In-depth coverage in LA times article
on
KaZaA Collapses
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That story was the AP
breaking-news version. There's much more detail in
the
LA times version, which discusses the litigation in more depth.
Particularly notable (money, money, money...):
Lawyers for another defendant, Streamcast Networks Inc., which launched the Morpheus file-sharing network, voiced a similar complaint. Morpheus'
main law firm, Palo Alto-based Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, told the court it intends to withdraw from the case because Streamcast can't afford to
pay the bills....
Legal fees are running high in the case not only because it's
extremely important to some of the world's largest media
companies but also because it involves several of California's
biggest law firms....
Ultimately, Mist-On agreed that it could not copyright the idea of a
FAQ page. However, Mist-On argued that because the Gilley's FAQ page
was so similar to the Mist-On FAQ page that there must be some
copyright infringement.
The court swatted away this argument
by noting the differences between the
two Web pages, such as the fact that "the
sequence, the wording and the number of
the questions are different from each
other," "five of defendants' questions are
entirely unique to their page," "seven of
plaintiff's questions are entirely unique to
its page," and "the layout of the web
page[s] is different." Moreover, "there is
no truth to plaintiff's assertion that many
of defendants' questions and answers are
'nearly identical' to plaintiff's."
In one line, RealName's business model was to leverage Microsoft's
desktop monopoly, into being a DNS monopoly. To be melodramatic, the
problem is that when you act as a henchman for someone who is trying to
Rule The World, never forget that the would-be world-ruler has no loyalty to
you. Only to how you fit into the world-ruling strategy. It's a
complicated and difficult task to attempt to Rule The World. When
strategies change, the specialists recruited to implement the
former strategies, will be gone. And so came
to pass with RealNames.
They attempted to live by the Microsoft monopoly-sword, and
now they die by the Microsoft monopoly-sword.
This is not, though, Microsoft necessarily being "right",
so much as having failed in one Rule The World gambit,
and rationally, cut its losses. That's not the same thing at all.
Court on spam versus "a few unwanted e-mails"
on
More on Intel v. Hamidi
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Again, many of the issues being discussed in these threads
have been addressed in the
appeals court decision. Regarding the idea of using
email as it was intended, this is very relevant:
(emphasis added below)
Hamidi insists Intel's act of connecting itself (and
thus, its employees) to the Internet and giving its employees
e-mail addresses makes Intel's e-mails a public forum. By the
same reasoning, connecting one's realty to the general system
of roads invites demonstrators to use the property as a public
forum and buying a telephone is an invitation to receive
thousands of unwanted calls. That is not the law.
(CompuServe, supra, 962 F.Supp. at p. 1024; Cyber Promotions,
supra, 948 F.Supp. at p. 442.) Intel is as much entitled to
control its e-mail system as it is to guard its factories and
hallways. No citizen has the general right to enter a private
business and pester an employee trying to work. It may be a
few unwanted e-mails would not be sufficient to trigger a
court's equity powers. Indeed, such may be an inevitable,
though regrettable, fact of modern life, like unwelcome junk
mail and telephone solicitations. (See Cyber Promotions, Inc.
v. Apex Global Information Svcs., Inc. (E.D.Pa. 1997) 1997 WL
634384, p. *3 [bulk e-mail "annoying and intrusive"].)
However, the massive size of Hamidi's campaign caused Intel
much trouble , not the least of which was caused by the lost
time of each employee who had to read or delete an unwanted
message, either out of fear of a virus or a lack of desire to
communicate with Hamidi. As we pointed out in another case,
"When a camel's back is broken we need not weigh each straw in
its load to see which one could have done the deed."
(Woodland Joint Unified School Dist. v. Commission on
Professional Competence (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1457.)
EXACT trespass reasoning of Appeals Court
on
More on Intel v. Hamidi
·
· Score: 4, Informative
In discussing the case,
it's helpful to read the exact reasoning of the
appeals court decision, for example:
Hamidi's conduct was trespassory. Even assuming Intel
has not demonstrated sufficient "harm" to trigger entitlement
to nominal damages for past breaches of decorum by Hamidi, it
showed he was disrupting its business by using its property
and therefore is entitled to injunctive relief based on a
theory of trespass to chattels. Hamidi acknowledges Intel's
right to self help and urges Intel could take further steps to
fend off his e-mails. He has shown he will try to evade
Intel's security. We conceive of no public benefit from this
wasteful cat-and-mouse game which justifies depriving Intel of
an injunction. (Cf. America Online, Inc. v. Nat. Health Care
Discount, Inc. (N.D. Iowa 2000) 121 F.Supp.2d 1255, 1259-1260
[detailing ongoing technological struggle between spammers and
system operators].) Even where a company cannot precisely
measure the harm caused by an unwelcome intrusion, the fact
the intrusion occurs supports a claim for trespass to
chattels. (See Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.
