Slashdot Mirror
EFF Files First Anti-DMCA Lawsuit
If this were a movie, it might be called "Saving Professor Felten" and would open with thunder and bombast. In real life, filing a civil suit in a federal court is one of the most boring activities imaginable, even though it's a necessary first step in the process of overturning the DMCA.
Gino J. Scarselli, Outside Lead Counsel for EFF on the case, says, "We got to the courthouse at 8:30, filed around 9, and made motions to seal exhibits to the complaints." As explained in the Complaint itself, EFF filed several of their Exhibits with requests for them to be sealed, because they believe publication of them may invite a lawsuit. The Exhibits to be sealed are Professor Felten's completed paper for the upcoming USENIX conference, and two documents written by Princeton post-grad Min Wu about the investigation performed by Felten's team against the SDMI watermarks.
It was an overcast day in Trenton. Scarselli, along with local (New Jersey) attorneys Grayson Barber and Frank Corrado, and two of the plaintiffs, Princeton residents Bede Liu and Min Wu, went through a metal detector just like anyone else (aside from staff) who enters a courthouse these days.
Scarselli says, "the only person we talked to was a law clerk." Neither the defendants nor any lawyers representing them were present. There will be plenty of conflict later, but the opening round of this drama was so low-key that it was a total yawner for all involved parties. The whole thing was over by 9:45 a.m.
The Complaint Itself, Very Briefly
Prof. Felten and others, mostly professors and graduate students from Princeton and Rice Universities, accepted the SDMI challenge to crack a specific set of digital watermarks, but instead of turning their results over to SDMI in hopes of winning the $10,000 prize offered for a successful crack, they chose instead to publish their findings in the form of an academic paper, and to present that paper at the Fourth International Information Hiding Workshop [IHW], held in Pittsburgh on April 25-27, 2001. Felten and crew believed they had every right to present their research in this public, peer-reviewed scientific forum even though they had accepted a "click through" agreement before taking on the SDMI challenge, in large part because the license to which they agreed with their click contained these words:
"You may, of course, elect not to receive compensation, in which event you will not be required to sign a separate document or assign any of your intellectual property rights, although you are still encouraged to submit details of your attack."
Despite this, SDMI threatened Felten and the other involved parties, including IHW organizers, with legal action under the DMCA. After a long series of emails between Felten, his fellow researchers, IHW people, a representative of Verance Corp., and an attorney who works for both SDMI and RIAA, the original paper, "Reading Between the Lines: Lessons from the SDMI Challenge," was first modified, then finally withdrawn.
Now Felten and friends plan to present the same paper at a USENIX Security Symposium in Washington, D.C. on August 13-17, and are asking the court to tell the defendants not to sue or threaten legal action over this new publication or any other publication, and to tell the U.S. Department of Justice, run by Attorney General John Ashcroft, not to file criminal charges against USENIX or anyone else over this matter under the DMCA. As it says in the complaint:
68. In chilling publication, the DMCA wreaks havoc in the marketplace of ideas, not only the right to speak, but the right to receive information -- the right to learn. The main mission of USENIX is to organize forums where scientists and researchers learn from each other. By intimidating the individual plaintiffs into withdrawing their paper from the IHW, however, the private Defendants prevented people from learning. If the source of Defendants' power to threaten, the DMCA, is not dispelled, Plaintiffs will not be the only victims. Without full and open access to research in areas potentially covered by the DMCA, scientists and programmers working in those areas cannot exchange ideas and fully develop their own research. As a consequence, the DMCA will harm science.This is just a brief "taste" of what the complaint says. Full text is available here.69. By imposing civil and criminal liability for publishing speech (including computer code) about technologies of access and copy control measures and copyright management information systems, the challenged DMCA provisions impermissibly restrict freedom of speech and of the press, academic freedom and other rights secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Press Conference
It was held at noon Eastern time, in person simultaneously at EFF headquarters in San Francisco and at a room borrowed from Princeton University. A few reporters were at EFF headquarters in person, but most of us dialed in and participated by phone. The media turnout was impressive; reporters from the Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, AP, NPR, Reuters, Wired, and other major news outlets showed up, which was nice to see; Slashdot has been rather lonely in covering many DMCA matters and complaints. It was nice to see so many "mainstream" pressies finally paying attention.
Felten was in San Francisco. So was most of the legal crowd. USENIX Board member Avi Rubin was on the conference call telephone. The Princeton contingent was tiny, composed only of the people who had been at the court house earlier. EFF legal director Cindy Cohn opened the show from San Francisco with a rehash of the events leading up to the suit, most of which I recapped above. (You can find more information here.)
Felten spoke briefly. The basic thrust of his prepared speech can be summed up thusly: "We are asking the government to let us do what scientists have always done -- share the results of our research."
The USENIX people noted that they hold many conferences and may be subject to both civil suits and criminal prosecution if they publish papers DMCA legal threateners (like SDMI and RIAA) don't like, and view this suit as an attempt to maintain their First Amendment rights to freely distribute technical and scientific information to USENIX members and other interested parties.
Then the press questions began. The first dozen covered ground that is familiar to most regular Slashdot readers. There is no point in rehashing these questions when a Slashdot search for "SDMI + DMCA" or just "DMCA" will give answers to every one of them.
Then Hiawatha Bray, a tech columnist for the Boston Globe, wanted to know if the case would be dropped if the SDMI and/or RIAA decide to stop hassling Felten and USENIX. The attorneys said "No." Their point here is to prevent both private companies and the DoJ from bringing DMCA threats not only against the SDMI crack researchers but against anyone who might go through the same sort of ordeal in the future, so a settlement that affected only this case would not cause the EFF to drop it. Other questions and answers followed, but again, long-time Slashdot readers already know most of them, so we won't repeat them here.
Follow the Money
Ms. Cohn says the cost of this suit, "if fully litigated," could easily reach $2 million. She estimates that the EFF-sponsored 2600 DeCSS defense has already cost nearly $1.5 million, and that suit is still cranking up the appeals chain. She also says -- yes, this is a plug -- that Slashdot readers who want to donate money to help fund all this expensive legal action can check out the EFF Web site.
