If this guy were to post say, "the_unforgiven.mp3," and this file was actually just cukoo noises, then the person who downloaded the song would not be infringing on copyright. So, if say 300,000 people were kicked off of napster because some bot identified them as having downloaded "the_unforgiven.mp3" without checking the file's content, then the allegations would be purjurious and illegal. Metallica et al likes to claim that their music has been posted on napster, and to use as proof filenames and sizes, but they don't really have anything that could hold up in court. I'd personally love to be caught downloading a replica of the black album filled with cukoo noises so i could i countersue Metallica.
I wouldn't be reading/. if any of the diablo 2 realms would stay up consistently. Even Rob only took time out for a quick post.
Honestly, if i were blizzard, and i had sold 1.5 million copies, i would be damn sure that i had enough servers to handle 1.5 million concurrent connections. It really damages the initial user experience when you can't play your brand new character on your brand new game (which you are required to do for 2 hours in the first 2 days or it's deleted). I hope the server down time only represents a momentary lapse and will not be come a characteristic of the game.
On the plus side, perhaps this would persuade people that it really IS a good idea to set the expiration date on those PGP keys.
Even if a key pair has expired, you can still use the private key for decryption. This makes sense because PGP simply compares a key's expiration date with the system clock (which can easily be modified). PGP won't even prompt you with any warning messages if you use an expired key for decryption.
The expiration date doesn't do anything besides say 'Hey, this key is old and you shouldn't use it send this person data. You should probably get their new key.' In the version of PGP that I'm running, it won't even let you encrypt a message to an expired key. However to get around this, all you have to do is change your system time.
During the DeCSS proceedings, when ultimately the distribution of DeCSS was ruled to be illegal, I was very afraid that we were a only few steps from Orwell's "thought crime."
It works like this: first, you can't distribute source code (read: idea, meme, expression, etc). Then, you can't link to those who distribute it. Then you can't possess it. Then you can't talk about. Or think about it. Ulitmately, a sequence of characters, a form of expression is outlawed. It seemed outrageous to me that I according to a judge, I couldn't wear a shirt that had the code on it. When people saw my shirt, I became a criminal for propogating illegal ideas.
As soon as someone (the judge) realized that code is just another form of language, and that in affect outlawing code is like banning offensive literature, our good old American nature kicked back in. Imagine if someone had, instead of posting code to reveal of list of blocked sites in CyberPatrol, had written a song including there feelings about the software and how it might be circumvented. No judge would have granted an injunction against this song. The song is only an expression; likewise the code.
Maybe we should create a message board for communication between programmers that is composed only of code. This code could include the CPHack code, DeCSS, and anything else we like. Compile it, and thats another story. But at least now we have a precedent.
I was one of the lucky mirrors to get sent the email, I thought I'd post the text of it:
To Whom It May Concern
Re: Microsystems Software Inc. et al. v. Scandinavia Online AB et al., Case No. 00-cv10488-EFH (D. Mass.)
Greetings:
This firm represents Microsystems Software, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. in the above-referenced action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On March 17, 2000, United States District Judge Edward Harrington entered a temporary restraining order in the above-referenced matter prohibiting any further publication of "CP4break.zip" or "cphack.exe" or any derivative thereof, which likely violate United States copyright laws (the "Order"). A copy of that Order is attached here as Order.uni and in its proposed form as order.doc. You may open the *.uni document with a *.tif file reader.
It has come to our attention that your Web hosting service or Web site is publishing one or both of these prohibited files. This letter and the enclosed Word documents and *uni files will place you on notice of Judge Harrington's Order.
The Order also permits Microsystems to take discovery on an expedited basis. Accordingly, I have included a subpoena to you that requires you to disclose the log of persons who downloaded either "CP4break.zip" and/or "cphack.exe". A copy of the subpoena is attached here as *.uni and in Word format as subpoena.doc.
In addition, attached to this E-mail transmittal are the following documents in Microsoft Word and *.uni format:
Verified Complaint
Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Discovery;
Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Discovery.
We recommend that you retain counsel in Massachusetts and we ask that you or your counsel contact us as soon as possible to arrange more formal service of these documents on you.
I found an email address (badbeat@riaa.org) that seems intended to field "piracy" issues. I composed an email summarizing the excellent points made here, the text of which follows. What we have said here is imporatant, now lets let them know what we think! Try other email addresses, telephone, or even postal mail. Most of the contact information for the RIAA can be found here. Reach out and touch somebody.
