Re:Your letter to Judge Kaplan - a question:
on
DeCSS Update
·
· Score: 3
I stressed that I was a signatory to the amicus brief in order to give my message some weight that it might not otherwise have had. I thought I'd have more of an impact in terms of writing as a party with some connection to the case, rather than a pure watcher.
Since anyone can write as a watcher, but relatively few people can write as anything else, the balance seemed to favor pressing whatever advantage I had to distinguish my letter.
This has been a highly political case from the start. That's one way of viewing the reason that the MPAA is trying to choke off the information flow.
My letter to Judge Kaplan
on
DeCSS Update
·
· Score: 5
I did one last night, here it is. Note the stress on Internet participation
Honorable Lewis Kaplan United States District Judge Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street, Room 1310 New York, New York 10007-1312
I am a signatory to the amicus curiae brief of openlaw participants in Universal v. Reimerdes Any contribution made by myself, or others not present in the courtroom, would be hindered by the lack of a free and open flow of information. This is a case where networked participation through use of the Internet is not a buzzword or cliche, but a reality. The brief above proves that. Choking off information about the proceedings then has the effect of impairing potential further amicus curiae briefs. Have the plaintiffs shown any evidence at all that would justify such drastic consequences? Please deny their motion.
Software patents threaten to devastate America's computer industry. Patents granted in the past decade are now being used to attack companies such as the Lotus Development Corporation for selling programs that they have independently developed. Soon new companies will often be barred from the software arena--most major programs will require licenses for dozens of patents, and this will make them infeasible. This problem has only one solution: software patents must be eliminated.
One reason is that any idea can be made look complex when analyzed to death. But another reason is that these trivial ideas often look quite complex as described in the patents themselves. The patent system's defenders can point to the complex description and say, "How can anything this complex be obvious?"
Humor... I think... I notice they don't describe the prize, and require: All email concerning this challenge must be PGP encrypted.
I wonder just how wise it would be to try to claim victory:
"Thank you for telling us you broke this supersecret code. And thanks for proving your identity with PGP. Please remain where you are, our representatives will arrive shortly with your reward..."
This cryptographic challenge is more daunting than the RSA challenge, because nothing is known about the algorithm used to encipher LP transmissions. We do not even know for sure who the transmitting party is.
"Dear Consumer, according to our GPS data, you've been commuting 1.5 hours every day. We have a new house for sale coming up here. *beep* You're 1 mile from it *beep* You're 0.5 miles away *beep* Driving by now, c'mon take a look *beep* Your loss... Enjoy your longtrip home
Re:Jon, corporations are not the danger
on
At The Crossroads
·
· Score: 2
Stop bashing government powers, that's distractions from the real problems, which is the fact that we have now defined so much as private property.
The DMCA is about PROPERTY RIGHTS That's property rights in copyright. But it's still a propery rights law.
Note I am not saying anything so silly as there should be no private property or that there shold be no intellectual property. But the basic problem is, in fact, what is property in the net-age, and what is necessary to protect that property.
Lessig personal website, more stuff like above
on
At The Crossroads
·
· Score: 2
Once again I have to ask the question: [1] What are people doing about corporations taking over the Net? [2] What is Katz doing? [3] Is he really raising awareness? [4] Did his article move you? [5] Are you going to act on his ideas and suggestions?
1. Me, not much these days, I'm burnt-out on net-activism, too much backstabbing and rip-offs. 2. Being a writer is OK 3. Yes, I think so. He may not be a genius, but he's decent, especially graded on a curve of typical blather of the Internet. 4. No, but I've been throught these arguments for many years. I could see it being part of a cumulative influence on someone, though. 5. See point 1.
Any country capable of hosting a web site is likely to be signatory to various copyright and other intellectual-property treaties. That means liability extends worldwide. Moreover, a fear of lawsuits seems universal.
And unlike goverments, large corporations can be multinational. They can assert causes of actions from local subsidiaries or divisions.
Any webhosting company, anywhere in the entire world, when given a choice between fighting a costly lawsuit and cutting off a site, has a very strong incentive to cut off that site.
To people who say "run your own web host", apply all the above to "net connection provider".
Welcome to what happens when megacorporations woke up to the Net.
If more companies like Red Hat would contribute more money to organizations like the EFF and the Censorware Project, those orgs. could help spread the word and inform people about Internet censorship. Knowledge may be power, but a little money doesn't hurt either...
Speaking as a co-founder of Censorware Project (now retired) and a professional programmer:
Heck, all I ever wanted was enough public and legal support so that I didn't lose my career and life's savings to a censorware lawsuit (and a little respect). Couldn't get it.
Censorware Project doesn't take donations. But if anyone wants to start giving me 70K chunks of money to start another anti-censorware organization (and lawyers, don't forget the lawyers, lots of lawyers), let's talk:-).
Support them? I did not advocate that. Far from it. But I think it makes sense to understand the institutional incentives at work here. There was no Golden Age when every University employee, from the president down to the janitor, was happily willing to go to the wall at the drop of a hat.