(Here's the EFF membership/donation page if you'd like to whip out your credit card and pop a few bucks their way; they need all they can get!)
This is Just the Beginning
Now, basically, we sit and wait. The lawyers do lawyer-dances involving lots of paperwork. Discovery motions pass back and forth. Amicus briefs get filed. A hearing date gets set, then there's a hearing, and another hearing, and so on.
The 2600/DeCSS case has been going on for a year and a half and still isn't over. This one is likely to drag out even more. Even if Prof. Felten, his associates, and USENIX win all the relief they seek, chances are high that the RIAA, SDMI or at least one of the other defendants will appeal -- and keep appealing all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
For more info, read the EFF Press Release
The Attorney General of the United States is always sued when the plaintiff is trying to enjoin enforcement of a given law. Look up * v. Janet Reno and you'll see what I mean.
The difference is simple: I own a book. You cannot take this book away from me . It is in my house; to try to get it from me is against all sorts of other laws.
The only basis of the laws is custom. Not all cultures have the idea of provate property (as I already mentioned, I assume your read the whole post?)
I have a certain obligation, not to sit down and type it, word for word, into the computer. This is possible, but difficult.
So you support IP rights?
IP is an idea that floats around in your neurons. There's a concrete difference there.
Not really. A house has a function: to give you a place to live. An encryption algorithim also has a function: to protect IP. Just as it is wrong to destroy your home with a wrecking ball (defeating the function of the house), is it not wrong to defeat the purpose of the algorithim?
Please follow the link I provided in the story to the full text of the complaint. That should answer your question.
- Robin
If RIAA isn't planning on suing anybody, then why did they insist on changing the paper back in April, and why is Usenix so terrified about litigaction? Is it just because that press release only applies to Dr. Felton, and RIAA may still sue anybody else who tries to read (or attend a workshop on) the document under the DMCA? After all, that paper and the ideas contained within it is a "circumvention device" and quite to own under the DMCA.
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
I read the internet for the articles.
Quite easily. RIAA is an industry representation organization. It charges membership dues sufficient to pay for its expenses: office space, staff, office equipment and supplies, operational expenses (lobbying, lawyers, power, etc). It does what it does on behalf of its membership, which DOES consist of profit-making organizations. The RIAA itself is not profit-oriented.
Most companies are members of at least one such organization, even if it's only the local Chamber of Commerce. Yes, the organizations exist to help their membership make money, but the organization doesn't make money itself.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
>>>
What do I think the chances are? I would say they are about the same as the chances of me dating Sarah Michele Gellar next week; realistically as close to zero as anything can be.
>>>>
This calls for nothing less than an all-out letter writing campaign: write to Sarah Michelle Gellar and beg her to please, please, please go out with Veteran this weekend! (And no, Sarah, you don't have to put out at all.)
The DMCA doesn't support IP rights at all. It supports monopolization by giving the content creator 100% total control over all the means of deployment of his works. This is not the way other types of property work. If I sell widgets to person X, he is free to resell them to person Y, and I have no say in it at all. The DMCA also makes it so that alleged violators are assumed guilty until proven innocent.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
What is property, and why is it important? Property is important because if you have some property, and someone else takes it from you, then you can no-longer benefit from it. Yet information doesn't work like that. I can give a piece of information to someone else without taking that information away from anyone. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson said it better:
* A "strawman argument" is advancing your opinion by arguing against a false definition of your opponent's view in the hope that nobody will recognise the difference.
--
DMCA exists for one and only ONE reason- to CONTROL "intellectual" property.
Current patent and copyright law protects that already.
DMCA makes it illegal to own, make, or teach someone else how to make tools to exercise your fair usage rights. You're entitled to make copies of the content you've purchased for your own personal use (meaning for you and you alone). Doesn't matter what form the media is or the content- you're allowed that. DVDs don't let you play disks that are from different regions and if you've got a player that the DVD cartel didn't sanction (i.e. got a license from the DVD CCA to use CSS descrambling) then you don't get to play anything. The disk itself is not locked out (i.e. I can make an exact image copy with a DVD press and expect it to work, implicitly- if it were "protection" as you claim, it wouldn't work out that way).) and CSS is only there to prevent re-encoding to a new format or to play disks not in your region- it doesn't really protect anything
That, sir or madam, is content control not protection. It is there to keep people from making portion copies (fair use right) for personal projects, re-encoding to a lower bandwidth format (space/time shifting- another fair use right), and to keep them purchasing a disk in some other part of the world (Say, I buy in Singapore to watch on a DVD player there, but I live in the US- unless it's a region 1 disk, it's not going to be playable in a region 1 player...).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
About a half a year before I pay up. It's cds and movie rentals, and rock concerts, but mostly movies in the theatre. US$8.50 a pop for me and my girlfriend up fast. :)
I suppose those boycotting will have already done their part under your system....
I thought about boycotting, but our culture in the USA and in NY where I live is ripe with movie refrances and song quotes. I'm afraid I would fall out of touch and become even more stange to the unaware.
I want to watch DVD's on a Linux laptop with GPLed programs, that is what I am after. Why this should be illegal boggles my mind. (2600 and Judge Kaplan are here too.)
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
I have donating dollar for dollar to the EFF for every product I buy from the RIAA or MPAA member companies. My last donation was about US$130 and I excpect my next to top US$150.
It feels great, I suggest tring it. I watched some good movies too.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
I posted this below on it's own thread, but it's important, so I wanted it to get some instant visibility
before you donate, check your HR benefits if you work at a decent company. Many companies have policies of matching employee donations to charitable organizations up to a certain dollar amount. My last company would match up to, IIRC, $500, and my (hopefully) next will match $150.
It doesn't cost you anything more, and hey, it gives them another write-off. Make sure you get the forms you need and check to see how you have to make the donation to get the extra money to your causes.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
For those of you who work for big companies, look into your benefits you may find that your company will, up to a certain dollar amount, match any donations you yourself make to qualifying charitable organizations. I would suspect that the EFF would qualify.
