.

--
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Re:American law doesn't apply in the UK by divec · 2000-05-19 17:25 · Score: 1

MPAA and DCMA can't touch you. RIAA can send thugs with baseball bats round.

--
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

Courtesy not right by fleener · 2000-05-19 22:19 · Score: 1

Universities usually provide web server space as a 'courtesy' to students for 'educational purposes.' It's a stretch to say what this student did was part of his university education.

Sure, you can stretch the meaning of 'educational' to mean virtually anything you do in life, but that kind of excuse doesn't fly with a school administrator. An administrator feels he has far better things to do with his time than to get the school embroiled in an international debate because one student wants to make a point while using university resources. The student could just as easily make his point off-campus.

Bravo! by pohl · 2000-05-19 22:19 · Score: 1

Very well said.

--

The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

You're a user. These are my machines. And I'm God. by SlushDot · 2000-05-19 22:22 · Score: 1

As the sysadmin at my own company, let me be the first to educate you, the user, on your "rights".

This is my my hardware. Not yours.

You're here because I graciously allow you to be here.

You will use my hardware in exactly the limited ways in which I authorise and permit you to.

Anything stored on my system becomes my own personal property. I may read it. I may sell it. I may profit from it. And I don't require your permission to do it. In short, don't store anything here you don't want others to get at.

Deviate in the slightest and I am fully within my rights to banish you for all eternity, delete anything you saved on my hardware, or send copies of it to your supervisor.

If any of this is not to your liking, there's the door. You're free to leave. No one forces you to work here or purchase our services.

Users must agree to the above in a signed ledger before they may even log on.

Does that make it clear enough? It's time you college students, riding on daddy's money in your paid for apartment driving about in your paid for automobile, slacking about campus, wearing Birkenstocks, Bob Marley T-shirts, with backpack slung over one shoulder with your 'save the rainforest' anti-free market business, plastic petroleum made coffee mugs, gets a clue about the real world if like and learns that no one's going to pay for your screw ups anymore and that you, and no one else, must bear the full brunt of responsibility for your actions.

--

Think of a University as a business by Giro+d'Italia · 2000-05-19 22:24 · Score: 1

... and you won't be as bothered by this move. Legal bills can quickly pile up, so better to nip the problem in the bud.

The more money the school has, ironically, the quicker they will capitulate to all sorts of things. I've seen one of the exalted Ivy League schools give in to a completely frivolous lawsuit to save money. No principle, morals or ethics at work in the legal department.

Truth be told, I have more respect for the MPAA in this case. At least they take a stand completely consistent with their philosophy.

Re:I find this fascinating... by dboyles · 2000-05-19 22:25 · Score: 1

Look at napster. Universities were some of the first institutions to ban it.

Don't forget, though, that often this has more to do with use of network resources than with copyright infringement. Even before an institution gets a letter from Metallica's lawyers they're going to be looking at bandwidth consumption because of Napster.

--
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear

Re:Janet vs the World? Hardly. by Salsaman · 2000-05-19 19:41 · Score: 1

"9.2. the creation or transmission of material which is designed or likely to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety;"

I believe that the deCSS program this student published is designed to remove the CSS tags from html. In what way can that be said to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety ?

Perhaps I should write to Oxford University and tell them that their entire web site is causing me anxiety, (since it now lacks deCSS) and that it should be removed immediately.

What he should say in reply by Salsaman · 2000-05-19 19:44 · Score: 1

So, you are saying that all this fuss is because you wanted to wave a red rag at the bull by *pretending* you were offering decss software.

But I was offering deCSS software.

The result of this is that the University has spent, and is still spending, a vast amount of administrative effort and lawyers' fees over something that has nothing to do with it, and is just a game to you.

It's up to you what you choose to spend your money on. (Personally I would rather see it spent on education.)

Re:The Uni acted correctly though could have been by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 19:52 · Score: 4

Sure, the University doesn't want to get involved in a costly legal battle, *if* MPAA has a case. But, in this case, there is no case; the student hadn't posted what MPAA claimed he'd posted.

Now Oxford has bigger problems:
1) They have presented themselves as buckling under easily to legal bullies, and so there are likely to be more legal bullies in the wings.

2) They have presented themselves as not respecting freedom of speech. (The material the student posted was the spoof code that was designed to thumb its nose at the MPAA in protest of its activities.) This is not good for PR, not good for admissions, not good for fundraising.

Nobody wants to see Oxford dragged in to court against the MPAA.. I've been in this position myself so I know it ain't pleasant - or cheap... but, my god, if you didn't even do anything....

Re:The Uni acted correctly though could have been by JohnSwinbank · 2000-05-19 19:55 · Score: 1

Sorry flend, I can't agree they acted correctly.