As a general rule, University employees advance in their careers by avoiding trouble. Tenured faculty may get to be firebrands. But for the average administrator, there are no rewards to being a no-holds-barred defender of academdic freedom.
The "Privacy Statment" for NetZip is online. I recommend reading it. It's many screens long. Yes, there is the following gem down in the middle:
Whenever a download is initiated using Netzip Download Demon, the product sends the name and URL of the file you are downloading along with relevant product and Internet communication information (including IP address, connection speed, whether downloads were finished or incomplete, use of pause and resume) to Netzip.
But how many people are ever going to read down that far?
Bill Pate, who's worked on the space flight software over the last 22 years, says the group understands the stakes: "If the software isn't perfect, some of the people we go to meetings with might die."
I can see many Dilbert-fans wondering if that is a bug or a feature.
They also claim the specification IS a trade secret, quote The Specification is confidential information and a trade secret of Microsoft. That's part of the license agreement from when you run the self-extracting zip that they have.
Slashdot Mirror
Since anyone can write as a watcher, but relatively few people can write as anything else, the balance seemed to favor pressing whatever advantage I had to distinguish my letter.
This has been a highly political case from the start. That's one way of viewing the reason that the MPAA is trying to choke off the information flow.
My guess is that it's from Lord of The Rings.
Honorable Lewis Kaplan
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1310
New York, New York 10007-1312
Dear Judge Kaplan:
I would like to add my voice in opposition to the plaintiff's Notice Of Motion For Protective Order of May 30, 2000.
I am a signatory to the amicus curiae brief of openlaw participants in Universal v. Reimerdes Any contribution made by myself, or others not present in the courtroom, would be hindered by the lack of a free and open flow of information. This is a case where networked participation through use of the Internet is not a buzzword or cliche, but a reality. The brief above proves that. Choking off information about the proceedings then has the effect of impairing potential further amicus curiae briefs. Have the plaintiffs shown any evidence at all that would justify such drastic consequences? Please deny their motion.
Sincerely,
Seth Finkelstein
Senior Software Engineer
OpenLaw/OpenDVD participant
Let's see the speed this displays (pun intended) before being impressed.
I notice they don't describe the prize, and require: All email concerning this challenge must be PGP encrypted.
I wonder just how wise it would be to try to claim victory:
Someone needs to have an insight as to a useful crypanalytic attack, to use all that hardware.
Given that the telephone company does this all the time (The number you requested is ...), it's undoubtedly a recorded voice.
I can see it now:
"Dear Consumer, according to our GPS data, you've been commuting 1.5 hours every day. ... Enjoy your longtrip home
We have a new house for sale coming up here.
*beep* You're 1 mile from it
*beep* You're 0.5 miles away
*beep* Driving by now, c'mon take a look
*beep* Your loss
The DMCA is about PROPERTY RIGHTS That's property rights in copyright. But it's still a propery rights law.
Note I am not saying anything so silly as there should be no private property or that there shold be no intellectual property. But the basic problem is, in fact, what is property in the net-age, and what is necessary to protect that property.
Lots and lots of papers in the same vein as the above article, but much more in-depth.
2. Being a writer is OK
3. Yes, I think so. He may not be a genius, but he's decent, especially graded on a curve of typical blather of the Internet.
4. No, but I've been throught these arguments for many years. I could see it being part of a cumulative influence on someone, though.
5. See point 1.
http://code-is-law.org.
That's the website for Lessig's book, CODE and Other Laws of Cyberspace
It has excerpts
And unlike goverments, large corporations can be multinational. They can assert causes of actions from local subsidiaries or divisions.
Any webhosting company, anywhere in the entire world, when given a choice between fighting a costly lawsuit and cutting off a site, has a very strong incentive to cut off that site.
To people who say "run your own web host", apply all the above to "net connection provider".
Welcome to what happens when megacorporations woke up to the Net.
Speaking as a co-founder of Censorware Project (now retired) and a professional programmer:
Heck, all I ever wanted was enough public and legal support so that I didn't lose my career and life's savings to a censorware lawsuit (and a little respect). Couldn't get it.
Censorware Project doesn't take donations. But if anyone wants to start giving me 70K chunks of money to start another anti-censorware organization (and lawyers, don't forget the lawyers, lots of lawyers), let's talk :-).
It is, however, more than than RedHat's total profit. And that's what matters to a company.
For some perspective, take a look at the American Association of University Professors report, Developments Relating to Censure by the Association
As a general rule, University employees advance in their careers by avoiding trouble. Tenured faculty may get to be firebrands. But for the average administrator, there are no rewards to being a no-holds-barred defender of academdic freedom.
But how many people are ever going to read down that far?
I can see many Dilbert-fans wondering if that is a bug or a feature.
Reliability obvious gets a big premium when crash is not a metaphor.
No. His picture is on the Globe site
http://www.boston.com/globe/columns/bray/
They also claim the specification IS a trade secret, quote
The Specification is confidential information and a trade secret of Microsoft.
That's part of the license agreement from when you run the self-extracting zip that they have.
Microsoft Asks Slashdot To Remove Readers' Posts
Trade secret enters via "proprietary" claims.