If you want to donate, make sure you get the paperwork or forms you need to get your company to match your donation. My last company would match, IIRC, $500 of my donation. That's $1K to EFF for the $500 you might have given them anyway.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
Thanks for the link, I just joined.
Are you sure you posted this to the right article? I don't buy any of these arguments, and some of them just don't make sense.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
I've just had my computer make a billion copies of your article. Does this take the article away from you? No. Does this article prevent hundreds of thousands of /. readers from reading the article? No. Do my actions remove even a single cent from your pocket? No.
That is the essential difference between physical property and intellectual property.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
The difference is simple: I own a book. You cannot take this book away from me . It is in my house; to try to get it from me is against all sorts of other laws.
I have a certain obligation, not to sit down and type it, word for word, into the computer. This is possible, but difficult. In the same category are things like building your own car (from scratch, not a kit), and so forth.
IP is an idea that floats around in your neurons. There's a concrete difference there.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
This case is not about black and white stances such as "All intellectual property is wrong" and "All intellectual property is good" as your post implicitly suggests.
This case is about grey areas, and deals with questions such as: Does the DCMA go too far? Are copyright / trademark / existing IP laws adequate? The question is not, as much as you would like it to be, whether all IP is evil and wrong. It's whether the broad new IP powers granted by the DCMA are unconstitutional.
I think you might have an interesting topic for some other debate, but in the context of this story it's BARELY even on topic.
The DMCA includes both civil and criminal penalties. If anyone were charged with violating the criminal parts, the US Attorney General would be responsible for prosecuting the case. Since the plaintiffs want to prevent that from happening, Ashcroft, the current US Attorney General, is named in the suit. It's nothing personal.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
What's interesting about the document written by Felten and his associates is the fact that it goes into no details on how to actually circumvent SDMI, but just details the inherent weaknesses in the system.
This will be a very important verdict for free speech as a whole, and the case is being fast-tracked because the USENIX conference is quickly approaching (and because matters of this nature are usually treated in this fashion).
I found out about the teleconference through the 2600 web site, but I was shocked to hear some of the things that the EFF's Cindy Cohn said about 2600's lawsuits. According to her, the EFF has a better chance of winning this case because colleges are who the laws are "meant to protect", insinuating (at least to me) that 2600 has lost its cases because they're seen as hackers and subversives. That didn't leave a very pleasant taste in my mouth.
Cohn does make a very good argument for the case against the DMCA, saying that the RIAA needs to "stop interfering with the scientific process."
The conference was quite interesting, however. I really regret not recording it. There was definitely a good news media turnout. Hiawatha Bray of the Boston Globe, NewsBytes, NPR, AP, and a whole slew of independent radio and newspaper reporters that Roblimo completely has failed to mention.
Very informative. You all should have called in.
aÍÍ©ÍÌÍ£Ì'̽ͩÌÍzÍYÌÍÌY
Sometimes you gotta set up The Man...and then beat him with his own laws.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
If there was a DMCA-style law against house-destroying, you would now be guilty. You just described how to destroy a house. You didn't actually destroy a house, approve of someone else doing so, but the act of description is itself a crime.
That's what Professor Felton did. He didn't hack anyone's data. He just said, "here's how to do it."
So, you going to turn yourself in now, thought criminal?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
mp3 format, open audio licensed.
I haven't read the filing, but I believe that including Ashcroft is a formality to include the DOJ.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Physical property is a limited resource. There are only so many acres of land, so many barrels of oil, so many bushels of grain, and so many tons of steel.
Ideas are limitless in quantity.
Limited items require more protection than unlimited items. Which requires more protection: the Hope diamond or 1000 tons of coal?
I have not decided whether or not I agree that IP is a legal fiction. Regardless, your arguments are not convincing.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I've been in the mood to feed the trolls today:
Felten is doing what is right and proper in the United States to change things: he is using the courts.
At least there is *something* here. Frequently, these type of suits are brought before there is ANY issue.
I don't give two shits whether this case is about money. If it means the DMCA is dumped like it should be, so be it.
This suit has a better chance of success than Corley's.
First, Corley is a bit of a wanker. Sure, Felton may look smug, but Corley IS smug.
Second, Felton and the gang are researchers, trying to publish their original work. There must be some legal terminology, but I have no doubt that the originator has greater rights than a reporter.
Third, Corley ignored (or intelligently skirted) an injunction.
Fourth, Corley's case had some weirdness involving to what extent code is speech. This case is much clearer.
Finally, Corley was/is a defendant, using the problems of the DMCA as a defense. Felten being a plaintiff changes the way the game is played. Much like the MPAA set the rules in the decss case, Felten et al. get to set the groundwork in this case.
It's clear that Corley's case is going poorly, and so now it is time to open up the second front. In addition to the reasons mentioned above, the EFF has learned from that experience, and will apply those lessons to this case.
So, of course this lawsuit is a setup. That's the way the US legal system can work.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Absolutely correct. The Reformation followed two huge changes in society:
- literacy - people could read the Bible and other works in their own language for the first time without having it dispensed to them from the (often corrupt) pulpit; and
- trade. The vast quantities of money extracted by Rome could be better used for economic gain once people could make up their own minds whether compulsory church taxes were a noble cause or not.
But I would say that the enabler for the Reformation was technological. It was the printing press that allowed people to read the Bible and commentaries on it in their own language and decide for themselves instead of letting Rome decide for them. I read somewhere that Martin Luther himself was responsible for nearly half of all sales of published works in Germany during his lifetime.The modern parallel to the printing press is of course the Internet. To follow your example, it's easy to see what the most popular activity is on the Net: communicating with other people directly. Whether it's IRC or e-mail or chat forums or Slashdot, people prefer to use the Net to interact with other people more than they do to buy stuff or interact with corporations. But that's another topic altogether...
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Sounds like you've never read _The Prince_. Machiavelli did not write about some "fictional prince"; his book was openly a discussion of the maintenance of political power. There were no characters and there was no fiction.
