Take a look at the html source for the Sentient Property Crime Bureau's Top 10 Most Wanted Robots html source. I've spent the last few hours trying to figure out what the binary means, and what the greek might mean.
It's all mighty obscure and quite sophisticated. Who is the Red King, anyways? Who is Sencha? Who is GK? So many avenues to explore with Google.
If you go to www.nic.ro and look up the whois entires for the registrant for the.ro sites that people have found, I think the name of the man behind the curtain is revealed.
Although I usually don't pay much attention to movies that come out of Hollywood, this particular promotion camapign has me fascinated.
By the way, if you had submitted your phone number on the Anti-Robot Militia's hate robots page, at around six pm CST this afternoon, you would have gotten a really scary phone call from a pro-robot activist letting you know that they knew whose side you were on.
And from which of my emails to the Donu-tech researchers did Mephista (and just who is she?) get my email address?
Check it all out if you've got the time. It's got layers within layers, and looks to be unfolding day by day with new sites and phone numbers to check out.
Here's a link to the Comittee's archive page with the realaudio stream of last night's hearing (3/20/01). Forward to about 35 minutes before the end of the stream.
Having learned how very long these things can go on, and knowing that it is inevitable that the bill one is interested in will be the very last one presented, I didn't go to the hearing. I did, however, monitor it in the background on my office PC so I could see what they did with the filtering bill.
At the hearing this evening on HB 1295, the author of the bill, Rep. Garcia, ended up asking the committee to leave the bill pending, with no action taken on it. Rep. Garcia stated that he'd gotten a few ideas for reworking the bill after hearing the comments of the committee and of the two witnesses who spoke against the bill. Rep. Garcia said that maybe the goal of his bill could be achieved by simply mandating an instruction sheet for how to obtain filtering software, rather than imposing a requirement that software be included.
Rep Garcia brought no witnesses to the hearing to speak in favor of the bill. (Aside: a bill with no witnesses in favor of it is doomed at the Lege in my experience.) He cited his son's experience with explicit porn spam as showing the need for the bill. He said that the ISP linking law wasn't enough because the process of going to a website, downloading software and installing it on a PC was too difficult for most family users of PCs. He also cited CIPA, saying that if Congress can mandate filtering software at the Federal level, then surely Texas can mandate it at the State level. He also said that the term "personal computer" in the bill meant that the bill would only apply to computers for family use, and not those for office use.
Speaking against the bill were Chase Untermeyer, head of governemnt relations for Compaq Computer Corporation of Houston, and also William Silverstein, a former employee of a computer company he left unnamed.
Urging the committee not to pass the bill, Mr. Untermeyer cited the competitive disadvantages that Texas computer makers would be placed under if the bill passed. He also mentioned the recent ACLU and ALA suits concerning the CIPA. (Aside: Besides working for Compaq, Mr. Untermeyer is also a member of board of the Texas State Board of Education.)
Mr. Silverstein discussed the inaccuracies of Cyberpatrol, and the broadness of the bill's applicability to all personal computers. He also mentioned the problems the bill would cause for sellers of PCs with operating systems for which there are no filter software products available.
The committee members sounded skeptical of the need for the bill, with one saying that there was already an existing ISP filter link requirement under Texas law.
Apparently giving up on passage of the present HB 1295, Rep. Garcia said that he would try to rework the bill with some new ideas and asked the committee to take no action on it and leave the bill pending, and that is what the committee did with the bill.
A realudio stream of the hearing ought to be available on theTexas House Committee on Business and Commerce's audio archives page at some point tomorrow. You will have to forward through the stream to about thirty-five minutes before the end of the stream to hear the twelve minutes or so that were spent on the bill.
All I have to say is kudos to the two witnesses against for hanging out there for five hours to speak out against the bill.
That's all true. Writing and visits are better than email for influencing a legislator. And your observation about communications is certainly true for the US Congress, and perhaps some state legislatures, but it is not necessarily true for how many Texas legislators are using email during the current session.
But if you have the time, do write a paper letter or go visit them in Austin. Those are certainly more effective.
Actually, you are mistaken about "sweat of the brow", at least as that term was once used in Unisted States copyright law. The United States Supreme Court rejected the "sweat of the brow" concept in a telephone book case called Feist, where they ruled that it didn't matter how much work went into compilation into a database, the facts compiled (names, addresses and phone numbers) were still not protected by copyright, because there is of originality. Now, telephone book poublishers, and publishers of any other kind of factual compilation, have little copyright protection preventing competitors from using their compiled facts in their own products.
