WIPO recently decided a domain name dispute in favor of Time Warner and against someone who had registered a bunch of Harry Potter domain names. Unexceptional, since the proceeding was uncontested, but the decision casts possible new light on the origins of the WWW:
"This case is an interesting one from the perspective of the
history of the Internet and the rumors associated with its
creation. Stories have circulated that the inspiration for the
Internet was the Owl Post system employed by wizards and students
of wizardry in the Wizarding World. The system is often referred to
as "The Way of the Wizarding World" (sometimes abbreviated in treatises
of magic as "the three w's or "www"), and it is indeed the warp and
woof of all wizard-to-wizard communication. In this system, a network
of owls is employed to transmit information reliably and quickly.
Indeed, some have claimed that the surname of the late, revered
Father of ICANN, Jonathan B. Postel, is a Slavic derivation of the
Romanian word for Owl Post. Thus, we approach our work in this
case with especial seriousness."
Neither Tim Berners-Lee nor any recent Presidential candidate could be reached for comment.
Would it help the "code is speech" argument to
have tools that map between a programming language
and a natural language? This may have been done
already, in which case I'd appreciate a pointer.
Prof. Touretzky has such a tool, written by Omri Schwarz in October, in his Gallery
I think you meant "circumvention tools", not "anti-circumvention tools."
Indeed.;-)
Seriously, LOC only was given the right by DMCA to make exemptions to the circumvention provisions, not the distribution ones, so it could not have addressed distribution. Subsequent to the LOC rulemaking, which exempted *only* censorware research and one other non-controversial class, there have been many who have called for Congress to revisit the whole concept of DMCA, and some who have made the call are in Congress. Whether (or when) that might happen, I just don't know, though I know that I would like to see it happen.
His discussion of the legal risks of decrypting these blacklists is fascinating too,
and (as he likes to say) "a topic in itself." He would like to open up the source
to his SmartFilter-decryption tool but feels the legal risk is too high. How sad is
that?
IAAL, and to me, this is the more important part of the piece. He's written a tool which arguably is legal because of the LOC exemption for censorware research to the DMCA anti-circumvention provision, but (understandably) he's reluctant to distribute it, allowing for a more full analysis of SmartFilter's flaws, because there is no similar exemption for distribution of anti-circumvention tools.
We here on Slashdot have seen tons of stories on the flaws of censorware, but the message is one still not gotten by much of the media or the general public. A truly exhaustive analysis of SmartFilter or other censorware products would help, but LOC's "half a loaf" exemption prevents that from happening without some reasonable fear of legal risk.
Michael writes that "For the first time,
U.S. citizens will have a right to inspect and copy information in their medical
files."
The sentence should read that, for the first time, U.S. citizens "will have a federal right to inspect and copy...." Most states already give such rights to patients. In California, for example, Health and Safety Code Section 123110(a) provides in part that:
any adult patient of a health care provider, any minor
patient authorized by law to consent to medical treatment, and any
patient representative shall be entitled to inspect patient records
upon presenting to the health care provider a written request for
those records and upon payment of reasonable clerical costs incurred
in locating and making the records available.
Then subsection (b) provides a right to copy all records as to which a patient has a right of inspection.
The regulations accomplish some things, but the great majority of Americans already have the right to inspect and copy their medical records.
This is NUTS. The two MOST needed TLD's are.kids and.xxx/.porn..
I DO NOT understand their logic at all. This is surely not the brightest thing for them to do, they must be
trying to keep their corporate sponsors (donations, fees, etc.) happy for now.
I'm no big fan of ICANN, but there is a fairly good explanation here.
As you know, the Openlaw/DVD mail list was a direct outgrowth of continuing discussions on slashdot about the DVD/DeCSS cases.
As someone who has been a practicing First Amendment lawyer for a very long time (22 years), though not as long as you (this is directed to Martin Garbus), I was, at first, highly skeptical of the idea that a group of mostly programmers could make any meaningful contribution to an actual court case.
But as time went on, the discussions became more focused, my view on that, borne of my own traditional way of doing legal briefs, came to change considerably. I saw arguments being developed (and trashed, where appropriate) that likely would not have happened but for the massive input into that list. Your colleague Ed Hernstadt posted there occasionally, my understanding is that your team was getting good information from there, and even one of your expert witnesses (Ole Craig) seems to have come to your attention as a result of his contributions to that list.