To whom it may concern:
I was recently made aware of the text of your website at the address:
In it, you make some statements and recommendations to consumers about the legality of copying analog and digital music, telling us what we can and can't copy, in reference to the Audio Home Recording Act:
Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright infringement, and a violation of federal law. This is true whether the source being copied is analog or digital; whether you are copying an entire album or just one song or even part of a song; or whether you are making a compilation of songs from albums you already own. The same holds true for copying music off the Internet. While MP3s may be popular, if the artist and record company have not specifically authorized the music to be freely traded on the Net, then posting MP3s to an Internet site or downloading them to your computer hard drive is copyright infringement.
The bottom line: the only digital copying of music that is allowed is with digital recorders that are covered by and comply with the Audio Home Recording Act.
This information is misleading at best, and seems to me to be blatantly fallacious and intentional untruthful. Text from the actual act indicates that any personal or non-commercial use of digital or analog recording technologies are explicitly exempted from the act:
Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Also, the general interpretation of US law indicates that only those things specifically placed under the jurisdiction of law are subject to its consequences, and those not (for example, computers/hard drives/MP3s in the Audio Home Recording Act) are not affected. The old "implied powers" argument has been defeated for centuries in court, and your attempt to resurrect it in an "informational" web page for the public seems to me an intentionally underhanded method to deter the proliferation of digital copies of music that individuals own without paying royalties to record companies. US courts have echoed the consumer's right to make digital copies in recent court cases, including the one the RIAA brought against Diamond Multimedia. The resulting decision stated that consumers have a right to space-shift and time-shift their content--consumers can make copiesof music thy own to hard drives/MP3s/etc all they like.
Pleaseeither remove the fallacious information from this website or clarify that it reflects the wishes of the RIAA, and not US law. Also, I would appreciate a response indicating the plan of action regarding the website.
The web is growing and changing at a pace that a band-aid fix like static indeces just wont solve. Database-driven web sites are simply more manageable, scale better, and more easily allow the separation of content creation from site design than static ones consisting of n-thousand HTML documents.
Technologies like XML and WDDX provide access to databases through standard protocols and are not difficult to implement. A few simple, scalable solutions include:
Apache in combo with some DB fun for those of you sage enough to use *nix
DB-Based web content has the potential to make the web more searchable then ever before through hierachy and content classification, but only if we do not try to reign it in. Instead, we should adapt the way we search to the emerging scalable, powerful web architechture that is the future of the web.
Slashdot Mirror
If this guy were to post say, "the_unforgiven.mp3," and this file was actually just cukoo noises, then the person who downloaded the song would not be infringing on copyright. So, if say 300,000 people were kicked off of napster because some bot identified them as having downloaded "the_unforgiven.mp3" without checking the file's content, then the allegations would be purjurious and illegal. Metallica et al likes to claim that their music has been posted on napster, and to use as proof filenames and sizes, but they don't really have anything that could hold up in court. I'd personally love to be caught downloading a replica of the black album filled with cukoo noises so i could i countersue Metallica.
I wouldn't be reading /. if any of the diablo 2 realms would stay up consistently. Even Rob only took time out for a quick post.
Honestly, if i were blizzard, and i had sold 1.5 million copies, i would be damn sure that i had enough servers to handle 1.5 million concurrent connections. It really damages the initial user experience when you can't play your brand new character on your brand new game (which you are required to do for 2 hours in the first 2 days or it's deleted). I hope the server down time only represents a momentary lapse and will not be come a characteristic of the game.
Even if a key pair has expired, you can still use the private key for decryption. This makes sense because PGP simply compares a key's expiration date with the system clock (which can easily be modified). PGP won't even prompt you with any warning messages if you use an expired key for decryption.
The expiration date doesn't do anything besides say 'Hey, this key is old and you shouldn't use it send this person data. You should probably get their new key.'
In the version of PGP that I'm running, it won't even let you encrypt a message to an expired key. However to get around this, all you have to do is change your system time.
During the DeCSS proceedings, when ultimately the distribution of DeCSS was ruled to be illegal, I was very afraid that we were a only few steps from Orwell's "thought crime."
It works like this: first, you can't distribute source code (read: idea, meme, expression, etc). Then, you can't link to those who distribute it. Then you can't possess it. Then you can't talk about. Or think about it. Ulitmately, a sequence of characters, a form of expression is outlawed. It seemed outrageous to me that I according to a judge, I couldn't wear a shirt that had the code on it. When people saw my shirt, I became a criminal for propogating illegal ideas.