2000) 126 F.Supp.2d 238, 249-250 [applying New York law, based
on the Restatement, "evidence of mere possessory interference
is sufficient to demonstrate the quantum of harm necessary to
establish a claim for trespass to chattels"].)
The California Court of Appeal for the First District has ruled that
California's spam statute is constitutional and valid. This means that
from now on, spammers must comply with its requirements or face legal
liability and/or criminal punishment. Read the decision by clicking
here.
The California Supreme Court has refused to review the decision.
Technical vs. legal measures, some thoughts
on
More on Intel v. Hamidi
·
· Score: 4, Informative
This was a pretty intersting message written a
while back on the topic, from a mailing-list.
[Disclaimer: Although I'm posting a message
written by Michael Sims, this
has nothing to do with
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org). I thought
this was an very insightful message on the topic, and I'm big enough to
say so]
From: Michael Sims <jellicle@inch.com>
Subject: Re: Intel v. Hamidi
Date: 30 Apr 1999 16:32:24 -0000
Mike Godwin wrote:
> Isn't it trivial for Intel to block Hamidi?
No. It isn't, and that's the crux of the matter. China has been trying
for several years now to suppress email messages from dissidents in the
U.S. China has absolute technical control over the routers into the
country and a willingness to use it. China is willing to incarcerate
anyone they can get their hands on who aids this process. China has
failed to stop the flow of email messages, or even temper it. Intel is
obviously more realistic about its odds of stopping Hamidi with technical
means than Godwin is.
Godwin would prefer (in his usual abrasive fashion) to simply insist that
technical solutions are the be-all and end-all, and no dissent will be
tolerated. Trespassing should not be a crime - after all, anyone can
build a 30-foot wall with razor wire around their property, which is
certainly more effective than the legal system in preventing trespass.
If anyone wants an interesting thought to chew upon, try this one. More
and more military members have email access through the military, which is
often their only electronic contact, and definitely their only free
contact with the outside world. What if the U.S. military desired to
prevent some persons from sending mail to military members at their
military addresses, either because it was frivolous, or spam, or deemed a
threat to morale ("Ban the Bomb!"), or what-have-you... Keep in mind
that
the military has a firm commitment to delivering snail-mail to its
members, anytime, anywhere, which is generally to a military unit address
as well.
Any thoughts? I can definitely see future electronic
activists emailing 5,000 people on the carrier U.S.S. America, telling
them to stop bombing whoever it may be that we're bombing that
particular day. Obviously this might annoy the military. What
recourse do they have, if any? Technical solutions are obvious but
not particularly effective, especially since the mailer gets infinite
no-cost tries to get through. What could they do, legally?
I think Wolfram means something similar to the idea that
E = m * c ^ 2 is one "line of code", yet that has profound
implications from everything to the structure of atoms to the eventual
fate of the universe. That's what I suspect he means by "code".
Not printf("Hello World");
The above post appears to be nothing more than a personal vendetta.
No. It's in the main part a discussion of personal legal risk,
in the context of someone urging me to personally take action similar
to the DMCA case which 2600 has done (on-topic!). I could do it
(on-topic!), in a
censorware
context
. And I am quite worried about what will happen to
me if I do (on-topic! - wow, given this legal appeal failure,
is it on-topic!). That's very far from "nothing more".
That's not "personal" at all, except in the sense that I don't
personally want to go to jail, or get sued. Am I wrong for that?
(or is it off-topic?).
"Slashdot editors abusing their privileges" may strike a chord with some,
but it is definitely not the case here.
That's not what I said. Quote:
So I feel heavily constrained as to what I can do to fight the DMCA,
in large part because I have to worry about a Slashdot editor who
has already shown he's extremely willing to
abuse power for revenge.