So my question, primarily for Martin, is how much did you really gain from that list? Was the Openlaw/DVD forum really of meaningful help to your efforts, or, at least in the context of providing specific help to the trial lawyers, was it a waste of time for those who participated?
I know, of course, that Kaplan ruled against the defense today, but I'm really looking at the broader implications of something like that forum. Do you see it as something which, in the appropriate circumstances, can have real value to a case?
So long as no one is required to abide by the list that MAPS creates of mail
abusers, would a restraining order preventing them from listing a spammer (by
their definition) ever work? I rather hope not.
Would it work against MAPS itself? Yes, MAPS is subject to court orders just like everyone else. But if, say, MAPS were to commend that xyz.com be blackholed, and others chose to follow that advice, would it work against them? Nope. Unless and until the court gains jurisdicition over others, the court order would not be binding on those not party to the action. Is that what you were getting at?
BTW, the MAPS press release notes that they have retained Michael Grow of the Arent, Fox law firm in D.C. to represent them. Heavy hitter, knows his stuff, works for a firm which has "gotten" the Net for a whole lot longer than most.
This is very sad indeed. I imagine many people will not remember Sir Alec simply as "Obi-Wan", although that
will always come to mind for Star Wars fans, but rather for his roles in movies like The Bridge on the River
Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia, which were both directed by one of the finest film directors who ever lived, the
late Sir David Lean (another knighted Englishman).
Those who have seen Bridge on the River Kwai will know that the last two words are perhaps among the greatest film endings ever. (Those who haven't seen will just have to ponder why.)
Hmm, My friend having made the point I would have made, guess I'll have to value-add a little.;-)
The actual Washington Court decision is here, though it doesn't say a lot. The theory is the the Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants primary authority to regulate interstate commerce to the federal government, not the states. If a state law unduly burdens interstate commerce, then, no matter how noble the intent may be, it is unconstitutional. This is what is known as a so-called dormant commerce clause issue, the "typical" commerce clause issue being one where there is a challenge to whether a Congressional enactment is justified under Congress' (quite broad, but not unlimited) commerce power.
I don't like spam, but as a practicing lawyer, I think the Washington case was decided correctly, and that the U.S. Supremes would agree if ever called upon to visit the issue.
Of course, federal legislation would not address the First Amendment issue, but that issue won't arise until either there is federal legislation or the Colorado courts disagree with the Washingtom court on the dormant commerce clause issue.
Copyleft has joined the ranks of the named defendants in the DeCSS suit - they received their subpoena yesterday
There is a difference between a subpoena and a summons, the former being what compels testimony from a witness, the latter being what brings a person into a lawsuit as a party.
If we're talking about the New York DeCSS case, which just was tried, then it makes no sense that a new entity could be brought in as a defendant, after trial, especially since the issues surrounding distribution of printed source are quite different than those surrouning compiled object.
On the other hand, this could refer to one of the two other DeCSS cases, the ones in California and Connecticut, respectively, but the article gives no indication.
If anyone does know whether it is a subpoena or a summons, and in which case, please do post, because as a lawyer who has been following the cases, I am having trouble making any logical sense of this.
"Napster is enjoined from copying or assisting or enabling or contributing to the copy or duplication of all copyrighted songs and musical compostions of which the plaintiffs hold rights," U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ordered in a surprise ruling at a hearing in San Francisco federal court.
Last week, Slashdot reported that John Young's cryptome.org was being threatened by the FBI on account of some documents posted there. Pretty much ever since, it has been been down because of a DoS attack.
There was a brief report in Wired on Monday, and John confirmed in email last night.
I have no idea if this is a new trend in sites targetted for DoS attacks, but definitely it is not good.
Apparently, the FBI isn't enough to keep John busy. In the New York DVD/DeCSS trial, he's been trying to get a live raw feed of the court reporter's notes using LiveNote.
