I met with Congressman Gejdenson last month and told him, printed out some info and made a disk with links about your case.
I received this written response just today:
As you know, copyright law protects creative works of art, expression and written material in printed and electronic databases. However, non-creative databases are not covered under copyright protection.
I was like, WTF?
He goes on to discuss protection for "creators" of databases...
Well, I tried.
He goes on to say that databases(**???wtf???**) should be widely available to students, teachers, researchers to encourage the flow of information.
well, ok, whatever.
Sorry our congressman is a little off OR SOMETHING...
Actually you can get the hardware from mitsubishi in japan, for a dvd recorder.
Get this,
"Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive.
The Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2), provides that:
[n]o person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;"
Or in other words, I believe, a copyright work.
Hah, what about the DVD recorder? Interestingly enough, Mitsubishi is not being sued by MPAA....yet...
Maybe they are in bed? who knows.
If I wanted to build a machine(hardware) to watch Videos or CDs or DVDs that I BOUGHT, could I be sued too? If I created such a machine could I be sued for letting people know of it.
because it might "(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. " all I know is that if I ever did it, I would patent or copyright it too... to CMOA.
As with the $150,000 burger flipper post, you are again, sadly misinformed.
This case may not seem to have any significance to you, however, this case could set a precedence in the future for cyberlaw. Although the recent cases have remained a "civil" matter, future cases could be criminal matters and all precedents are vital.
Perhaps you are correct in your assumption that in 10 years this case will have little significance, but if you were one of the defendants, I am sure this case would be quite significant. (That is, if your ass was at stake!)
Code is free speech, ok. I'm glad about that.
Personally, I like the "they didn't provide it" defense. My bias. Your welcome... but I don't know if that will fly either.
FAIR USE is Very Important!
For more information on the case, if you are interested
In Las Vegas, in 1996 or so, a fast food manager at Carl's Jr. was shot dead at the drive thru window one night for a very small cash register drawer.
A robot would need maintenance and I believe eventually cost would go down significantly. There would not be any need for workman's comp or other insurances, but likely some other insurance is needed to cover any damage, etc.
I have always had this great vision that someday, I can pull up to a convenience store drive thru at 2am. Only this store would be like one giant vending machine, programmed to serve me and taking my atm, charge card or cash.
And when I get enough money, I'm going to make this happen!
I think what a lot of companies and artists have forgetten is the true nature of a copyright.
The copyright protects the author's right to the work.
Give credit where credit is due. Not, give money where credit is due.
Noone said, HEY METALLICA, did you hear MY song on Napster! Noone STOLE Metallica's credit (that I am aware of).
I use copyrights so that I get credit for my work. I use the copyright law to protect my credit for the work I do.
.. GOD knows, I NEVER get credit for the really important contributions that I've made, so, at least I can get credit for some of my writings. ..
And somehow along the course of a century or so, some twisted, dimented, money grubbing 'people', decided to abuse copyright logic and guarantee payment to line their own pockets by using the law.
Everytime new IP in cyberspace problems occur, I just reflect on Tandy v. Bianca's Smut Shack.
Junger v. Daley recent decision. <BR> <BR>Code is speech. <BR><BR>A precedent your lawyers need to be aware of! <BR> <BR>Use this... <BR> <BR>CODE is not considered to be anything but speech until after it is compiled and SINCE html can't really be compiled that I am aware of anyways...(what would that be? the H++ ahahaha) <BR> <BR>well, they - original company- have no grounds to SUE YOU on intellectual theft or otherwise. <BR> <BR>You, on the other hand, can have the company you work for sue them (original company) for a breech of contract and harassment, if applicable. <BR> <BR>later, <BR>-m
When Chuck asked who thinks cds will be dead in 2 years. I was the only one at Berkman who raised my hand. And I was like "whoa..." but then Chuck put it all into place! Thanks chuck, phew... Chuck D is honest and an inspiration! I'm tired of riaa and mpaa types controlling media! -m
Does that mean that the court document that has the url which has a link to the host of the file is "offering" the DeCSS?!!!!!