Further, the concept of Machiavelli's ideas being "evil" was one developed intentionally by the Catholic Church because they did not feel that his writing was religious enough (despite Machiavelli writing that a proper relationship with God and the church was important) and wished to supress his ideas. The other poster quoted _The Prince_ as saying "it is more important to be feared than loved" but obviously didn't read the rest of the paragraph that he is quoting from. Machiavelli was very careful in making that statement, noting that it was his opinion and clarifying that he believed that for a ruler to be loved is also very important.
Please do not make false statements about important literary works that you have not read.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Except that encryption offers no threat to anyone else. I cannot kill my neighbors accidently with a bit of code. You could kill them accidently with a howitizer. Since code offers no threat to anyone and it is a weapon, banning it for the public good won't fly. It is only a threat to the government in that case, and the courts have traditionally sided for the citizen in those cases. Besides, encryption software has been classified as a weapon for almost 30-40 years. Not once in that time has the US government prevented a citizen from using and creating cryptography for internal use (Any reason why? Could it be the 2nd). It is only cared about export, which isn't covered by the 2nd Amendment. Since export is so easy over the internet, they seem more heavy handed then they actually are.
He had lawyers. They were unable to have his confession excluded at trial, appealed it through to the Supreme Court, who ordered a new trial with the confession thrown out. Miranda was again convicted. He died in 1976 after being stabbed during an argument in a bar. The police arrested a suspect, but were forced to release him when he chose to remain silent after being advised of his rights, and noone was ever charged.
The RIAA has been very clear in communicating to everyone that they have no intention to sue Professor Felten.
The Secure Digital Music Initiative Foundation (SDMI) does not - nor did it ever - intend to bring any legal action against Professor Felten or his co-authors.
Right. They waved a big baseball bat in his face and then said "Oh this? We weren't going to hit you with it. Honest."
The RIAA realized in hindsight that the threat made them look bad and backpedaled. I'm with the smartass on this one.
DMCA exists for one reason: to protect intellectual property.
No. Intellectual property was already protected; if Disney can show that you're infringing on its copyrighted material, they can take you to court. That has nothing to do with the DMCA.
It does not matter who they blame it on as long as they are broke they can't bribe the congress critters.
War is necrophilia.
Someone sure is humor impaired around here.
Best Slashdot Co
I don't think its that bad. After all, the EFF thinks it has enough merit to support it. The problem here is that the RIAA threatened.. but after the threats had their desired effect (and the paper was pulled) RIAA backpedaled in the face of public opinion and stated they had no intention of suing Felton. Why? because Felton's case is even stronger than 2600's and could set a bad (for the RIAA) precendent.
Here the DMCA is clearly limiting a form of speech (scholarly study) that is generally regarded as protected. In the 2600 case they are having a tough time claiming that DeCCS, since it wasn't originally intended as a tool of study. Instead its computer code designed for the express purpose of bypassing an "content protection system" and is in clear violation of the DMCA while being questionable protected speech
This is also a nice chance to spotlight corporate "bullying" where the threat of a lawsuit can be used to silence critics, regardless of whether the threat has any merits.
Right; but the particulars of these two fictions (physical property and intellectual property) are quite different (difference in duplication costs and everything else that implies), and so a justification of one doesn't, per se, justify the other. I might say that a life-plus-70 copyright term for software strongly encourages monopolisation.
Besides, the point here is not that the DCMA protects intellectual property. The point is that it can be used to prevent people from doing things which they were allowed to do in the previously existing Intellectual Property framework. Like writing software to play DVDs, or fast-forwarding through the trailers, or watching a DVD bought in a different part of the world, that has a built-in artificial incompatibility with local players. Or writing a report about the lack of security in an encryption system.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Also remember that Machiavelli was more or less a toady to the very prince he was instructing in methods of attaining and keeping power. What would you do? Proclaim the benefits of democracy, free love, and tai chi? The Prince is at least a look at the ugly underbelly of politics for which we should design systems to keep in check.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
AGH! s/didn't/did !
I DID give EFF $60. I'm a good boy. Ok.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Encryption and encryption algorithms have long been legally considered "munitions". By this same logic, it is our second amendment right to have encryption software and to encrypt anything we wish. We also have the opposing decryption algorithm. So having DeCSS would be no different than owning a 9mm pistol. The same could be applied to the cracking of the watermarks.
According to the EFF web site, their yearly budget is only $2M, which is less than nothing compared to the giant bullies they're fighting. So if you have any money to donate, they do count!
Because the company in question has already threatened to sue them if they publish HOW the watermark is defective and how to circumvent it - and the potential penalties are draconian.
The company probably threatened suit because it would like to do a somewhat tightened-up version of the watermarking scheme and sell THAT. Publication of the research would give the readers (researchers in the field):
a detailed list of what the researchers found
powerful tools to investigate related schemes
a strong insight into the ways the company's designers were hiding the watermark information
This would compromise all related schemes, effectively destroying not just the original set of schemes, but everything the company might develop in the future.
If the company can sue and win, it means major financial damage for the researchers, their college, their peer-reviewed journal, and the specialty's academic organization. This amounts to the bulk of the academics and professionals that are currently working in the field. Such a result would have the proverbial "chilling effect" on further research into weaknesses of copy-protection and watermarking systems. (Chilling as in liquid nitrogen.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The RIAA's power comes from the money they amass from the music-buying public. Without money, they are dead in the water. There is only one way to defeat them, don't buy their products. If you like an artist's work, send him/her a personal check instead.
Don't let them take away our remaining liberties a little bit at a time until there is none left. The internet is our weapon of self-defence. We must use it to fight all would-be enslavers. We must do everything we can to keep it free. Send them a message they will not soon forget. Show them who is really in charge.
Download it all and copy it all!
Demand liberty! Nothing less!
Any time I think of buying a CD or DVD while this case is on, I'll donate at least the same amount to the EFF for this case. I'd hate to be funding the defense ...
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
In short, you can't sue the DoJ to not press charges against USENIX, but you can force Ashcroft to make the DoJ not press charges.
-bugg
I'll simplify for ya: 1. Felten and All were threatened.