If you live in Texas, look up the email address of the Senator and Representative for whom you are a constituent at this page here.
If UCITA interests you, send them a short and concise email telling them about UCITA and how they should vote on it, and why they should vote that way. Be polite. Texas legislators are usually very receptive to communications from their constituents.
Expect that most legislators will not be familiar with the issues involved with UCITA, and that what education they are getting on it is probably coming from lobbyists. So help inform them.
The current legislative session will be ending in May, so if UCITA can't get passed out of committee and then passed in both houses, the software lobby will have to wait until 2003 for the next session of the legislature.
At its most basic, copyright subsists in an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression, from which the work can be perceived, reproduced or communicated, either directly or or with the aid of a machine.
Now, perhaps the very literal would say that the cells of your brain are a form of tangible object which constitute a tangible medium of expression, and perhaps one day technology will progress to the extent that that which you are remembering or thinking via your brain cells can be perceived by or communicated to other people, but at present you would have to write the song down or sing it into a tape recorder, thus "fixing" it in a tangible medium of expression, before you would violate the owner's right to control copying.
That assertion by the journalist also took me aback for a second. I have no doubt the software industry would likely try to get legislation through Congress to "correct" a court ruling such as this one, but that's just my suspicion. UCITA, though it would impact cases like the one in the story, certainly has nothing to do with the U.S. Congress. UCITA's going through the legislatures, even if it is going slowly.
Despite your opinion of the current status of UCITA, I think that it is far from dead. Take a look at this map to see where UCITA lobbying activities are underway. Check out anti-UCITA ucita.com. and pro-UCITA ucitaonline.com. It's still an issue that has to be followed or it'll take us all by surprise one day, by becoming the law of the land.
First Sale does apply to copies of software, just as it does to videos, books, records and what not, with one exception. Even after the first retail sale, a software copyright holder can restrict commercial lending, leasing or rental of software. Look at 17 USC 109(b) for this exception.
Many used book stores sell second-hand software, such as Half-Price Books here in Austin and it is legal, although they, the book store, do not seem to guarantee that the purchaser can get past the technical restrictions.
The DMCA obviously makes it illegal to circumvent technical restrictions to copying or distributing software, but the physical media (CD-ROM) can still be given away, donated, loaned to a friend, or given away, and the software copyright holder will usually have no legal means under copyright to prevent it (although software companies do of course often attempt technical means to prevent it with serial numbers, verification numbers, online registration, requiring the CD-ROM to be in the drive and such).
Another thing. In UCITAjurisdictions, software copyright owners may be able to get restrictive license terms enforced by a court, at least where the purchaser has access to the license terms before purchase. I do wonder though about whether federal preemption issues aren't raised by state court enforcement of UCITA licensing terms that works to restrict rights consumers have under copyright, such as those of first sale and fair use.
You are unfamiliar with the practice of civil forfeiture, where the traceable proceeds of a crime can be taken in civil court. In civil court, the prosecution has a much lower burden of proof than is required in a criminal court. HR 46 would extend civil forfeiture to computer equipment, and make it forfeitable in the same way as the proceeds of crime are forfeitable now, without the need for a criminal trial, or a criminal court's need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
For more information critical of civil forfeiture see www.fear.org. Asset forfeiture is widely used in the United States.
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:43:41 -0800
From: "Egghead.com Special Update"
Subject: IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM EGGHEAD.COM CEO
To: ***@***.NET
Dear Customer,
Egghead.com has discovered that a hacker has accessed our computer
systems, potentially including our customer databases. While there
is no indication that any customer information has been compromised,
as a precautionary measure, we have taken immediate steps to protect
you by contacting the credit card companies with whom we work. They
are in the process of alerting card issuers and banks so that they
can take the necessary steps to ensure the security of cardholders
who may be affected.
We wish to underscore that we have taken these steps as precautions.
We have no information at this time to suggest that any credit card
information has been compromised. We are investigating this possibility,
and we are doing everything we can to proactively protect you. If you
would like further information, you may wish to contact the issuer of
your credit card to determine what steps they are taking. We regret any
inconvenience this may cause you.
We issued a press release on this matter earlier today. It is appended
below this message. If you have additional questions, please call our
customer service team at 1-800-EGGHEAD (344-4323).