If he gets it, it will be a first. This is what Judge Kaplan said about the request during trial on Wednesday:
534 1 THE COURT: Before we start, is Mr. Young in the 2 courtroom? 3 I have had a request from a John Young at Cryptome 4 for an approval of a live feed of proceedings from the court 5 reporter who's doing the realtime for the purpose of receiving 6 the transcript as it's generated to post on the Internet. 7 I wanted to inform him, and if anybody is talking to 8 him, you can tell him that the matter is under consideration, 9 but it involves a whole series of complex issues that involve 10 the court reporters' rights for being compensated for their 11 work, the fact that the realtime transcript in this case, 12 because of the technical nature of much of the time leaves a 13 great deal to be desired, inasmuch as neither party has yet 14 provided the court reporter with a glossary, at least so I 15 have been told in the last five minutes, so the draft 16 transcript is not what it would be if that had occurred. 17 And thirdly, I need technical advice on the extent to 18 which if at all connecting any outside computer by direct 19 cable to the court reporters' equipment potentially gives 20 access to my own equipment. 21 And, lastly, there are U.S. judicial conference rules 22 that prohibit electronic connections between computers that 23 are on the Judiciary's network and anybody outside the 24 judiciary and mine is on the judiciary's network. 25 I will look into these matters, but it isn't going to
Actually, Jamie is correct. The ruling to which you have linked only indicates that a higher court has upheld the original injunction on the enforcement of COPA. The law has no force until the case brought against it is completed. So the appeal against the injunction is over, but the case against the law itself is just beginning.
You're mostly correct, but Jamie isn't. (And understand I'm hardly on an anti-Jamie jag, he's a friend of mine.)
The District Court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of COPA. The Government appealed, the government lost the appeal. It has the choice of trying to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court, trying to seek what is called en banc review by all of the Third Circuit, not just a three judge panel, going back to the District Court for trial, or just dropping the case.
So you are correct that the case is not over, but there are no appeals presently pending.
I really don't understand all of this talk of replacing Mulder.
Sure, his last few outings haven't been great, but the kid's got a lot of promise, and a second half drop off is not unusual for rookie pitchers. He figures to be a mainstay of the Oakland rotation for a good long time, barring injuries.
For those who like to read such things. the actual Complaint filed is available here, courtesy of our friends at the MPAA.
Not surprisingly, the Proskauer firm, the same one in the 2600.com case is involved, as is Judge Kaplan's old firm, Paul, Weiss. I am personally disappointed that David Kendall of Williams & Connolly represents some of the Plaintiffs. Most may know him as one of Clinton's lawyers, but I know him (personally) as a longtime and good advocate of First Amendment rights.
The comment that "he probably wrote this over the weekend..." was also low.
OK, I'll bite, as the one who made the post (and as a practicing lawyer for more than 20 years) I'll ask why you think it was low.
It is a fact that the moving papers were submitted to the Judge on Friday. It is a fact that, by the time court went into session at 9:00 a.m. Monday, he had mostly finished it. It is a fact that, with trial in session all Monday morning, he signed the Order early Monday afternoon. When else would he have written it?
The comment was directed to the mood he may have been in when trial started Monday, having just spent the weekend doing the Order, not to the content or style.
During the Paliamentary debate on July 13, Baroness Thornton nicely put in perspective what many outside of the U.S. (and too many here in the U.S.) think of the First Amendment:
It is beholden on noble Lords who are using the lobbying material and literature of that organisation to understand where it and its supporters are coming from. They do not want the technology to be available to all or for it to be safe. They would like to have the regime which exists in America, which is protected by the First Amendment and which has no constraints at all.
I do not want the industry to grow in this country under that regime because, in America, children are kidnapped. In America, there is no restriction on the paedophile activity which can take place. In America, there is no restriction on the Nazi propaganda, bomb-making and all the other things that can take place on the Internet because the authorities in America are hamstrung by the regime under which they work. I do not want the Internet in the rest of the world to operate under that regime. This country must take a lead in ensuring that that is not the case.
The First Amendment is not perfect, but statements like that should remind those of us in the U.S. to be thankful for what we have.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither Tim Berners-Lee nor any recent Presidential candidate could be reached for comment.
Prof. Touretzky has such a tool, written by Omri Schwarz in October, in his Gallery
Indeed. ;-)
Seriously, LOC only was given the right by DMCA to make exemptions to the circumvention provisions, not the distribution ones, so it could not have addressed distribution. Subsequent to the LOC rulemaking, which exempted *only* censorware research and one other non-controversial class, there have been many who have called for Congress to revisit the whole concept of DMCA, and some who have made the call are in Congress. Whether (or when) that might happen, I just don't know, though I know that I would like to see it happen.
