If you want to read the Hacker Crackdown for free, check out the Guttenberg project.
I happen to know that the Hacker Crackdown came out around the summer of '92, because that's when I picked Bruce Sterling up in my '81 Caprice Classic at the Montreal airport, nearly scaring him to death. It was a real pleasure to meet him, and he even autographed my (used - doh!) copy of some of his short stories.
It's a good book too - but you'll be amused at how much has changed since then and all the references to internet "nodes".
I read the short story in Iassac Asiov's Science Fiction Magazine back many years ago when I actually had a subscription.
The end of the story, iirc, involves our hero completely stripping any and all electronics out of his house, including wiring of any kind.
It was a great story.
Ken
I am a law student, working now in a law firm, and actually have done some research into the iCrave matter for my firm. I am very familliar with this event. I'd just like to clear up some inaccuracies in your post, if you don't mind.
Two things you should know:
(a) the Internet is everywhere (as if you didn't know that one) and therefore copying (and copyright violations) occur EVERYWHERE. Every time someone accesses the internet there are copies made all over the place (think of your average traceroute) and therefore potential copyright violations. So it's quite easy to argue that iCrave is copying programming in the United States even if its servers aren't located in the U.S.
(b) In Canadian law (I'm Canadian) and I believe in the rest of the western world, foreign (e.g. U.S.A.) judgements (court orders) are enforceable in Canadian courts. Recently in Canada there was a front-page story about someone who had lost a Texas libel case by not defending it, and the multi-million dollar judgement (unthinkably large in Canadian terms - the maximum libel damages usually awarded are about $100,000 tops) was UPHELD by the Supreme Court of Canada and declared enforceable against the Canadian doctor. This means that the Canadian Courts will enforce U.S. judgments.
As a rule, albeit with certain exceptions, foreign judgements will be enforced in Canadian courts.
The upshot of this is, of course, that had the U.S. companies succeeded in their suit in the U.S.A., their judgement would have been enforceable (and enforced no doubt) in Canada.
It used to be the case that it was impossible to enforce U.S. judgements in Canada, but in the late-eighties/early-nineties (I think) the Supreme Court of Canada changed its mind, joining the rest of the western world, and ruled that foreign judgements would be enforceable as long as they were done in a fair manner.
I feel obliged to correct some of the legal misapprehensions that are in this post.
As background, I am an articling student (i.e. graduated from law school and am now in the process of passing the bar) and I am specializing in IP matters (patents, trade-marks and copyright). I also used to work as a summer student for the law firm which sent the cease and desist letter - and they're one of the top IP law firms in Canada, no dummies usually.
The first legal misapprehension in this post is that the Quebec Civil Code applies to this matter. Copyright and trade-marks are Federal matters, and therefore the Civil Code does not apply. The Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act, which are Federal Acts, do apply. As such, you can use any of the official languages of Canada in a legal proceeding (which includes English).
The other biggy that people might not understand is that Parody is not a defence in Canada to copyright or trade-mark infringement.
The Perrier and the Michelin cases (trade-marks and copyright respectively) show that in Canada, as opposed to the U.S.A., if you parody someone and it harms the goodwill associated with their trade-mark, then that is actionable and you can be sued for it. The Perrier case involved a mock Perrier bottle dressed-up as a "Pierre-Eh?" bottle (mocking Pierre Trudeau, a famous prime-minister of Canada), and the Michelin case involved a uninionization dispute at a Michelin plant where the Michelin Man was depicted as crushing workers or something like that. In both cases the people sued were forced to stop using the trade-marks (and copyrighted images).
This post is all about the lawyer side of this equation. Even though lawyers as a rule are technologically inept, I belive that it's the politicians who get the law wrong, and not lawyers as a class.
As a bit of background, I am a Canadian articling student with a technical background, and will be called to the bar in about a year. I worked as a mechanical engineer, designing industrial robotics and sensors prior to getting my law degree. I have been a proficient user and minor sysadmin for many years. I grew up on the BBS scene and have been using the internet ever since my university days. I am by no means a guru, and have only a minor knowledge of unix/linux. However, I understand most of the technology behind the internet, and know who to call when I need real gurus.