2. Threat of legal action possible because DMCA allows it.
3. Paper not shown because of legal threat.
Thus, DMCA prevents scientific discussion of ideas in areas covered by DMCA. This violates basic Constitutional rights and makes the DMCA illegal.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
The RIAA is a non-profit organization. It happens that it is an organization of for profit recording companies all of which are quite profitable. It also happens that the major purpose of the RIAA is to protect the profits of the member organizations. Despite all of this, the RIAA itself doesn't actually produce any products besides industry propaganda. Non-profit really doesn't say all that much about an organization either, it's just some accounting practices and more favorable tax regulations that go along with them.
________________________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
In US v. Miller in 1934, the Supreme Court rather clearly stated that the 2nd ammendment applies only to arms that are suitable for militia use (which is why the weapon in question, a sawed-off shotgun, was deemed unprotected).
One could, however, make the point that secure communications are invaluable to the militia and thus encryption algorythms would be a protected "arm"--this would certainly not include DeCSS however, as it serves no military purpose.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
However reality is different - we now have a reliable, cheap, decentralized mechanism for moving information around - the RIAA is redundant - the asteroid has landed and we mammals just need to run around and make sure we don't get crushed by falling dinosaurs
I just made a donation in the amount of $75.00. I would have donated a whole lot more for this cause, but I've been spending WAY too much lately and money is tight now.
Somehow this makes me feel like my existence is validated when I donate cash that I earned to such a good cause. This isn't like most charity donations where you don't have any clue what is done with your money, such as donating to your local police. Don't we already pay taxes for that? Somehow I feel that they squander all that money.
Please, everyone, if you can afford it(or not), please donate something to the EFF. Remember, they do not run on a high budget, so every bit you donate is a big help, for real. This is a REAL cause and it is worth it.
Let's do what we can to take this country back.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Actually, there is a HUGE difference in the two examples you gave.
While bombs can literally kill thousands of people and are a direct threat to the citizens of this country, copyright control circumvention is only an extremely minor threat to a monstrous international corporation, which in the end will probably not even affect it's bottom line in a visible way.
Therefore, the real intent of the DMCA is to allow certain corporations to gain ever increasing control of IP and create a permanent government granted monopoly on all sorts things, from music, movies, to software and anything else that isn't a physical object.
Obviously, the DMCA is a direct result of corporate corruption in our government, to say otherwise is ridiculous.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
why do afford physical property the privilege of protection under law?
One primary reason: exclusivity. If I'm using a plot of land, or a hammer, or a hamburger, or any other valuable physical thing, then nobody else can use it until I'm done. If I have a digital copy of a novel, or a song, or a piece of software, or any other valuable informational thing, other people's use of it has no effect whatsoever on me.
Ideology breeds Hypocrisy. Just how much is up to you.
A house has a function: to give you a place to live. An encryption algorithim also has a function: to protect IP. Just as it is wrong to destroy your home with a wrecking ball (defeating the function of the house), is it not wrong to defeat the purpose of the algorithim?
That depends on how well thought-out your method of protection is. Imagine if someone were to put a screen door on a submarine, then submegered. Who is at fault here - the water for breaking through the door? or the dumbass who fullfilled the cliché?
- passion
I just had a random thought. The 2nd Amendment says that people have the right to bear "Arms". Dictionary.com, other than the normal definition as a part of one's body, has one definition of "arms" as weapons. Given the MPAA's recent comparisons of DeCSS to a crowbar, which is a weapon, I wonder if DeCSS could be argued under right to bear arms? While the 2nd Amendment does say that the purpose of the Amendment is to allow militias, which are "necessary to the security of a free state", hasn't it also been interperted to allow firearms to prevent against tyrany if necessary. Of course, this opens up the whole can of worms of gun control laws and regulation, but it's something I'd love to hear some feedback on.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Oh really?
A sI remember the original issue is that they DID threaten to sue him. It was only AFTER he came out, withdrew the paper, and made statments hinting at this lawsuit comming that they "changed their tune" and said they "never intended to sue him"
If they never intended to sue him, then why did they threaten him with legal action? Is harrassment a standard policy of the SDMI lawyers? An accepted legal practice?
The fact is, they expected him to back down and shut up - just like everyone else that they are used to comming up against. They had no intention to sue him, because they never expected him to publish the paper after the first letter.
I applaud Felton. He got them to make the mistake he needed them to make. So what if he is risking less? Its fighting smart.
The RIAA is like all the other scaremongers. They go after the weak with threats of lawsuits and stop the opposition by scaring them into backing down. They would never let an issue get to court unless they knew they could win.
Felton is fighting back, forcing the issue into court. I think thats great.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Generally whoever frames the argument wins. The MPAA framed the DeCSS case as "evil hackers stealing movies". Felder frames his case as "scientists being censored in the pursuit of knowledge". Basically there is no way he can lose.
The DMCA hinges on the concept of a circumvention device. If the DeCSS case was framed similarly, with heavy emphasis on scientific analysis the weakness of CSS, with emphasis on abstract mathematical algorithms, it would have won. Unfortunately DeCSS was just a hack tool. Without the larger context there was no way it could possibly win.
Seems to me, granting of course that this case succeeds, that all someone needs to do is write a good academic paper exploring, comparing, and critiquing the various methods of encryption and copy control for "protecting" intellectual property, with a reasonable portion about DeCSS and of course discussion of the algorithm.
Sure the above topic needs work, but if you try to get that published, then maybe some "important " people (Supreme Court maybe..?) will completely understand how locking up DeCSS could really be quite the slippery slope...
Eric
I hope the EFF team hasn't become complacent in that they have won a very strong position. Like a game of chess, they have made a great move to trap the opponent, but they still have to stay entirely aware of the whole game to make sure that the opponent's sacrifice wasn't just part of a larger trap.
--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Totally offtopic, I realize... But history is important, neh?
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
The above was taken from the RIAA website, under the "Freedom of Speach" section.
Kind of ironic...... :)
How exactly is this suit "against U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft"?