Which part of this do you disagree, purely as a statement of fact?
Was Michael Sims correct in the
domain hijacking of
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) ? Am I
wrong to worry about the potential for him to abuse his power as a
Slashdot editor? I am indeed concerned about personal smears,
because such attacks, even from Slashdot comments,
ended up as DeCSS court evidence! Is this inaccurate? Is this
false? Is this even off-topic for this thread, given that it's about the
court decision in the 2600 DeCSS case
against the DMCA?
I realize people say these Slashdot comments lessen me. What can I
tell you? It's very frustrating to contemplate the potential
legal consequences of doing something to fight the DMCA. It's one
thing to post rah-rah comments in a discussion thread. But when one
sits down to real consideration of what's involved, that's far, far,
more serious.
Look, you don't have to like me. You don't have to believe that I'm a
pleasant person. But I would ask you to respect the severe legal and
personal consequences involved in any action against the DMCA.
This, like many things you post about, has nothing to do with censorware.
That is incorrect. The original question concerned.
Librarian of Congress exemptions. I am quite familiar with that topic,
having played a role in establishing one of the only two DMCA exemptions
granted. Those two exemptions were
for obsoleteness and for censorware.
I then quoted part of the
actual text of the exemption to demonstrate how narrow was the
exemption granted.
I suppose I could have quoted the text for the obsoleteness exemption,
but given a choice, why not use the relevant topic dear to my heart?
So you are mistaken, it was written in direct and accurate response to
the original poster's question.
Of course, I talk about censorware a great deal. I've done much of
the pioneering work on that
topic. And if I may
say so, I'm expert about it and familiar with
the relevant legal issues surrounding it. And these legal
issues strongly connect with the DMCA, per above.
I usually don't reply to personal attacks in these threads. But since
you're not a troll, and it is arguably on-topic, I'll make an exception here.
Regarding going up against the DMCA myself, well, just how eager would
you be to take legal risk in my place, given that Michael Sims has done
actions such as
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) ? That's
an extremely serious question. This isn't a game. It's not a silly flame-war.
Note what this story is about - 2600 has lost at every LEGAL level,
been outright flamed by the judge in the original case decision, and DeCSS cases have even
had comments from Slashdot postings used against them. The smears you
mention, have been against me. If I take too much legal risk, as sure as the
other side has lawyers, it's all going to be in their court evidence.
So I feel heavily constrained as to what I can do to fight the DMCA,
in large part because I have to worry about a Slashdot editor who
has already shown he's extremely willing to
abuse power for revenge.
Maybe I'll get modded down for this, but it's late, and I'm tired.
It's not a nice topic. But
going to jail over the DMCA is far worse. And I didn't take any vow
of silence about
Michael Sims.
HTML version of Kaplan ruling, Openlaw, OpenDVD
on
2600 Appeal Rejected
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Before anyone mods this down as redundant, note the links given in the article
above go to the official PDF versions of the Kaplan ruling. That's
proper, but the following unofficial
hyperlinked version is much easier to read:
A review of the factors listed in 1201(a)(1)(C) supports the creation
of this exemption. Although one can speculate that the availability of
technological protection measures that deny access to the lists of
blocked websites might be of benefit to the proprietors of filtering
software, and might even increase the willingness of those proprietors
to make the software available for use by the public, no commenters or
witnesses came forward to make such an assertion. No information was
presented relating to the use of either the filtering software or the
lists of blocked websites for nonprofit archival, preservation and
educational purposes. Nor was any information presented relating to
whether the circumvention of technological measures preventing access
to the lists has had an impact on the market for or value of filtering
software or the compilations of objectionable websites contained
therein. However, a persuasive case was made that the existence of
access control measures has had an adverse effect on criticism and
comment, and most likely news reporting, and that the prohibition on
circumvention of access control measures will have an adverse effect."
The "image" battle was a problem way before the appeal level. In
the original ruling, the
court said:
In the final analysis, the dispute between these parties is simply
put if not necessarily simply resolved.
Plaintiffs have invested huge sums over the years in producing motion
pictures in reliance upon a legal framework that, through the law of
copyright, has ensured that they will have the exclusive right to copy
and distribute those motion pictures for economic gain. They contend
that the advent of new technology should not alter this long
established structure.