I work at a law firm of approximately 400 lawyers across Canada, and am specializing in IP (e.g. patents, trade-marks etc.) My department files patents and litigates technology issues every day.
Very few of the lawyers here, less than 10 of them I would say, have any idea at all about how computers or the internet work. They may be able to use the internet to send e-mail, and browse, but the technology is a mystery to them. Certain specialists may understand e-commerce issues, such as verification and cryptography and so forth, but only as ideas, not as practicalities.
When it comes to copyright issues, many lawyers will understand the basics, but will not understand the technology of the internet for example, or even the technology of a hard drive. For example, lawyers won't know how packets work, and how "copies" of packets are made by each router or whatever on their way to their destination.
And I work at a very technology-friendly law firm.
When we litigate, of course, we get experts to tell us what's what. In court, it's all about the duelling experts. It is these experts who teach the lawyers what they need to know before the court appearances, and who also educate the judge during the trial. If you're a personable guru with people skills and can tell a good story, you can make big bucks being an expert witness, let me tell you. All this to say that during a trial, the lawyers will be informed and up to speed as best they can be, as they will be prepped by the experts.
The big problem, of course, are the politicians. These are the people who make the laws. The politicians may also have experts who advise them on policy, but it isn't the same as an adversarial court case. The politicians will make decisions based on popular perception of technology, rather than on what technology actually is. Think of the V-Chip disaster or the Communications Decency Act fiasco. These measures were put into place to prevent an "evil" which is relatively impossible to police. However, even if the politicians understood the technology side of things, their consitituency would still demand that they "do something". On the other hand, if the politicians did understand the technology, they might have been able to come up with a more practical "solution".
At any rate, I know from experience there is a lot of technological ignorance, and fear of technology, with lawyers. This fear is probably ten times worse with politicians.
Just my 2 cents worth. I hope it sheds some light on my side of the fence. My apologies for the length.
Slashdot Mirror
I happen to know that the Hacker Crackdown came out around the summer of '92, because that's when I picked Bruce Sterling up in my '81 Caprice Classic at the Montreal airport, nearly scaring him to death. It was a real pleasure to meet him, and he even autographed my (used - doh!) copy of some of his short stories.
It's a good book too - but you'll be amused at how much has changed since then and all the references to internet "nodes".
Ken
I read the short story in Iassac Asiov's Science Fiction Magazine back many years ago when I actually had a subscription. The end of the story, iirc, involves our hero completely stripping any and all electronics out of his house, including wiring of any kind. It was a great story. Ken
Two things you should know:
(a) the Internet is everywhere (as if you didn't know that one) and therefore copying (and copyright violations) occur EVERYWHERE. Every time someone accesses the internet there are copies made all over the place (think of your average traceroute) and therefore potential copyright violations. So it's quite easy to argue that iCrave is copying programming in the United States even if its servers aren't located in the U.S.
(b) In Canadian law (I'm Canadian) and I believe in the rest of the western world, foreign (e.g. U.S.A.) judgements (court orders) are enforceable in Canadian courts. Recently in Canada there was a front-page story about someone who had lost a Texas libel case by not defending it, and the multi-million dollar judgement (unthinkably large in Canadian terms - the maximum libel damages usually awarded are about $100,000 tops) was UPHELD by the Supreme Court of Canada and declared enforceable against the Canadian doctor. This means that the Canadian Courts will enforce U.S. judgments.
As a rule, albeit with certain exceptions, foreign judgements will be enforced in Canadian courts.
The upshot of this is, of course, that had the U.S. companies succeeded in their suit in the U.S.A., their judgement would have been enforceable (and enforced no doubt) in Canada.
It used to be the case that it was impossible to enforce U.S. judgements in Canada, but in the late-eighties/early-nineties (I think) the Supreme Court of Canada changed its mind, joining the rest of the western world, and ruled that foreign judgements would be enforceable as long as they were done in a fair manner.