Egghead.com Investigates Breach of Company Computer Systems,
Company Undertakes Immediate Precautionary Measures
MENLO PARK, Calif., December 22, 2000 - Egghead.com ®, Inc. (Nasdaq:
EGGS), released the following statement today:
"Egghead.com has discovered that a hacker has accessed our computer
systems, potentially including customer databases. As a precautionary
measure, we have taken immediate steps to protect our customers by
contacting the credit card companies we work with. They are in the
process of alerting card issuers and banks so that they can take the
necessary steps to ensure the security of cardholders who may be affected.
"Simultaneously, we have retained the world's leading computer security
experts to conduct a thorough investigation of our security procedures
and an analysis of this breach. We are also working with law enforcement
authorities, who are in the process of conducting a criminal investigation.
"For many months, we have been in the process of strengthening our security
systems in an effort to combat the increasing, industry-wide problem of
malicious hacking. We are committed to providing the highest security
standards in the industry, a process that has been ongoing and has
involved a considerable investment on the part of our company. Those
principles will continue to guide us going forward."
About Egghead.com: Egghead.com is a leading Internet direct marketer of
technology and related products. With an emphasis on Small- to Medium-sized
Business (SMB) customers, Egghead.com offers a wide range of products from
computer hardware and software, consumer electronics and office products,
to sporting goods and vacation packages. Its Clearance, After Work and
Auction formats offer bargains on excess and closeout goods and services.
Egghead.com combines broad selection, low prices, and excellent service
to provide an outstanding online shopping experience for businesses and
consumers. Egghead.com is located on the Internet at http://www.egghead.com
This press release contains forward-looking statements that involve
risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to statements relating
to steps taken to protect our customers. These forward-looking statements
are based on information available to the company at the time of this
release and we assume no obligation to update any such forward-looking
statements. The statements in this release are not guarantees of future
performance. Actual results could differ materially from current expectations
as a result of numerous factors. For example, our ability to protect our
customers from potential misuse of private information is limited, and the
impact of compromised computed security on our business is unpredictable.
Other risks and uncertainties associated with the business are detailed in
our most recent Forms 10-K and 10-Q which are on file with the SEC and
available through www.sec.gov
Due to our desire to ensure every person who may be affected has been notified,
you may be receiving this message even if previously expressing a desire not to
receive email from Egghead.com. If this is the case, please be assured you will
not be receiving promotional emails from Egghead.com in the future.
To be removed from our mailing list please go to:
http://promo2.eggheadlist.com/blist.asp?e=***@***. NET
Under the Federal Copyright Act's First Sale doctrine, a copyright owner's rights to control distribution (resale, rental, lending, gift, etc) of a particular copy ends at the first sale of that particular copy.
Copies of software and musical recordings are specifically exempted from the First Sale doctrine for purposes of commercial rental or lending (though First Sale still allows possessors of those types of works to resell or give away).
So the licensing language on the cylinder would be invalid in the US under the copyright act today to restrict resale of most copyrighted works.
I have seen old books with similar language as that on the cylinder that purported to forbid the owner from selling the books for less than the cover price, but such restrictions are unenforceable, for the analog present at least.
Well, the commerce clause would be an interesting approach, but since the law of contracts is traditionally a state matter, I don't see much luck in challenging it constitutionally. Maybe particular aspects could be, but I'd have to think about it before I speculate on how.
A much better way of challenging certain aspects of UCITA shrink-wrap license enforcement is to look at how parts of UCITA might in effect become a sort of State copyright law, and thus would be in conflict with the Federal Copyright Act. That is, to the extent that provisions of UCITA would make enforceable certain license terms which would be contrary to various limitations of copyright (such as fair use, first sale, right to backup, etc) those provisions would be preempted by Federal copyright and would be unenforceable in the particular case.
There may be some productive avenues to research in Federal consumer protection law, and I believe the FTC is pushing that angle.
Of course I have no idea what sort of projects you work on. If you're looking for specific legal advice, I certainly am unable to give it in a slashdot posting, but can only give you my general take on the laws. If you are in a specific situation, you should talk to a lawyer. Looking at the relevant statutes, it's clear that just about any act of disclosure of sensitive information to a foreign agent (i.e. an act of espionage) would certainly be punishable criminally.
My view of the vetoed law is simply that I think it was not a good idea as a matter of public policy to have a General Secrets Act in this country. They do have a General Secrets Act in Britain, but then in Britain the rights of free speech and free press are very different. At present there are many administrative penalties, and there is the possibility of criminal prosecution under certain circumstances, but only under those certain circumstances. Leaking info to the press may in certain circumstances be criminal presently (e.g., there was a man who went to prison for giving a magazine a spy photo of a Russian aircraft carrier in the mid 80s) but in many cases it may not be (because the disclosure of the info in question would not be prejudicial to the interests or safety of the US), although of course the leaker could lose his job or his clearance.