Ok, I went to the MPAA site and they aren't linking but they "OFFER" and "provide" the address:
11. On information and belief, defendant Hughes either resides or has his principal place of business at...
Defendant Hughes operates an Internet web site addressed as www.ct2600.org/2600-DVD.html.
full text: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-v-4.htm#Connecticut (Originally from: http://www.mpaa/DVD/Connecticut%20Claim.htm I think it's dead now)
I sent something like this to openlaw:
The Defendants did not "offer" anything per se from "their" respective home computer to download. Liability is not placed on host. Make the court DEFINE the TERM offer, traffic, etc.
" Defendant Hughes offers to the public, provides, or otherwise traffics in, DeCSS through his Internet website. "
TECHNICALLY, HE did not "offer, traffic or provide, otherwise traffic" anything. So, he ftp'd something to a server, and he created a link to it. So he placed text around the link to let people know what it was. He did not provide the file. The host did. (and according to the unlawful DMCA they are not liable).
HE did not provide the file via hyperterminal from his home computer... He created a link to a place where the file is. BIG deal. People create links everyday. They can't bust you on a link...!
all he did was write a few lines of text that happened to be html code (i'm guessing a href =)
Oh, please. I can create a link to a site that has the link to the host that has the file. Does that mean they will bust me too?
Wait, does that mean that the court document that has the url which has the address to the site that has the host which contains the file is "offering" the DeCSS?!!!!!
So, in effect, does that mean that they, the MPAA, (and maybe even the court) are "offering" the DeCSS to the public. They have an url to a link in a public document to a host of a file and they have lots of text describing what the DeCSS does... HMMMMMM.
can they be sued for harrassment? I'm serious!
Furthermore, I searched DeCSS on Google and over 7,000 references came up and the few I checked out were links to sites that had the DeCSS file hosted somewhere that I could dl.
So, are they liable too? Why aren't they being sued. What are they going to do? sue everyone who has a link to DeCSS?
So defendants uploaded it to the site, big deal. That is A PERSONAL WEBSITE. I mean come on, it's not like the defendants are google and are "offering" it all over the web in 1000s of links...
The 'defendants' are as much "offering, or trafficking" it as any search engine with a link.
And here's my other BIG question. Will webmasters/developers be liable for links too...
what if you are deving a page and the person wants you to link it to a site that has DeCSS. Who is ultimately responsible. What? do I have to tell my client sorry I won't be responsible for this action...
The regulations come not as a surprise but a nuisance. How can you regulate a piece of machinery which involves intangible articles and try to implement tangible regulations/restrictions to them.
The tangible and intangible are two separate worlds. The rules from one can not apply to the rules for the other.
My great concern is that, and I have considered this myself, there will be branching or splitting. Maybe some division of sorts. On one side will be the mainstream consumer user who doesn't know the difference between a satellite and a land line and other side will be us. But then they can monitor 'us' too.
The lawmakers and "thinktanks" are not concerned with the technological aspect of all this lawmaking. They are focusing and aiming at other goals, like making strides in ammendment issues. They do this, and disregard technical issues, even if it means innocent users will be found guilty of crimes. The frightening part of all this is that whatever decisions are made now, can be used as a reference in future court cases where indivuals may be sentenced to jail time.
My Questions:
Who does the regulation protect? Who has the most to gain from the regulation? Who will suffer at the hand of the regulation? What is the last thing the people with a lot to gain want as an outcome? Even if they stand to win... (a boycott, loss of sales, cries of outrage from the general public, mainstream bad publicity)
Does it affect a middleperson situation? -Think of all the middlepeople that are being scratched out in different industries - insurance, music, commissioned salepeople (a new breed of online commissions to be made)
Here is something else I just wanted to mention about this MPAA... I just wonder how much more money in sales the movies would have made if the Internet wasn't so popular.