IAAL, and to me, this is the more important part of the piece. He's written a tool which arguably is legal because of the LOC exemption for censorware research to the DMCA anti-circumvention provision, but (understandably) he's reluctant to distribute it, allowing for a more full analysis of SmartFilter's flaws, because there is no similar exemption for distribution of anti-circumvention tools.
We here on Slashdot have seen tons of stories on the flaws of censorware, but the message is one still not gotten by much of the media or the general public. A truly exhaustive analysis of SmartFilter or other censorware products would help, but LOC's "half a loaf" exemption prevents that from happening without some reasonable fear of legal risk.
The sentence should read that, for the first time, U.S. citizens "will have a federal right to inspect and copy ...." Most states already give such rights to patients. In California, for example, Health and Safety Code Section 123110(a) provides in part that:
Then subsection (b) provides a right to copy all records as to which a patient has a right of inspection.
The regulations accomplish some things, but the great majority of Americans already have the right to inspect and copy their medical records.
I DO NOT understand their logic at all. This is surely not the brightest thing for them to do, they must be trying to keep their corporate sponsors (donations, fees, etc.) happy for now.
I'm no big fan of ICANN, but there is a fairly good explanation here.
That's the rumor, anyway. Instead, MS is working on a stripped-down version of it's Millenium Edition OS, to be called mini-ME.
As someone who has been a practicing First Amendment lawyer for a very long time (22 years), though not as long as you (this is directed to Martin Garbus), I was, at first, highly skeptical of the idea that a group of mostly programmers could make any meaningful contribution to an actual court case.
But as time went on, the discussions became more focused, my view on that, borne of my own traditional way of doing legal briefs, came to change considerably. I saw arguments being developed (and trashed, where appropriate) that likely would not have happened but for the massive input into that list. Your colleague Ed Hernstadt posted there occasionally, my understanding is that your team was getting good information from there, and even one of your expert witnesses (Ole Craig) seems to have come to your attention as a result of his contributions to that list.
So my question, primarily for Martin, is how much did you really gain from that list? Was the Openlaw/DVD forum really of meaningful help to your efforts, or, at least in the context of providing specific help to the trial lawyers, was it a waste of time for those who participated?
I know, of course, that Kaplan ruled against the defense today, but I'm really looking at the broader implications of something like that forum. Do you see it as something which, in the appropriate circumstances, can have real value to a case?
Would it work against MAPS itself? Yes, MAPS is subject to court orders just like everyone else. But if, say, MAPS were to commend that xyz.com be blackholed, and others chose to follow that advice, would it work against them? Nope. Unless and until the court gains jurisdicition over others, the court order would not be binding on those not party to the action. Is that what you were getting at?
BTW, the MAPS press release notes that they have retained Michael Grow of the Arent, Fox law firm in D.C. to represent them. Heavy hitter, knows his stuff, works for a firm which has "gotten" the Net for a whole lot longer than most.
Nope, you can't even go up by submitting stories. I'm just a tad over 50 also, had a slashback accepted today, no points, no change. Frozen stiff.
Those who have seen Bridge on the River Kwai will know that the last two words are perhaps among the greatest film endings ever. (Those who haven't seen will just have to ponder why.)
The actual Washington Court decision is here, though it doesn't say a lot. The theory is the the Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants primary authority to regulate interstate commerce to the federal government, not the states. If a state law unduly burdens interstate commerce, then, no matter how noble the intent may be, it is unconstitutional. This is what is known as a so-called dormant commerce clause issue, the "typical" commerce clause issue being one where there is a challenge to whether a Congressional enactment is justified under Congress' (quite broad, but not unlimited) commerce power.
I don't like spam, but as a practicing lawyer, I think the Washington case was decided correctly, and that the U.S. Supremes would agree if ever called upon to visit the issue.
Of course, federal legislation would not address the First Amendment issue, but that issue won't arise until either there is federal legislation or the Colorado courts disagree with the Washingtom court on the dormant commerce clause issue.
There is a difference between a subpoena and a summons, the former being what compels testimony from a witness, the latter being what brings a person into a lawsuit as a party.
If we're talking about the New York DeCSS case, which just was tried, then it makes no sense that a new entity could be brought in as a defendant, after trial, especially since the issues surrounding distribution of printed source are quite different than those surrouning compiled object.