Take a look at the statutes, executive orders and regulations relating to national security for yourself. Executive Order 12958 is informative as it defines the framework of the classification system, and to look at it go here and search for 12958. Another very informative source of information is a booklet published by the Information Security Oversight Office that explains the classification scheme; especially enlightening is the FAQ at the end of the booklet.
All of these statutes and regs require more than the simple fact that information has been administratively classified as confidential as a predicate for the imposition of criminal liability. For example, some of these statutes require that the disclosure be harmful to the safety or interests of the United States or beneficial to the interests of a foreign government to the detriment of the U.S. And there is criminal liability for misappropriation of government property, such as physical documents. Others provide penalties for any unauthorized disclosure in any circumstances of certain categories: such as diplomatic codes, such as nuclear weapon designs, and the identity of American agents. One law certainly does allows the government to administratively classify as criminal the unauthorized disclosure of certain categories of information relating national security to people known to represent foreign governments or Communist organizations. Of course I am generalizing about these laws and a lawyer would need to dig into the language of the laws and the relevant caselaw and regulations to apply the law to a specific fact situation, but if you look at the various statutes, I think you'll see what I mean.
What these statutes do not do is criminalize as a general matter the unauthorized disclosure of classified information simply because it is classified. Rather, there have to be some added circumstances. Leaking information (as long as they are not codes or nuclear secrets or the names of covert agents) to the American press or to Congress in most circumstances (i.e. when it does not harm the interests of the United States)will usually not be a criminal act under present law
I certainly would never encourage people who have signed a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement to violate their oaths lightly, as I think that there are many activities that our government engages in that would be best left unknown to our nation's adversaries. National security is not a light matter. However, there have been too many instances, the chief one being that of the Pentagon Papers case, where information classification has been used to try to keep essential or controversial information from other branches of government and from the American people for reasons other than that of national security. I would be very uncomfortable with a General Secrets Act, and think it would contrary to the spirit of our kind of democracy.
Yeah, when I posted yesterday, the news I saw said that it was an endorsement, but then I caught a little bit of the video on the news last night, and it clear that it wasn't an endorsement. But it sure wasn't a shunning of Nader like with a lot of liberal or left figures.
I still think the Greens are going to have to be wary of overt and covert infiltration by groups after the money.
The Natural Law Party is one big puzzle to me. I never have been able to figure those folks out. But they at least made the Reform Party's conventions this summer interesting.
The most interesting caselaw that applies to this upcoming case is of course the 2nd Circuit opinion which the court wants to review. Here's a link to Tasini v New York Times.
About actors in movies, and whether they should've gotten additional payments for re-releases on video would have depended on the contractual agreements made at the time they agreed to perform in the movie. Generally, under the present copyright act, an actor's contribution, if somehow copyrightable, would be covered by the "work for hire" provisions of the law, with copyright owned by whoever hired the actor. I would think though that whether an actor recieved further payments would depend on the actor's contracts with his or her studio, and not on any rights under copyright.
The case up for review, Tasini, is different in that the plaintiff-writers were all freelance contributors to newspapers or magazines, not employees, and thus there is no work for hire issue.
Tasini revolves around a provison of the copyright act aimed at periodical publications, privileging compilation publications (such as magazines or newspapers or encyclopedias), in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, to republish freelancers' contributions in later issues or editions or revisions of the publication, without incurring copyright infringement liability.
Very roughly summarized, the newspapers and magazines who have been sued in Tasini failed to secure electronic republication rights to the articles in question that were licensed to Lexis-Nexis and another firm, and so they are now trying to argue that the republication on Lexis-Nexis is merely a revision (as that is meant in the act) of the original paid-for publication of the freelancers' articles, and thus there is no infringement of the freelancers' copyrights.
I understand that it is now routine for freelancers to be required to agree to give up electronic republication rights, but six or seven years ago, when this case started, that was not so.
The Supremes don't often take Copyright cases, but when they do, the results are usually important. This one could turn out to be interesting. Considering who the defendants are, I would expect that we will hear quite a bit about this one before it is over: that's what happens when someone sues companies that buy ink by the barrel.
Ed
Standard dsclaimer applies. Not meant as specific legal advice, but for general info only. Talk to a lawyer if you need legal advice, and don't depend on a random posting you read on slashdot in making decisons, etc... Or you are a fool.