Read the filing. Rights advocates often sue the the Attorney General in order to overturn a bad law; see also the case formerly known as Eldred v. Reno , which seeks to overturn the Sonny Bono Effectively Perpetual Copyright Act.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Boycotts will fail for the following reasons
- The company does not know you are boycotting their product.
- The company does not why you are boycotting their product.
- The public is not aware that you are boycotting a product and so cannot decide to boycott for the same reason. Likewise, you are only aware of a fraction of the products you might want to boycott if you knew the gory details.
- You (and the public) are often not aware of an good alternative product (good means a product that satisfies your requirements and hopefully competes directly in the market with the boycotted product)
All of these can be addressed by a website, you type in a product name, company name or barcode etc and are presented with a list of people boycotting the product, why, and an alternate product.Mainstream appeal can be gained because the boycotts don't have to be ethically or politically motivated - "Don't buy blarg model TV because their power switches break", "blarg potatoe chips are fried in animal fat not vegitable oil" etc.
I would make the site, but don't want to be dragged through courts by some company who doesn't want the world knowing their product sucks. The owner of www.boycott.org may have something similar in mind, but he has not gotten around to anything for a while.
As for cars, in some cities you do need them, luckily not this one. I do not have a car, though I could buy one tommorrow if I needed one (On the odd ocassion I do need one, I taxi). However I often feel like I want a car... why? Because your fucked up culture is continually bombarding me with the idea that a car is a status symbol and only losers don't have one.
While doing some research for a potential client, I came across igive.com. The base concept is that you can buy stuff from regular Internet retailers (probably through affiliate programs of some type) and part of the money will go to your favorite organization. I have the EFF as mine.
The RIAA and SDMI are acting like the church in the dark ages. In the old days, attempting to perform research or disseminate scientific ideas led to excommunication or death. Today, the corporations sue you out of existence.
- You don't know how to maintain a station wagon either!
I hope this is successful.
circa75.com
Audio will be posted online at 10pm ET tonight, or you might be able to catch it on the radio-- it's the next to last piece in the program.
(oh yeah-- right now, it's titled "Napster." ignore that; someone was smoking crack.)
READING
THIS
PROTECTED
MESSAGE
WITHOUT
AN
OFFICIAL
PLAYER
IS
A
CRIME
Now, time to gave some more money to the EFF so they will defend me.
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
Also, is the MPAA named in this suit? Like the RIAA, they too have been heavily abusing the DMCA. Or, would it not matter in this case anyway, just as long as the DMCA is struck down. Just think of the effects a win here would have on DeCSS, etc.
It had to be said, but we need a victory in this case.
---
I am getting damn sick of constantly losing karma for no reason.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA) is a New York not-for-profit corporation with a place of business in Washington D.C. 20036. It represents entities which manufacture and distribute sound recordings, including the five major labels and many of their subsidiary labels.
(Taken from the complaint)
How the hell can the RIAA call itself nonprofit? It's padding its own damn profit margins with all this secure music BS, not paying the artists, etc.
The RIAA may be nonprofit in name, but to say that they are actually a nonprofit organization is plain BS.
---
I am getting damn sick of constantly losing karma for no reason.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
The problem with campaign finance reform, at least what's proposed by McCain and the others, is that it stifles political speech from non-profit groups, as well as building a big new bureacracy.
Take the NRA for example: if McCain gets his way, the postcards that the NRA sends out that says "we urge you to vote for so-and-so in your local election" will count as a *campaign contribution* and they'll be tightly regulated. That goes for Sierra Club postcards too, and Greenpeace, and the EFF... Break these laws and it's fines and jail time.
Fines or jail time... for a group of people sending out postcards saying "vote for _________." How is that an improvement?
I was in favor of campaign finance reform until I read more about it, and I realized that in the end it would prevent my point of view from being "taken to the Hill" through the non-profit groups I am affiliated with. That's no good.
The best article I have on the matter right now is in a gun magazine, but it should be easy to find more info online... I bet most large political groups (NRA, Sierra Club, etc.) are down on this idea, and rightly so.
Of course, if you don't feel strongly about any political issues you may not care about it anyway.
I will be very interested in this case and follow it closely, but I encourage all the Slashdot readers to take the time to donate to the EFF.
-Pat
"Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion. You must first set yourself on fire." -- Fred Shero
If we really want to solve this problem, we need to get a politician in Washington in our Corner. Someone sympathatic to our cause, that can work within the system to fix these issues. The DMCA should never have been passed it got passed because of lobby groups I am sure, that talked our local reps into thinking this was a good idea. We need to lobby back.
Prohibition was bad idea, and it was reversed. This is a bad idea and if we play within the system we could get this reversed. This is the unfortunate loop hole in the US govenment by representation.
(Disclaimer I proud to be an American please do not take this as any kind of disention on my part, just an analysis of what i think is wrong some times. Its a double edged sword, in many ways.)
The bulk of the work that gets done in Congress is a good thing, and has good results, but unfortunately the otherside of the sword, is that it also makes it just as easy for the true reprehensible stuff to get done too, and for the most part with out the public really being aware that its happening, or getting much say in it. The Passage of the DMCA was bought by the powers that be, the publishers of the word have infinately more money to pay lobbists to talk congress, et al into voting the way they want things. If this had been voted on by the poblic at large, and worded in such a way that the common man could understand it it would have never become law.
ie "Please vote YES or NO, the govenment would like to take away your right to freely distribute infomation as you see fit so that the publishing and recording industry can make sure they maintain thier insane profit margins. A vote of yes would make this Law, and restrict your ability to freely share your ideas, and expose you to law suit for doing anything that big business considers a violation of thier profit margins. A vote of NO would continue under the freedom of information, and free speesh as you have always enjoyed in America."
I propose the (DFCA)Digital Freedom Continuence Act. "1. Congress Shall Pass no law restricting your ability to do anything digitally that you can do through handwritten, and or Analog means. 2. Congress shall not allow the granting of a patent for any device that would knowingly impinge upon your ability to do anything digitally that you could do via handwritten or Analog means. 3. It shall be unlawful to distribute technology which would knowingly violate the Free Speech and Fair use intentions of the Consitution of the United states of America. 4. It shall hence forth be understood that once "content" is purchased, it is the purchaser's right to do what ever they choose with that content, and shall have the right to do as they have always been able to do via handwritten, or analog means." I could probably expand on this but I figure thats a start to restoring my freedom as I understood it before the DMCA got into the wild.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Not to mention that if Felton's case helps weaken the DMCA, this does Corley an immense world of good!