On the other hand, this could refer to one of the two other DeCSS cases, the ones in California and Connecticut, respectively, but the article gives no indication.
If anyone does know whether it is a subpoena or a summons, and in which case, please do post, because as a lawyer who has been following the cases, I am having trouble making any logical sense of this.
Oh, BTW, I've patented the shape "block". I'm going to be suing for past due royalties from humanity.
I believe he meant to say that he's trademarked "blockhead", and is going to be suing all who question his lawful right to the title.
Challenges will be non-existent, methinks. ;-)
The Motion to the Ninth Circuit, which resulted in the stay, is available here, in .pdf. Makes for a very interesting read.
"Napster is enjoined from copying or assisting or enabling or contributing to the copy or duplication of all copyrighted songs and musical compostions of which the plaintiffs hold rights," U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ordered in a surprise ruling at a hearing in San Francisco federal court.
There was a brief report in Wired on Monday, and John confirmed in email last night.
I have no idea if this is a new trend in sites targetted for DoS attacks, but definitely it is not good.
If he gets it, it will be a first. This is what Judge Kaplan said about the request during trial on Wednesday:
534
1 THE COURT: Before we start, is Mr. Young in the
2 courtroom?
3 I have had a request from a John Young at Cryptome
4 for an approval of a live feed of proceedings from the court
5 reporter who's doing the realtime for the purpose of receiving
6 the transcript as it's generated to post on the Internet.
7 I wanted to inform him, and if anybody is talking to
8 him, you can tell him that the matter is under consideration,
9 but it involves a whole series of complex issues that involve
10 the court reporters' rights for being compensated for their
11 work, the fact that the realtime transcript in this case,
12 because of the technical nature of much of the time leaves a
13 great deal to be desired, inasmuch as neither party has yet
14 provided the court reporter with a glossary, at least so I
15 have been told in the last five minutes, so the draft
16 transcript is not what it would be if that had occurred.
17 And thirdly, I need technical advice on the extent to
18 which if at all connecting any outside computer by direct
19 cable to the court reporters' equipment potentially gives
20 access to my own equipment.
21 And, lastly, there are U.S. judicial conference rules
22 that prohibit electronic connections between computers that
23 are on the Judiciary's network and anybody outside the
24 judiciary and mine is on the judiciary's network.
25 I will look into these matters, but it isn't going to
535
1 happen in a matter of hours.
You're mostly correct, but Jamie isn't. (And understand I'm hardly on an anti-Jamie jag, he's a friend of mine.)
The District Court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of COPA. The Government appealed, the government lost the appeal. It has the choice of trying to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court, trying to seek what is called en banc review by all of the Third Circuit, not just a three judge panel, going back to the District Court for trial, or just dropping the case.
So you are correct that the case is not over, but there are no appeals presently pending.
Sure, his last few outings haven't been great, but the kid's got a lot of promise, and a second half drop off is not unusual for rookie pitchers. He figures to be a mainstay of the Oakland rotation for a good long time, barring injuries.
Oh, you mean Fox Mulder, not Mark Mulder.
Nevermind
All in all, nice coverage by Jamie, but the above statement is in error.
On June 22, 2000, The Third Circuit Court of Appeals decided, affirming the lower court's injunction against COPA.
Not surprisingly, the Proskauer firm, the same one in the 2600.com case is involved, as is Judge Kaplan's old firm, Paul, Weiss. I am personally disappointed that David Kendall of Williams & Connolly represents some of the Plaintiffs. Most may know him as one of Clinton's lawyers, but I know him (personally) as a longtime and good advocate of First Amendment rights.
OK, I'll bite, as the one who made the post (and as a practicing lawyer for more than 20 years) I'll ask why you think it was low.
It is a fact that the moving papers were submitted to the Judge on Friday. It is a fact that, by the time court went into session at 9:00 a.m. Monday, he had mostly finished it. It is a fact that, with trial in session all Monday morning, he signed the Order early Monday afternoon. When else would he have written it?
The comment was directed to the mood he may have been in when trial started Monday, having just spent the weekend doing the Order, not to the content or style.
The First Amendment is not perfect, but statements like that should remind those of us in the U.S. to be thankful for what we have.
Dunno, but if you really care, you could Ask OJ.