The RIAA and the MPAA have had a lot of persuasion in the past. They only know what they know. They are not moving forward. They could offer a world of wonderful things involving computers, but they are not interested in change.
One final question - Are we really Free?
-marcia wilbur
Re:The Protest and deadline March 31
on
Protesting DMCA
·
· Score: 1
I want to remind people who are interested in 'digital protest';) that you can go to the eff.org site, and if you look at the featured news area you will find information about sending an email about your opinion of the DMCA to the copyright office. Please remember THE DEADLINE IS MARCH 31!!! THAT IS FRIDAY! (and yes, I did have to scream that) direct link of "What you can do." http://www.eff.org/ip/DMCA/20000316_eff_dmca_alert .html You want to make a difference but couldn't join us yesterday? Join us today! I had a great time and Serge really did reach people. I mean, who else among us would wake up for 7am? =) People really were interested in what we were doing and Serge put in 150% effort. Everyone was awesome! Please remember to write by FRIDAY!!!! -marcia wilbur
Slashdot Mirror
I love tetris, but I can't get over 650,000!
No, they lobby over 25 million a year to the US Government to make laws in their favor!
Let them sue me someday, I can't wait to countersue for harassment.
-m
I can't even believe it. This case CrACKS me UP! muhahahahaha Maybe they'll make a movie about it. -m
I received this written response just today:
As you know, copyright law protects creative works of art, expression and written material in printed and electronic databases. However, non-creative databases are not covered under copyright protection.
I was like, WTF?
He goes on to discuss protection for "creators" of databases...
Well, I tried.
He goes on to say that databases(**???wtf???**) should be widely available to students, teachers, researchers to encourage the flow of information.
well, ok, whatever.
Sorry our congressman is a little off OR SOMETHING...
-m
Actually you can get the hardware from mitsubishi in japan, for a dvd recorder.
Get this,
"Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive.
The Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2), provides that:
[n]o person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;"
Or in other words, I believe, a copyright work.
Hah, what about the DVD recorder? Interestingly enough, Mitsubishi is not being sued by MPAA....yet...
Maybe they are in bed?
who knows.
If I wanted to build a machine(hardware) to watch Videos or CDs or DVDs that I BOUGHT, could I be sued too? If I created such a machine could I be sued for letting people know of it.
because it might
"(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
"
all I know is that if I ever did it, I would patent or copyright it too... to CMOA.
-m
As with the $150,000 burger flipper post, you are again, sadly misinformed.
This case may not seem to have any significance to you, however, this case could set a precedence in the future for cyberlaw. Although the recent cases have remained a "civil" matter, future cases could be criminal matters and all precedents are vital.
Perhaps you are correct in your assumption that in 10 years this case will have little significance, but if you were one of the defendants, I am sure this case would be quite significant. (That is, if your ass was at stake!)
Code is free speech, ok. I'm glad about that.
Personally, I like the "they didn't provide it" defense. My bias. Your welcome... but I don't know if that will fly either.
FAIR USE is Very Important!
For more information on the case, if you are interested
Berkman
-m
In Las Vegas, in 1996 or so, a fast food manager at Carl's Jr. was shot dead at the drive thru window one night for a very small cash register drawer.
A robot would need maintenance and I believe eventually cost would go down significantly.
There would not be any need for workman's comp or other insurances, but likely some other insurance is needed to cover any damage, etc.
I have always had this great vision that someday, I can pull up to a convenience store drive thru at 2am. Only this store would be like one giant vending machine, programmed to serve me and taking my atm, charge card or cash.
And when I get enough money, I'm going to make this happen!
-marcia
I think what a lot of companies and artists have forgetten is the true nature of a copyright.
h tml
The copyright protects the author's right to the work.
Give credit where credit is due.
Not, give money where credit is due.