After tomorrow, the Green party will certainly have some issues to deal with given the danger of a concerted outside group trying to come in and take over, as happened with the Reform party.
Of course it's silly to say that Greens should prefer to not get the minor party status that could come their way tomorrow. I just think that everyone should look at Pat Buchannan's takeover of the Reform party and the subsequent purge/flight of the Perot and Ventura people as a lesson to keep in mind of what can come along with attaining that status. Strong state organizations can prevent such takeovers, but the Greens have not been noted for their organizational unity.
Did you notice today's surprise endorsement of Ralph Nader by Al Sharpton? Now, I wonder just what could have possibly turned his attention to the Green Party?
Couldn't possibly be those matching funds, could it, now?
The Green Party(s) better get its act together quick or the Al Sharptons and Lenora Fulanis are going to descend on them and pull a Buchannan trick. Good thing the equally fanatical and hardened Naderites already got first dibs on that honey pot.
Well, take a look at the vetoed bill's Sec 303, which would've made the unauthorized disclosure of any classified information a criminal offense. What you are talking about are the existing administrative penalties for disclosure. Those have long existed and will continue to exist. The bill would have made such disclosures criminal offenses, not just administrative ones.
Losing your job or your clearance is one thing, and that can have a chilling effect, sure. But felony jail-time liability would have an even greater chilling effect on those occasional leaks that are important to a free society.
What Congress needs to do is look at the specific leak (it is said, I recall, to have had to do with bin Laden and the press revelation of electronic intercepts of his phone calls) which prompted this criminalization proposal, and craft a narrowly tailored offense to address it, if it was really the Congress's intent to deal with that particular situation (which it wasn't really, by the way, not in this election year with a lame duck Pres all concerned with his legacy and who was intentionally put into a political catch-22 when they timed this bill to arrive on his desk just when it did).
You can't depend on regulatory or prosecutorial discretion to take away the chilling effect of such a law, because you never know what kind of folks might get into power in the future some day, and who would put this kind of broad law to use. Read up on the various Sedition Acts which have been implemented at various times in our nation's past to see what I'm talking about.
I'm still not voting for his veep, but I am glad Clinton vetoed this law. Now, if only someone had screamed so loud before he signed the DMCA and the ATEDPA and the...
Well, as he says in the talk he gave, he WAS running for President on the Green ticket, but he didn't get the nomination. The AT page does say on its index page: "Run Ralph Run", though it doesn't do so real prominently. Jello did give a rater entertaining speech at the Green convention this summer past, which was shown on CSPAN, as did some other more or less serious candidates, but in the end the delegates chose Nader to be the candidate.
Despite the notion you would get lately, the Green Party in the U.S. and Ralph Nader were in no way synonymous prior to this current campaign season.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... Okay. Then... You wouldn't by anychance have access to the logon and password for oen of the coroners would you?
It's all mighty obscure and quite sophisticated. Who is the Red King, anyways? Who is Sencha? Who is GK? So many avenues to explore with Google.
If you go to www.nic.ro and look up the whois entires for the registrant for the .ro sites that people have found, I think the name of the man behind the curtain is revealed.
Although I usually don't pay much attention to movies that come out of Hollywood, this particular promotion camapign has me fascinated.
By the way, if you had submitted your phone number on the Anti-Robot Militia's hate robots page, at around six pm CST this afternoon, you would have gotten a really scary phone call from a pro-robot activist letting you know that they knew whose side you were on.
And from which of my emails to the Donu-tech researchers did Mephista (and just who is she?) get my email address?
Check it all out if you've got the time. It's got layers within layers, and looks to be unfolding day by day with new sites and phone numbers to check out.
Ed
For your edification about what happened here's the summary I posted on the Censorware Project page:
Ed
Sounds about right.
But if you have the time, do write a paper letter or go visit them in Austin. Those are certainly more effective.
Ed
Ed
Ed
UCITA has been introduced in the Texas Senate as SB 709 by Sen John Carona, a Republican representing District 16 in Dallas.
HB 1785 has been referred to the House Business and Industry Committee but is not yet scheduled for a hearing. Likewise, SB 709 has been referred to the Senate Business and Commerce Committee but has yet to be scheduled for a hearing. These committees will be holding hearings on the bills before the bills will go on to their respective houses for floor votes.
If you live in Texas, look up the email address of the Senator and Representative for whom you are a constituent at this page here.