The web page contained a script for removing CSS from web pages. It was the work of 30 seconds to discover this. OUCS have plenty of people capable of 'tar zxvf'ing it to find out. However, instead of checking, they yanked the page in a knee-jerk reaction. That was a stupid and irresponsible.

Fair enough, if there was even a possibility of a case against the page it probably should have been pulled "just in case". But there wasn't - they just didn't bother to check.

Anyway, OUCS get no sympathy from me - they're about to block outgoing smtp so we have to use "smart" hosts to send mail. I hope they get slashdotted for that one! ;)

Re:I find this fascinating... by TheDrumHeadLady · 2000-05-19 19:59 · Score: 1

"I sort of disagree with the article on the whole topic of universities being our last bastion of freedom." Amen.
Universities are certainly not meant to foster new and original thought... Take a look at the greek system, if you need an example. Modern Universities are nothing but extensions of the conformity factories that are America's High Schools. I am sure that many professors would like nothing more than for all the goths, punks, freaks, and other people choose not to kiss to rear of the animal of social acceptance to disapear from their classes. There are very few things prized more at the modern university than being ready and willing to give every will and desire of your own up to the collective conciousness.I sort of disagree with the article on the whole topic of universities being our last bastion of freedom.
Sorry. I just hate when stupid people expect me to have the popular opinion simply because it is popular, and that is incredibly common, even here at a major University.

--

-isnt it strange to be anything at all.... -jeff mangum

What a clever thing to do by IdoR · 2000-05-19 17:11 · Score: 2

Yes, it might have caused him trouble. But occasionally trouble is what you have to ask for if you want to protest. Just like Greenpeace protesters who want to be arrested so as to attract media attention.

The important thing here is that MPAA has ABSOLUTELY NO right to ask that page to be removed, because it has NO relevance to the court case.

As it is, it portrayed the MPAA for exactly what it is: a bunch of spooks who send their lawyers to shut the mouth of anyone that mentions terms that frighten them.
(And it's even more frightening that they're chasing people in the UK. Since when did the DMCA apply outside the USA? It's not a case of international copyright control - the Berne convention, AFAIK, does not prohibit reverse-engineering, which is just why the DMCA was required in the first place.)

I think it'd actually make an excellent publicity stunt if used properly.

... by CiaranC · 2000-05-20 08:13 · Score: 1

everything is wrong

Open comment to said administrator. by vik · 2000-05-19 17:14 · Score: 1

Did it ocurr to you that the student may well view the situation as far more than a game? The abuse and erosion of rights by corporations manipulating the legal system is perhaps one that you yourself should pay more concern to. Leaping in and pulling pages willy-nilly in a knee-jerk reaction is arguably not the best way of protecting your network or your students.

Vik :v)

Janet vs the World? Hardly. by Unfallen · 2000-05-19 17:18 · Score: 3

Just had a look at the JaNET (the UK Uni thing) policy over at http://www.ja.net/documents/use.html which says:

"9.2. the creation or transmission of material which is designed or likely to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety;"

and then

"9.4. the transmission of material such that this infringes the copyright of another person;"

Obviously there's no copyright infringement with a CSS-removal program, so 9.4 doesn't apply. But, to Oxford Uni's credit, rule 9.2 handily steps in and covers any other eventuality possible, including this one...
Winner: JaNET, MPAA, Oxford Uni, et al.

I guess a protest or petition outside a library would be fine (see enough of 'em...), but take the argument to a new, under-understood electronic forum, and you can't do a thing. Freedom of speech appears to be a myth.
Still, with all these rules as to how we can speak, maybe an AI English-Language Finite State Machine is just around the corner....

Academic "Freedom" by Detritus · 2000-05-19 17:20 · Score: 1

Is there any college or university left that is willing to stand up for academic freedom? Not just the trendy views of politically correct faculty members, but views that irritate large corporations, so-called progressives, professional victims and politicians?

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat

This was his own computer by divec · 2000-05-20 09:09 · Score: 1

Nice strawman sherlock. But this student's DeCSS page was totally unrelated to his academic major

[Minor point: in Oxford most people do one subject only - so "major" is the wrong word. But yes, I'm being a peadant.]
Yebbut this was on his own computer using network connectivity which is claimed to come with the room IIUC.

--

perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

Re:Oxford did absolutely the Wrong Thing by Cyberdyne · 2000-05-19 22:28 · Score: 1

However it is throttled to 8 Mb/s upstream. The vast majority of downstream bandwidth in Cambridge goes to feed personal computers in student rooms.

If Oxford have a more draconian policy on bandwidth allocation to students then they may well not need anything faster than 34 Mb/s. I suspect that a 34 Mb/s connect is vastly cheaper than a 155 Mb/s connect.

And if Oxford had an even more draconian policy, perhaps they could get away with an ISDN line instead!