Noone said, HEY METALLICA, did you hear MY song on Napster! Noone STOLE Metallica's credit (that I am aware of).
I use copyrights so that I get credit for my work. I use the copyright law to protect my credit for the work I do.
..
GOD knows, I NEVER get credit for the really important contributions that I've made, so, at least I can get credit for some of my writings.
..
And somehow along the course of a century or so, some twisted, dimented, money grubbing 'people', decided to abuse copyright logic and guarantee payment to line their own pockets by using the law.
Everytime new IP in cyberspace problems occur, I just reflect on Tandy v. Bianca's Smut Shack.
http://www.vagabondage.com/bianca/
http://www.salon.com/april97/media/media970421.
And I think... WTF
-m
Junger v. Daley recent decision.
<BR>
<BR>Code is speech.
<BR><BR>A precedent your lawyers need to be aware of!
<BR>
<BR>Use this...
<BR>
<BR>CODE is not considered to be anything but speech until after it is compiled and SINCE html can't really be compiled that I am aware of anyways...(what would that be? the H++ ahahaha)
<BR>
<BR>well, they - original company- have no grounds to SUE YOU on intellectual theft or otherwise.
<BR>
<BR>You, on the other hand, can have the company you work for sue them (original company) for a breech of contract and harassment, if applicable.
<BR>
<BR>later,
<BR>-m
just an extra http://
Duh...
-m
Hey! I want that article. Phrase of the day: Control the media, control the mind. -some intelligent d00d said it. -m
SAVE THE TREES~~!!! put the books online! (those mindless, arrogant, isolated LoC jerks...) -m
good one. hehe
At least when books are online, I have more access to them. Like 24/7 access.
!Let's all do it ourselves!
-m
Loopholes and exclusions and people's lack of tech knowledge are our friends. -m
The lawsuits involving MPAA include Time Warner. IF you search time.com, there are 0 references to DeCSS.
Time Digital covers Cphack, the Stephen King Book thing, Napster, but why, I ask No references to DeCSS...
One might think they are trying to keep a lid on it.
-m
When Chuck asked who thinks cds will be dead in 2 years. I was the only one at Berkman who raised my hand. And I was like "whoa..." but then Chuck put it all into place! Thanks chuck, phew... Chuck D is honest and an inspiration! I'm tired of riaa and mpaa types controlling media! -m
Does that mean that the court document that has the url which has a link to the host of the file is "offering" the DeCSS?!!!!!
...
t
Ok, I went to the MPAA site and they aren't linking but they "OFFER" and "provide" the address:
11. On information and belief, defendant Hughes either resides or has his principal place of business at
Defendant Hughes operates an Internet web site addressed as www.ct2600.org/2600-DVD.html.
full text:
http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-v-4.htm#Connecticu
(Originally from: http://www.mpaa/DVD/Connecticut%20Claim.htm I think it's dead now)
I sent something like this to openlaw:
The Defendants did not "offer" anything per se from "their" respective home computer to download.
Liability is not placed on host. Make the court DEFINE the TERM offer, traffic, etc.
" Defendant Hughes offers to the public, provides, or otherwise traffics in, DeCSS through his Internet website. "
TECHNICALLY, HE did not "offer, traffic or provide, otherwise traffic" anything. So, he ftp'd something to a server, and he created a link to it. So he placed text around the link to let people know what it was. He did not provide the file. The host did. (and according to the unlawful DMCA they are not liable).
HE did not provide the file via hyperterminal from his home computer... He created a link to a place where the file is. BIG deal. People create links everyday. They can't bust you on a link...!
all he did was write a few lines of text that happened to be html code (i'm guessing a href =)
Oh, please. I can create a link to a site that has the link to the host that has the file. Does that mean they will bust me too?
Wait, does that mean that the court document that has the url which has the address to the site that has the host which contains the file is "offering" the DeCSS?!!!!!