If UCITA interests you, send them a short and concise email telling them about UCITA and how they should vote on it, and why they should vote that way. Be polite. Texas legislators are usually very receptive to communications from their constituents.
Expect that most legislators will not be familiar with the issues involved with UCITA, and that what education they are getting on it is probably coming from lobbyists. So help inform them.
The current legislative session will be ending in May, so if UCITA can't get passed out of committee and then passed in both houses, the software lobby will have to wait until 2003 for the next session of the legislature.
Hope this helps.
Ed
Now, perhaps the very literal would say that the cells of your brain are a form of tangible object which constitute a tangible medium of expression, and perhaps one day technology will progress to the extent that that which you are remembering or thinking via your brain cells can be perceived by or communicated to other people, but at present you would have to write the song down or sing it into a tape recorder, thus "fixing" it in a tangible medium of expression, before you would violate the owner's right to control copying.
So, no, they can't control what you think.
Ed
Ed
Despite your opinion of the current status of UCITA, I think that it is far from dead. Take a look at this map to see where UCITA lobbying activities are underway. Check out anti-UCITA ucita.com. and pro-UCITA ucitaonline.com. It's still an issue that has to be followed or it'll take us all by surprise one day, by becoming the law of the land.
Ed
Many used book stores sell second-hand software, such as Half-Price Books here in Austin and it is legal, although they, the book store, do not seem to guarantee that the purchaser can get past the technical restrictions.
The DMCA obviously makes it illegal to circumvent technical restrictions to copying or distributing software, but the physical media (CD-ROM) can still be given away, donated, loaned to a friend, or given away, and the software copyright holder will usually have no legal means under copyright to prevent it (although software companies do of course often attempt technical means to prevent it with serial numbers, verification numbers, online registration, requiring the CD-ROM to be in the drive and such).
Another thing. In UCITA jurisdictions, software copyright owners may be able to get restrictive license terms enforced by a court, at least where the purchaser has access to the license terms before purchase. I do wonder though about whether federal preemption issues aren't raised by state court enforcement of UCITA licensing terms that works to restrict rights consumers have under copyright, such as those of first sale and fair use.
Ed
For more information critical of civil forfeiture see www.fear.org. Asset forfeiture is widely used in the United States.
Ed
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:43:41 -0800
. NET
From: "Egghead.com Special Update"
Subject: IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM EGGHEAD.COM CEO
To: ***@***.NET
Dear Customer,
Egghead.com has discovered that a hacker has accessed our computer systems, potentially including our customer databases. While there is no indication that any customer information has been compromised, as a precautionary measure, we have taken immediate steps to protect you by contacting the credit card companies with whom we work. They are in the process of alerting card issuers and banks so that they can take the necessary steps to ensure the security of cardholders who may be affected.
We wish to underscore that we have taken these steps as precautions. We have no information at this time to suggest that any credit card information has been compromised. We are investigating this possibility, and we are doing everything we can to proactively protect you. If you would like further information, you may wish to contact the issuer of your credit card to determine what steps they are taking. We regret any inconvenience this may cause you.
We issued a press release on this matter earlier today. It is appended below this message. If you have additional questions, please call our customer service team at 1-800-EGGHEAD (344-4323).
Respectfully,
Jeff Sheahan President & CEO Egghead.com, Inc.
Press Release:
Contact:
Joanne Hartzell
Egghead.com, Inc (650) 470-2713
John Stodder, Shoreen Maghame
Edelman Worldwide, (323) 857-9100
Egghead.com Investigates Breach of Company Computer Systems,
Company Undertakes Immediate Precautionary Measures
MENLO PARK, Calif., December 22, 2000 - Egghead.com ®, Inc. (Nasdaq: EGGS), released the following statement today: "Egghead.com has discovered that a hacker has accessed our computer systems, potentially including customer databases. As a precautionary measure, we have taken immediate steps to protect our customers by contacting the credit card companies we work with. They are in the process of alerting card issuers and banks so that they can take the necessary steps to ensure the security of cardholders who may be affected.
"Simultaneously, we have retained the world's leading computer security experts to conduct a thorough investigation of our security procedures and an analysis of this breach. We are also working with law enforcement authorities, who are in the process of conducting a criminal investigation.
"For many months, we have been in the process of strengthening our security systems in an effort to combat the increasing, industry-wide problem of malicious hacking. We are committed to providing the highest security standards in the industry, a process that has been ongoing and has involved a considerable investment on the part of our company. Those principles will continue to guide us going forward."