I'm sure most of us would choose the ISP with the better bandwidth and less restrictive AUP - I know I would. Granted, the university is not purely an ISP - but they do act as one (both dialup and Ethernet/ATM). Cambridge is definitely the better university in this respect; having used both university's systems a fair bit, I know which I prefer. They do both hose the university I used to server-sit for, though :-(

Incidentally, in January of next year, Cambridge is getting upgraded to a symmetric OC-48 (2.5Gbit/sec), as part of the SuperJANET 4 project. Oxford isn't :-)

The Oxford official was a vital cog! by luckykaa · 2000-05-19 22:30 · Score: 1

The only way to prove the point is to get the site banned. The blithering idiot had to remove it to make the point. We shouldn't complain too much. In fact we should be thankful.

But Civil disobedience is traditionally just a way to get media attention. This didn't work. The first email was dated 17th May. The Slashdot story took 3 days to appear. The only people who are going to be interested are those who are already interested.

Re:Free Speech at Universities - Oxford and UK law by tkb · 2000-05-19 20:00 · Score: 5

Extract from Oxford University's Code of Practice regarding freedom of speech (adopted by Council in 1987):

1. General duty to uphold freedom of speech
Members, students, and employees of the University are bound at all times so to conduct themselves as to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students, and employees of the University and for visiting speakers.

However, the Code does seem primarily concerned with visiting speakers rather than publication (and predates the popularity of the Web by some years). And if exercising this freedom is outside the scope of academic activity, then the expenses incurred are the responsibility of the person organising the speech, meeting etc. - not (in general) the University.

The 1986 Education Act protects (in the UK) freedom of speech and assembly within universities. However, Geoffrey Robertson QC (a distinguished UK human rights lawyer) comments that this was introduced by the government of the day because several of its own members had been prevented from speaking at universities by demonstrations (or the fear of demonstrations) against their policies.

MODERATORS: +1 parent by Count+Spatula · 2000-05-19 22:50 · Score: 1

n/t

--
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."

Corrections to Mr. Gay's letter by Trailer+Trash · 2000-05-19 22:55 · Score: 1

From: Alan Gay
Newsgroups: ox.talk
Subject: Re: Deep linking
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:14:54 +0100
Organization: Oxford University, England

So, you are saying that all this fuss is because I'm too bone-headed to actually review the contents of your page before removing it? The result of this is that the University has spent, and is still spending, a vast amount of administrative effort and lawyers' fees as a direct result of my abject incompetence, and that's probably nothing new.

I'll leave others to discuss the sense in the University not suspending me while deciding a suitable punishment, such as a written apology to you and partial- or full- compensation for the University's unnecessary legal fees in this matter.

That's more like it.

-Michael

--
Do you have ESP?

Cock-up vs Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 20:08 · Score: 1

So lets get this straight.

- Student at Oxford Uni posts DeCSS on his website
- Student removes DeCSS but puts replaces it with something that looks the same (decss.tar.gz) to the untrained eye or cursory glance. He also links to a page where you can get the original
- Oxford receives a complaint. We all *assume* this is from the MPAA - but Oxford ain't telling.
- Oxford makes an "Emergency Ruling" and pulls the web page.
- This creates big "freedom of speech" row.

What a sad affair.

Firstly some points that are being overlooked.

1) The student had to sign an agreement to only use his website for academic purposes.

2) The website is the ultimate property of the University to deal with as it sees fit.

3) This was an "Emergency Ruling" and can be reversed if challenged through the correct committees.

So whilst on the one hand its sad - but perfectly understandable - that the Uni acted rashly in removing the site; on the other it is a bit disingenious of anyone to claim that this is about "freedom of speech". It's about the University feeling that it would rather take the lowest risk option. It's just a shame they didn't look at the site in any detail before pulling it.

The wider problem is the worrying trend to hold hosting organisations liable for their hostee's contents. This will soon mean that the terms you agree to, to get your webspace - will become tougher and more frequently enforced.

And there are only two answers to that. The long term is to use your democratic rights to lobby for legislation that makes the individual not the hoster liable. The short term is host your own site.

RatFink

A letter to Mr. Alan Gay by Sara+Chan · 2000-05-19 20:09 · Score: 5

I've sent the following letter to alan@ermine.ox.ac.uk, and CC'd a newspaper.

__________________________________________

Dear Mr. Gay,

This letter concerns OUCS's reaction to the complaints of the Motion Picture Association of America about DeCSS. As I understand it, (i) the MPAA has claimed that DeCSS is used to copy DVDs, (ii) a web site at Oxford University contained a link to a copy of DeCSS, and (iii) OUCS has forced the removal of that site.

There are three points that I hope you will be willing to consider.