So, in effect, does that mean that they, the MPAA, (and maybe even the court) are "offering" the DeCSS to the public. They have an url to a link in a public document to a host of a file and they have lots of text describing what the DeCSS does...
HMMMMMM.
can they be sued for harrassment?
I'm serious!
Furthermore, I searched DeCSS on Google and over 7,000 references came up and the few I checked out were links to sites that had the DeCSS file hosted somewhere that I could dl.
So, are they liable too? Why aren't they being sued. What are they going to do? sue everyone who has a link to DeCSS?
So defendants uploaded it to the site, big deal.
That is A PERSONAL WEBSITE. I mean come on, it's not like the defendants are google and are "offering" it all over the web in 1000s of links...
The 'defendants' are as much "offering, or trafficking" it as any search engine with a link.
And here's my other BIG question. Will webmasters/developers be liable for links too...
what if you are deving a page and the person wants you to link it to a site that has DeCSS.
Who is ultimately responsible. What? do I have to tell my client sorry I won't be responsible for this action...
-marcia
title this (?...code)
.model small
.stack 100h
.data
message db "I've been saying Hello for years. Finally someone responded!",0dh,0ah,'$'
.code
main proc
mov ax,@data
mov ds,ax
mov ah,9
mov dx,offset message
int 21h
mov ax,4C00h
int 21h
main endp
end main
Hardware is physical(tangible)
Good one.
-marcia
Do you think John Gilmore or someone from EFF would/will?
MP3
IS NOT
A CRIME
-m
This is the dawn of the age of freedom.
The regulations come not as a surprise but a nuisance. How can you regulate a piece of machinery which involves intangible articles and try to implement tangible regulations/restrictions to them.
The tangible and intangible are two separate worlds. The rules from one can not apply to the rules for the other.
My great concern is that, and I have considered this myself, there will be branching or splitting.
Maybe some division of sorts. On one side will be the mainstream consumer user who doesn't know the difference between a satellite and a land line and other side will be us. But then they can monitor 'us' too.
The lawmakers and "thinktanks" are not concerned with the technological aspect of all this lawmaking. They are focusing and aiming at other goals, like making strides in ammendment issues. They do this, and disregard technical issues, even if it means innocent users will be found guilty of crimes. The frightening part of all this is that whatever decisions are made now, can be used as a reference in future court cases where indivuals may be sentenced to jail time.
My Questions:
Who does the regulation protect?
Who has the most to gain from the regulation?
Who will suffer at the hand of the regulation?
What is the last thing the people with a lot to gain want as an outcome? Even if they stand to win...
(a boycott, loss of sales, cries of outrage from the general public, mainstream bad publicity)
Does it affect a middleperson situation?
-Think of all the middlepeople that are being scratched out in different industries - insurance, music, commissioned salepeople (a new breed of online commissions to be made)
Here is something else I just wanted to mention about this MPAA... I just wonder how much more money in sales the movies would have made if the Internet wasn't so popular.
The RIAA and the MPAA have had a lot of persuasion in the past. They only know what they know. They are not moving forward. They could offer a world of wonderful things involving computers, but they are not interested in change.
One final question - Are we really Free?
-marcia wilbur
I want to remind people who are interested in 'digital protest' ;) that you can go to the eff.org site, and if you look at the featured news area you will find information about sending an email about your opinion of the DMCA to the copyright office. Please remember THE DEADLINE IS MARCH 31!!! THAT IS FRIDAY! (and yes, I did have to scream that) direct link of "What you can do." http://www.eff.org/ip/DMCA/20000316_eff_dmca_alert .html You want to make a difference but couldn't join us yesterday? Join us today! I had a great time and Serge really did reach people. I mean, who else among us would wake up for 7am? =) People really were interested in what we were doing and Serge put in 150% effort. Everyone was awesome! Please remember to write by FRIDAY!!!! -marcia wilbur