Hope that clears up a few things.
Ken
Putting effort into hacking e-commerce will get you some credit card numbers and therefore a bit of cash.
Putting effort into hacking electronic vote-stuffing can make you leader of the free world.
Do you still believe enough in net security?
Ken
As background, I am an articling student (i.e. graduated from law school and am now in the process of passing the bar) and I am specializing in IP matters (patents, trade-marks and copyright). I also used to work as a summer student for the law firm which sent the cease and desist letter - and they're one of the top IP law firms in Canada, no dummies usually.
The first legal misapprehension in this post is that the Quebec Civil Code applies to this matter. Copyright and trade-marks are Federal matters, and therefore the Civil Code does not apply. The Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act, which are Federal Acts, do apply. As such, you can use any of the official languages of Canada in a legal proceeding (which includes English).
The other biggy that people might not understand is that Parody is not a defence in Canada to copyright or trade-mark infringement.
The Perrier and the Michelin cases (trade-marks and copyright respectively) show that in Canada, as opposed to the U.S.A., if you parody someone and it harms the goodwill associated with their trade-mark, then that is actionable and you can be sued for it. The Perrier case involved a mock Perrier bottle dressed-up as a "Pierre-Eh?" bottle (mocking Pierre Trudeau, a famous prime-minister of Canada), and the Michelin case involved a uninionization dispute at a Michelin plant where the Michelin Man was depicted as crushing workers or something like that. In both cases the people sued were forced to stop using the trade-marks (and copyrighted images).
So be careful with your parodies!
As a bit of background, I am a Canadian articling student with a technical background, and will be called to the bar in about a year. I worked as a mechanical engineer, designing industrial robotics and sensors prior to getting my law degree. I have been a proficient user and minor sysadmin for many years. I grew up on the BBS scene and have been using the internet ever since my university days. I am by no means a guru, and have only a minor knowledge of unix/linux. However, I understand most of the technology behind the internet, and know who to call when I need real gurus.
I work at a law firm of approximately 400 lawyers across Canada, and am specializing in IP (e.g. patents, trade-marks etc.) My department files patents and litigates technology issues every day.
Very few of the lawyers here, less than 10 of them I would say, have any idea at all about how computers or the internet work. They may be able to use the internet to send e-mail, and browse, but the technology is a mystery to them. Certain specialists may understand e-commerce issues, such as verification and cryptography and so forth, but only as ideas, not as practicalities.
When it comes to copyright issues, many lawyers will understand the basics, but will not understand the technology of the internet for example, or even the technology of a hard drive. For example, lawyers won't know how packets work, and how "copies" of packets are made by each router or whatever on their way to their destination.
And I work at a very technology-friendly law firm.
When we litigate, of course, we get experts to tell us what's what. In court, it's all about the duelling experts. It is these experts who teach the lawyers what they need to know before the court appearances, and who also educate the judge during the trial. If you're a personable guru with people skills and can tell a good story, you can make big bucks being an expert witness, let me tell you. All this to say that during a trial, the lawyers will be informed and up to speed as best they can be, as they will be prepped by the experts.
The big problem, of course, are the politicians. These are the people who make the laws. The politicians may also have experts who advise them on policy, but it isn't the same as an adversarial court case. The politicians will make decisions based on popular perception of technology, rather than on what technology actually is. Think of the V-Chip disaster or the Communications Decency Act fiasco. These measures were put into place to prevent an "evil" which is relatively impossible to police. However, even if the politicians understood the technology side of things, their consitituency would still demand that they "do something". On the other hand, if the politicians did understand the technology, they might have been able to come up with a more practical "solution".
At any rate, I know from experience there is a lot of technological ignorance, and fear of technology, with lawyers. This fear is probably ten times worse with politicians.
Just my 2 cents worth. I hope it sheds some light on my side of the fence. My apologies for the length.
Ken