As soon as someone (the judge) realized that code is just another form of language, and that in affect outlawing code is like banning offensive literature, our good old American nature kicked back in. Imagine if someone had, instead of posting code to reveal of list of blocked sites in CyberPatrol, had written a song including there feelings about the software and how it might be circumvented. No judge would have granted an injunction against this song. The song is only an expression; likewise the code.
Maybe we should create a message board for communication between programmers that is composed only of code. This code could include the CPHack code, DeCSS, and anything else we like. Compile it, and thats another story. But at least now we have a precedent.
I was one of the lucky mirrors to get sent the email, I thought I'd post the text of it:
To Whom It May Concern
Re: Microsystems Software Inc. et al. v. Scandinavia Online AB et al., Case No. 00-cv10488-EFH (D. Mass.)
Greetings:
This firm represents Microsystems Software, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. in the above-referenced action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On March 17, 2000, United States District Judge Edward Harrington entered a temporary restraining order in the above-referenced matter prohibiting any further publication of "CP4break.zip" or "cphack.exe" or any derivative thereof, which likely violate United States copyright laws (the "Order"). A copy of that Order is attached here as Order.uni and in its proposed form as order.doc. You may open the *.uni document with a *.tif file reader.
It has come to our attention that your Web hosting service or Web site is publishing one or both of these prohibited files. This letter and the enclosed Word documents and *uni files will place you on notice of Judge Harrington's Order.
The Order also permits Microsystems to take discovery on an expedited basis. Accordingly, I have included a subpoena to you that requires you to disclose the log of persons who downloaded either "CP4break.zip" and/or "cphack.exe". A copy of the subpoena is attached here as *.uni and in Word format as subpoena.doc.
In addition, attached to this E-mail transmittal are the following documents in Microsoft Word and *.uni format:
Verified Complaint
Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Discovery;
Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Discovery.
We recommend that you retain counsel in Massachusetts and we ask that you or your counsel contact us as soon as possible to arrange more formal service of these documents on you.
Sincerely,
Irwin B. Schwartz
Enclosures
Here's my mirror.
And another.
To whom it may concern:
I was recently made aware of the text of your website at the address:
http://www.riaa.com/tech/tech_ht.htm
In it, you make some statements and recommendations to consumers about the legality of copying analog and digital music, telling us what we can and can't copy, in reference to the Audio Home Recording Act:
Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright infringement, and a violation of federal law. This is true whether the source being copied is analog or digital; whether you are copying an entire album or just one song or even part of a song; or whether you are making a compilation of songs from albums you already own. The same holds true for copying music off the Internet. While MP3s may be popular, if the artist and record company have not specifically authorized the music to be freely traded on the Net, then posting MP3s to an Internet site or downloading them to your computer hard drive is copyright infringement.
The bottom line: the only digital copying of music that is allowed is with digital recorders that are covered by and comply with the Audio Home Recording Act.
This information is misleading at best, and seems to me to be blatantly fallacious and intentional untruthful. Text from the actual act indicates that any personal or non-commercial use of digital or analog recording technologies are explicitly exempted from the act:
Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Also, the general interpretation of US law indicates that only those things specifically placed under the jurisdiction of law are subject to its consequences, and those not (for example, computers/hard drives/MP3s in the Audio Home Recording Act) are not affected. The old "implied powers" argument has been defeated for centuries in court, and your attempt to resurrect it in an "informational" web page for the public seems to me an intentionally underhanded method to deter the proliferation of digital copies of music that individuals own without paying royalties to record companies. US courts have echoed the consumer's right to make digital copies in recent court cases, including the one the RIAA brought against Diamond Multimedia. The resulting decision stated that consumers have a right to space-shift and time-shift their content--consumers can make copiesof music thy own to hard drives/MP3s/etc all they like.
Pleaseeither remove the fallacious information from this website or clarify that it reflects the wishes of the RIAA, and not US law. Also, I would appreciate a response indicating the plan of action regarding the website.
Perhaps I should have said wrapped illegal in quotes to more blatantly state my sarcasm.
Another (Texas) mirror for your illegal code-spreading pleasure.
The web is growing and changing at a pace that a band-aid fix like static indeces just wont solve. Database-driven web sites are simply more manageable, scale better, and more easily allow the separation of content creation from site design than static ones consisting of n-thousand HTML documents.
Technologies like XML and WDDX provide access to databases through standard protocols and are not difficult to implement. A few simple, scalable solutions include:
DB-Based web content has the potential to make the web more searchable then ever before through hierachy and content classification, but only if we do not try to reign it in. Instead, we should adapt the way we search to the emerging scalable, powerful web architechture that is the future of the web.