I do not have a signature
How exactly is this suit "against U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft"?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
What do I think the chances are? I would say they are about the same as the chances of me dating Sarah Michele Gellar next week; realistically as close to zero as anything can be.
Why do I say that?
So, am I in favor of just giving up because it is hopeless? No, this is one of those hopeless fights that anyone who cherishes their freedom has to fight - not because it can be won - but because it can't be won; at a minimum the opposition needs to walk away holding a bloody nose. By the way, I am a paying member of the EFF, and I intend to contribute more for this case.
Besides, every once in a while - against all odds - the good guys do win one. It could happen - the race is not always to the swift - nor the fight always to the strong - but odds are that's how it is going to turn out.
Don't let Felten distract you from the real DMCA issue. Newspaper headlines translate directly into departmental funding at major universities. This isn't about freedom of speech, it's about grant money.
You're right... newspaper headlines are certainly free publicity to the university. The road runs both ways, however... a university bringing a frivilous lawsuit forward would just result in an academic backlash, to say the least.
This suit has merit... it directly challenges the DMCA's ability to surpress the free release of information regarding how to defeat a copyright protection scheme. This directly relates to 2600's lawsuit, which is for, fundamentally, the same thing.
Can we speak freely about how to defeat a copyright protection scheme? The first amendment says yes, the DMCA says no.
So what if the university gets some free press... this could be the weapon against the DMCA we've been waiting for.
--
All opinions presented here aren't mine.
The Justice League, God, Jesus, and Satan himself will also be siding with the EFF in this case to halt the DMCA's reign of terror. Yeah, right. I highly doubt anything will ever come with this. Call me a cynic, but ever since the DeCSS case, I've lost all faith in the government using common sense when working on technology oriented legislation.
So you've lost faith, does that mean you give up? It's attitudes like this that will help the RIAA and MPAA take over our lives. If your favorite sports team is losing badly do you stop cheering them on?
I won't call you a cynic, I'll call you a quitter.
VCD quality leaves much to be desired and you can make that DVD, but i can't have the level of interactivness of normal DVD's and you are limited to about 1 hour of video. Not exactly a level playing ground.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Picture it, all Media and Media creators have copy control built in. Not only that, but it uses a similiar strategy that DVD uses: Licensed keys. Now, what makes you think that some kid working on an album in his basement will be able to create that media so that it plays on standard players? If he could, then the very nature of the key system has been broken.
They don't want to make it illegial to copy media, it has already been illegal for a VERY LONG TIME to do that. They don't want to "protect intellectual property", its already legally protected. They want to control who can create the players and who can create the content. GIven them full control over what is publish and what is not published. A monolopy based of a mutual agreement not to compete based on price or artisitic contractual obligations (RIAA anyone?).
The government should have absolutly no vested interest limiting the free exchange of ideas. Any ideas. No matter how absurd they are, no matter what they can be used for. Without that guarantee, we all might as well be slaves.
If i can publish a book detailing how to make bombs, why can't Fenton publish a paper on how SDMI is full of crap? There is no difference.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Despite this, SDMI threatened Felten and all the rest, including IHW organizers, with legal action under the DMCA
This seems a little weird to me and I said this last time but how the hell can they challenge the DMCA over a threat? They only threatened a lawsuit. They didn't initiate one. Last I checked I can threaten to sue each and everyone of you for whatever I want.
Watch this:
Me: Mod me down and I'll sue Slashdot for slander.
Slashdot: Please don't let him sue us!
What does that exchange mean to the law? My guess is about as much as my opinion matters to most of you. Seriously though, the RIAA's use of the DMCA as a sword instead of sheild in this case is moot. All they did was invoke a name, not a lawsuit.
BOSTON SUCKS!
In respect to smartass, go to that very page on RIAA's site you refer to and check out their words on their efforts to protect free speech. RIAA's behavior comes across as "We're all for free speech, as long as it's good for us. If it's bad, we'll sue." Hiding behind a law you helped draft, lobby, and get passed does not veil them from their true intentions. It makes them hypocrites.
As far as doing this for his own good as you assert, hmm, I guess the RIAA/SMDI lawsuit threat had no benefit for them, either? Trying to attack one person for the behavior exhibited in kind by the other seems to me, and I apologize for the insult even though it's intentional, hypocritical itself. And pointing out such things will have little if any legal impact anyways. I doubt that the defendants in this case will use "He's just doing this for his own good" as a defense. That he or RIAA/SMDI get publicity (good or bad) is ancillary, a byproduct which has very little legal worth.
The RIAA has been very clear in communicating to everyone that they have no intention to sue Professor Felten.
Well we all know what path good intentions leads to. Guess the Professor is too smartass to take it. Also, when you threaten to sue over an issue and then say "Umm, not him, specifically" even though he is a part of the work at contention, your message gets watered down. I don't think that's "very clear" at all. In fact, that just clouds the issues and makes it even less clear what their real intent is(was). I think it would be extremely naive for the Professor to take RIAA/SMDI on their word and supposed intentions.
So why is this case happening?
Hmm, maybe it's because RIAA/SMDI already threatened (if indirectly) before? And since they want to publish their works in the future, the only alternative left is to seek protection from future threats again? Your right, his behaviour is obviously illogical and self-promoting, so let's just call him names.
Don't let Felten distract you from the real DMCA issue
I won't, and I won't let personal attacks against him sway me the other way either. It is a "real" issue, the fact that you don't like the manner in which it is being addressed or by who doesn't make it any less so.
I have lots of money. It doesn't physically exist, but it's "in" all kinds of accounts. Really, they're just bits in some databases somewhere. Those bits aren't my money. There are hardcopies of the database information, but those hardcopies aren't my money either. The only thing that makes it my money is that everyone agrees that it's mine, whatever it is. It's an idea that floats around in people's neurons.