About Egghead.com: Egghead.com is a leading Internet direct marketer of technology and related products. With an emphasis on Small- to Medium-sized Business (SMB) customers, Egghead.com offers a wide range of products from computer hardware and software, consumer electronics and office products, to sporting goods and vacation packages. Its Clearance, After Work and Auction formats offer bargains on excess and closeout goods and services. Egghead.com combines broad selection, low prices, and excellent service to provide an outstanding online shopping experience for businesses and consumers. Egghead.com is located on the Internet at http://www.egghead.com
This press release contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to statements relating to steps taken to protect our customers. These forward-looking statements are based on information available to the company at the time of this release and we assume no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. The statements in this release are not guarantees of future performance. Actual results could differ materially from current expectations as a result of numerous factors. For example, our ability to protect our customers from potential misuse of private information is limited, and the impact of compromised computed security on our business is unpredictable. Other risks and uncertainties associated with the business are detailed in our most recent Forms 10-K and 10-Q which are on file with the SEC and available through www.sec.gov
Shoreen Maghame
Edelman Worldwide
(323) 857-9100 ext. 231
e-mail: shoreen.maghame@edelman.com
Due to our desire to ensure every person who may be affected has been notified, you may be receiving this message even if previously expressing a desire not to receive email from Egghead.com. If this is the case, please be assured you will not be receiving promotional emails from Egghead.com in the future.
To be removed from our mailing list please go to: http://promo2.eggheadlist.com/blist.asp?e=***@***
[Only thing I changed was my email address. Ed.]
Copies of software and musical recordings are specifically exempted from the First Sale doctrine for purposes of commercial rental or lending (though First Sale still allows possessors of those types of works to resell or give away).
So the licensing language on the cylinder would be invalid in the US under the copyright act today to restrict resale of most copyrighted works.
I have seen old books with similar language as that on the cylinder that purported to forbid the owner from selling the books for less than the cover price, but such restrictions are unenforceable, for the analog present at least.
Ed
A much better way of challenging certain aspects of UCITA shrink-wrap license enforcement is to look at how parts of UCITA might in effect become a sort of State copyright law, and thus would be in conflict with the Federal Copyright Act. That is, to the extent that provisions of UCITA would make enforceable certain license terms which would be contrary to various limitations of copyright (such as fair use, first sale, right to backup, etc) those provisions would be preempted by Federal copyright and would be unenforceable in the particular case.
There may be some productive avenues to research in Federal consumer protection law, and I believe the FTC is pushing that angle.
Ed
My view of the vetoed law is simply that I think it was not a good idea as a matter of public policy to have a General Secrets Act in this country. They do have a General Secrets Act in Britain, but then in Britain the rights of free speech and free press are very different. At present there are many administrative penalties, and there is the possibility of criminal prosecution under certain circumstances, but only under those certain circumstances. Leaking info to the press may in certain circumstances be criminal presently (e.g., there was a man who went to prison for giving a magazine a spy photo of a Russian aircraft carrier in the mid 80s) but in many cases it may not be (because the disclosure of the info in question would not be prejudicial to the interests or safety of the US), although of course the leaker could lose his job or his clearance.
Take a look at the statutes, executive orders and regulations relating to national security for yourself. Executive Order 12958 is informative as it defines the framework of the classification system, and to look at it go here and search for 12958. Another very informative source of information is a booklet published by the Information Security Oversight Office that explains the classification scheme; especially enlightening is the FAQ at the end of the booklet.
All of these statutes and regs require more than the simple fact that information has been administratively classified as confidential as a predicate for the imposition of criminal liability. For example, some of these statutes require that the disclosure be harmful to the safety or interests of the United States or beneficial to the interests of a foreign government to the detriment of the U.S. And there is criminal liability for misappropriation of government property, such as physical documents. Others provide penalties for any unauthorized disclosure in any circumstances of certain categories: such as diplomatic codes, such as nuclear weapon designs, and the identity of American agents. One law certainly does allows the government to administratively classify as criminal the unauthorized disclosure of certain categories of information relating national security to people known to represent foreign governments or Communist organizations. Of course I am generalizing about these laws and a lawyer would need to dig into the language of the laws and the relevant caselaw and regulations to apply the law to a specific fact situation, but if you look at the various statutes, I think you'll see what I mean.