First, please look at this simple example of some encrypted information: NbszIbeBMjuumfMbnc. In this case, by shifting each letter one to the left, we can easily decrypt the information: MaryHadALittleLamb. Notice, though, that "NbszIbeBMjuumfMbnc" can be copied (by hand, by computer, by whatever) just as easily as "MaryHadALittleLamb". So encryption does not provide any protection from copying. The information stored on DVDs (i.e. movies) is encrypted, but as with "NbszIbeBMjuumfMbnc", this encryption does not provide protection against copying. DeCSS does essentially one thing: it decrypts the information stored on DVDs. Hence DeCSS does not do anything that that aids in copying DVDs.

Second, you might well ask, "If the above is true, then why is the MPAA so upset?" The answer is that the MPAA does have a use for encryption: to collect extra money, in a way that is not easily visible to the consumer. Because DVDs are encrypted, each DVD player must include some decryption software. Currently, every DVD player uses decryption software that is sourced from the MPAA. The MPAA charges a fee for each copy of this software. Consumers just pay for the DVD player, but (unbeknownst to them) the player manufacturer pays a fee to the MPAA for each player sold. If DeCSS becomes widely used, then the MPAA will no longer collect those fees. The MPAA cannot copyright their own decryption algorithm, because algorithms cannot be copyrighted. So they choose to obfuscate, intimidate, and lie.

Third, this is more than just a "game", as you allege in your message to ox.talk of 2000-05-18. The purpose of DVD encryption is to get extra money from consumers. This may or may not be ethical (I would argue that it is not). But it is surely unethical for the MPAA to allege that their actions are to prevent copying. The purpose of the web site was to protest against such allegations. The actions of OUCS thus amount to disallowing a reasonable, and legal (as you can verify), protest against corporate disingenuity and to accepting the profit-motivated obfuscations, intimidations, and lies of the MPAA. Do you believe that these are reasonable actions?

Sara Chan

__________________________________________

liberalism n. The use of compassionate rhetoric for authoritarian ends.

Oxford did absolutely the Wrong Thing by Chagrin · 2000-05-19 17:23 · Score: 3

I can understand the administrative hassles in ensuring that your network is free of illegal materials, and for this I hold nothing against Oxford University in originally removing the spoof "decss" software. I would have done exactly the same thing (although I believe I would have taken the time to look at the archive before deleting it).

However, once the fact comes to light that this software is indeed NOT illegal, the site should have been immediately put back into place. Oxford has nothing to gain by extending this mistake.

Finally, Oxford backs up its decision with a terrible reason: "We're in the business of education, not controversy". Baloney! Controversy is education. This particular issue could be discussed for hours in curriculums dealing with journalistic, legal, or computer science and reveal a great deal of information that must be considered when engaged in any profession of these and many other areas.

As for Oxford's legal costs, they would never become an issue if they would stop and prove to litigants like the MPAA that they understand and know these types of cases are frivilous and won't stand up in court. To do anything less puts you in the path of being continually pushed around.

What a wonderful precedent, Oxford.

--

I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation

I find this fascinating... by fluxrad · 2000-05-19 17:25 · Score: 4

first off. anyone remember what that last A stands for in the 'MPAA'??? I just....can't...seem...to...remember...

Secondly. I sort of disagree with the article on the whole topic of universities being our last bastion of freedom. Look at napster. Universities were some of the first institutions to ban it. Look at the mid 30's. Universities in germany were sponsoring book burnings even before Hitler came to absolute power. To say defending a University just because it's a school or some such argument is sort of, well, dogmatic. The key thing to remember is the phrase "give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile." If the MPAA is going to start screwing with anyone and everyone who writes about DeCSS (Ironic that it wasn't even reverse engineered in the states), then anyone and everyone needs to fight the MPAA, and the DMCA, and any other law or organization that aims to take away rights which we feel are worth fighting for. If you let these kinds of acts go unnoticed when they're against "small" people - like joe user on the internet, then the crap that goes on at Oxford, or anywhere else for that matter, is moot.

FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network

--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume

duress? by evil_deceiver · 2000-05-20 10:50 · Score: 1

I don't think you could be considered to be under duress in signing that. "Duress" involves some threat or application of force, so unless they're holding a gun to your head and making you sign it, I'm pretty sure it's valid. If you don't sign, then you don't get an account; it's no more complex than that. The worst they could do to you if you didn't sign would be to throw you out of the school, and you probably wouldn't have a case for having your rights violated if it were a private school. Most private educational institutions will tell you that if you don't like their terms, you're free to seek alternate means of education. They're not discriminating against you on the basis of any characteristic you couldn't voluntarily change at a moment's notice.

--
[We Have No Product] [The Swindle

Slashdot Mirror

Oxford Yanks Student Page Over Spoof DeCSS

222 comments