The notion of property has nothing to do with physical posession. The thing that defines property is the right to exclude. I own that money because I, by default, exclude other people from doing certain things with it. I decide what is lawful and what is not in regards to that money. When I deposit it in the bank, I license the bank to play stocks with it and invest it in other ways. In the same vein, the reason it is illegal to enter your house and take your book is that society has decided that you have exclusive rights over your house, and you can decide (though this is the default) that my entering your house without an invitation is against the law.
There really is no concrete difference, under the law. (Morally, you may have something different to say about it.) That society has decided to give exclusive rights over ideas to the originators of them is just an extension of the idea of property.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
"Could it be that a university professor presents a more sypathetic character than the publisher of a hacker magizine? Unfortunately though it shouldn't matter it does. The first amendment was written for both. Hopefully this will all lead th the DCMA getting struck down and large corporations not getting to tell us what we can or can't publish or say"
You are right, of course. While legally everyone is guaranteed equality before the law, clearly, some are more "equal" than others.
Though Corley and 2600 had the Constitution on their side in their case, the fact that they were "hackers" led to the invlaidation of their cause in the public eye. It didn't help that the case was heard in front of a judge who had clearly made up his minde long before any evidence was presented.
Professor Felten stands a much better chance of prevailing, simply because he is a professor at one of America's most highly respected universities. No other reason. I don't feel that his case has any more or any less merit than DeCSS, except in that Felten's case is clearly speech of the kind expressed in the Constitution (because print and academic speech existed in the 1780's).
So yes, I think WHO Felten is in many ways matters more than his case. Which will be extremely difficult for the RIAA to defend against.
At best though, I don't see the DMCA being ruled Unconstitutional, but the more onerous provisions most likely will be.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
And now we know the rest of the story.
All of you that were railing about academic freedom being impinged upon as well as Prof. Felten's lack of courage (yes, that was commonly stated here) should apologize, sit down, and practice stfu for awhile.
The reason they pulled the paper was simple: they created a clear instance of the DMCA enabling a "chilling effect" on free speech.
Which leads to the conclusion that, since there has been precedence for "chilling effect" making laws unconstitutional for 1st amendment thingies, that this case is intended to go to the Supremes, BEFORE the composition of the court is changed any further towards corporatism.
Elegant, sneaky, and truly Machiavellian.
We owe all parties concerned a profound debt of thanks...
Protege Posterioram Tuam
And of course, the RIAA can be completely trusted to follow through on non-legally binding public declarations.
This is much more important than "picking a fight" or "getting attention"... this is about defeating a very bad piece of legislation that should never have been passed in the first place.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Picture it, all Media and Media creators have copy control built in. Not only that, but it uses a similiar strategy that DVD uses: Licensed keys. Now, what makes you think that some kid working on an album in his basement will be able to create that media so that it plays on standard players? If he could, then the very nature of the key system has been broken.
Anyone can make a VCD or DVD (assuming they can afford the latest PowerMac until the hardware comes down in price) and have it place on ordinary DVD players. Encrypting the content is optional. (As are, BTW, region codes and Macrovision.)
Its possible the next system won't be like that, but for DVDs, encrypted and non-encrypted media can be played on the same player.
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
VCD quality leaves much to be desired and you can make that DVD, but i can't have the level of interactivness of normal DVD's and you are limited to about 1 hour of video. Not exactly a level playing ground.
You're only stuck making VCDs because because DVD writers are still way too expensive. As the price comes down, you'll be able to make full-fledged DVDs, assuming you have the software (and the talent).
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
"Slashdot has been rather lonely in covering many DMCA matters and complaints; it was nice to see so many "mainstream" pressies finally paying attention. "
Could it be that a university professor presents a more sypathetic character than the publisher of a hacker magizine? Unfortunately though it shouldn't matter it does. The first amendment was written for both. Hopefully this will all lead th the DCMA getting struck down and large corporations not getting to tell us what we can or can't publish or say.
Americans could not be more self absorbed if they were made of equal parts water and paper towel. -Dennis Miller
That we, the people, have to donate money in order to uphold the constitution. It should not be possible for an organisation to bulldoze the constitution by spending enough money. Does the legal system have no mechanisms to protect itself from miscarriage of justice? If the only mechanism is appeal, and filing an appeal requires big money, how can there ever be justice? If the founding fathers knew that justice was so easily thwarted by big money, would they have added some extra safeguards to the constitution?
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
Hrm, it seems to me that as intelligent as some of the posters on this board are, they all seem to fall into the mindset that a) big business is bad (which it is in many cases) and b) free is good.
No matter what the case, they tend to hold tightly to these truths and refuse to look at things from a different point of view. Since I am still new here and haven't been converted to the flock (zombie masses?) I'll go ahead and try to present the other point of view (the unpopular one).
IP protection is necessary!
The protection of IP is important because it ensures the continued livelihood of whoever came up with the idea. If the cook of a local burger stand developed a wonderful new ingredient to add to his hamburgers, would it be right for a large corporation to take the recipe and disseminate it without his consent? Thus, the cook would no longer have this edge in the market, and would potentially lose much of his business to the competitor(s). You may say, 'Well, of course it's wrong for the Big Bad Corp to do that to the little guy!' but what if the situations were reversed? Is it right for the little guy to do that to the Big Bad Corp?
Just because you steal from a faceless company doesn't make it right. It has been a disturbing trend that people feel that they can lie on their income taxes because they *think* they aren't stealing from a person, when in actuality they are stealing from all of us.
Ok, enough of my rant. Honestly, though, I have alot of *ahem* evaluation softwarez on my computer that I have little to no remorse of, uh, evaluating. I also applaud Dr. Felton's effort in trying to fight a company that would put a stranglehold on information (whatever it's forms may be). I just wanted to write this because rather than making valid arguments, it seems as though many slashdotters tend to disguise the same old prejudices (big company bad, free thing good) in different words every time this sort of topic comes up.
My karma is -1 because I don't use AC posting. LOL.