What these statutes do not do is criminalize as a general matter the unauthorized disclosure of classified information simply because it is classified. Rather, there have to be some added circumstances. Leaking information (as long as they are not codes or nuclear secrets or the names of covert agents) to the American press or to Congress in most circumstances (i.e. when it does not harm the interests of the United States)will usually not be a criminal act under present law
I certainly would never encourage people who have signed a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement to violate their oaths lightly, as I think that there are many activities that our government engages in that would be best left unknown to our nation's adversaries. National security is not a light matter. However, there have been too many instances, the chief one being that of the Pentagon Papers case, where information classification has been used to try to keep essential or controversial information from other branches of government and from the American people for reasons other than that of national security. I would be very uncomfortable with a General Secrets Act, and think it would contrary to the spirit of our kind of democracy.
Ed
I still think the Greens are going to have to be wary of overt and covert infiltration by groups after the money.
The Natural Law Party is one big puzzle to me. I never have been able to figure those folks out. But they at least made the Reform Party's conventions this summer interesting.
Ed
I found a good article about Tasini at Gigalaw. The article discusses litigation concerning the switch from movies to videos.
EdEd
About actors in movies, and whether they should've gotten additional payments for re-releases on video would have depended on the contractual agreements made at the time they agreed to perform in the movie. Generally, under the present copyright act, an actor's contribution, if somehow copyrightable, would be covered by the "work for hire" provisions of the law, with copyright owned by whoever hired the actor. I would think though that whether an actor recieved further payments would depend on the actor's contracts with his or her studio, and not on any rights under copyright.
The case up for review, Tasini, is different in that the plaintiff-writers were all freelance contributors to newspapers or magazines, not employees, and thus there is no work for hire issue.
Tasini revolves around a provison of the copyright act aimed at periodical publications, privileging compilation publications (such as magazines or newspapers or encyclopedias), in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, to republish freelancers' contributions in later issues or editions or revisions of the publication, without incurring copyright infringement liability.
Very roughly summarized, the newspapers and magazines who have been sued in Tasini failed to secure electronic republication rights to the articles in question that were licensed to Lexis-Nexis and another firm, and so they are now trying to argue that the republication on Lexis-Nexis is merely a revision (as that is meant in the act) of the original paid-for publication of the freelancers' articles, and thus there is no infringement of the freelancers' copyrights.
I understand that it is now routine for freelancers to be required to agree to give up electronic republication rights, but six or seven years ago, when this case started, that was not so.
The Supremes don't often take Copyright cases, but when they do, the results are usually important. This one could turn out to be interesting. Considering who the defendants are, I would expect that we will hear quite a bit about this one before it is over: that's what happens when someone sues companies that buy ink by the barrel.
Ed
Standard dsclaimer applies. Not meant as specific legal advice, but for general info only. Talk to a lawyer if you need legal advice, and don't depend on a random posting you read on slashdot in making decisons, etc... Or you are a fool.
Of course it's silly to say that Greens should prefer to not get the minor party status that could come their way tomorrow. I just think that everyone should look at Pat Buchannan's takeover of the Reform party and the subsequent purge/flight of the Perot and Ventura people as a lesson to keep in mind of what can come along with attaining that status. Strong state organizations can prevent such takeovers, but the Greens have not been noted for their organizational unity.
Ed
Couldn't possibly be those matching funds, could it, now?
The Green Party(s) better get its act together quick or the Al Sharptons and Lenora Fulanis are going to descend on them and pull a Buchannan trick. Good thing the equally fanatical and hardened Naderites already got first dibs on that honey pot.
Ed
Losing your job or your clearance is one thing, and that can have a chilling effect, sure. But felony jail-time liability would have an even greater chilling effect on those occasional leaks that are important to a free society.
What Congress needs to do is look at the specific leak (it is said, I recall, to have had to do with bin Laden and the press revelation of electronic intercepts of his phone calls) which prompted this criminalization proposal, and craft a narrowly tailored offense to address it, if it was really the Congress's intent to deal with that particular situation (which it wasn't really, by the way, not in this election year with a lame duck Pres all concerned with his legacy and who was intentionally put into a political catch-22 when they timed this bill to arrive on his desk just when it did).
You can't depend on regulatory or prosecutorial discretion to take away the chilling effect of such a law, because you never know what kind of folks might get into power in the future some day, and who would put this kind of broad law to use. Read up on the various Sedition Acts which have been implemented at various times in our nation's past to see what I'm talking about.
I'm still not voting for his veep, but I am glad Clinton vetoed this law. Now, if only someone had screamed so loud before he signed the DMCA and the ATEDPA and the ...
Ed
Despite the notion you would get lately, the Green Party in the U.S. and Ralph Nader were in no way synonymous prior to this current campaign season.
Ed