Defendants, on the other hand, are adherents of a movement that
believes that information should be available without charge to
anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data
storage media in which it is located.
Judge Kaplan wasn't exactly shy about his views, no sirreee bob...
Experts urge consumers to check their credit file once a year. Call Experian
at (888) 397-3742 for a credit report, and review it for an unauthorized
inquiries.
Also, contact the remaining two credit bureaus, Equifax at (800) 685-1111
and Trans Union at (800) 916-8800.
Ford Credit said that it has reinforced the security of their credit inquiry
access process to prevent future occurrences.
To contact Ford Credit with questions, call (888) 838-8176 between the
hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. CDT, Monday through Saturday.
For example, the WAP address wap.sex.com can be viewed on cell phones
using Verizon Wireless, Nextel Communications and Sprint PCS wireless
Internet services. But the same URL entered into a Cingular Wireless
device returns the message "your client is not allowed to access the
requested object."
But in France, Germany, and most of the rest of the Continent, the
pickings are still slim. One trouble is that many phone companies are
still in the beginning phases of WAP, and they block access to other
service providers. This is known in the industry lingo as a ''closed
garden.'' And for the time being, that garden has high fences. When I
go to Germany with my French Web phone, I can only gain access to the
Web through an international call to France, where I get a French
weather report. This will change in the next year or two as phone
companies adapt their Web services for roaming travelers.
Moreover, the speed hike only seemed to make a marginal difference
over other wireless Web phones I've tried; I was still viewing text,
and you must punch too many menu keys to access particular
screens. And whenever I entered the Web address for usatoday.com, I
received the following message: "WAP Gateway: Your client is not
allowed to access the requested object."
What may have happened is that the sources tried to get to porn
sites, didn't work, and then concluded that those sites were being
banned in specific. But it could be a general compatibility
problem affecting many sites.
Not all Web sites are affected, just those that use a standard called
Wireless Application Protocol (WAP). Web page makers use WAP to create
a slimmed down version of their sites for
cell phones.
Please take this into account for testing. So far, looking
over the web, I've found no supporting evidence for the story.
This is worth pondering, from Justice Stevens' dissent:
In the context of most other media, using community
standards to differentiate between permissible and im-
permissible speech has two virtues. As mentioned above,
community standards originally served as a shield to
protect speakers from the least tolerant members of society. By aggregating values at the community level, the
Miller test eliminated the outliers at both ends of the
spectrum and provided some predictability as to what
constitutes obscene speech. But community standards
also serve as a shield to protect audience members, by
allowing people to self-sort based on their preferences.
Those who abhor and those who tolerate sexually explicit
speech can seek out like-minded people and settle in communities that share their views on what is acceptable for
themselves and their children. This sorting mechanism,
however, does not exist in cyberspace; the audience cannot
self-segregate. As a result, in the context of the Internet
this shield also becomes a sword, because the community
that wishes to live without certain material not only rids
itself, but the entire Internet of the offending speech.
I hate to seem to defend the law, but an objection that is easily
answered won't help. If the best you can say is "This is stopping
me from selling sex material online by money orders!", that's just not
a powerful challenge. The fact remains that credit-cards are the
most common way of selling on-line, and credit-cards are a defense
under the law. Once someone has signed-up on the commercial sex site,
with a valid credit card number, you can show them anything. The court
knows that credit cards are not 100.0% reliable. They accept it as
imperfect. That proves my point, these laws ironically DO NOT have
much affect on the hard-cord sex sites.
Perversely, commercial pornographers would remain relatively
unaffected by the Act, since we learned that most of them already
use credit card or adult verification anyway. Commercial
pornographers normally provide a few free pictures to entice a user
into proceeding further into the Web site. To proceed beyond these
teasers, users must provide a credit card number or adult
verification number. The CDA will force these businesses to remove
the teasers (or cover the most salacious content with cgi scripts),
but the core, commercial product of these businesses will remain in
place.
The real goal, of course, is not to prosecute violations of this law
-- it is to create a system that strongly deters creation or
distribution of ANY adult content online. By imposing an impossible
standard to prevent access by minors, the law effectively closes off
access to everyone.
This is often said. But both the CDA and this decision
are clear that, paradoxically, outright commercial pornographers
have affirmative defenses in the law.
It's one of the ironies of this whole debate.
Out-and-out professional sex sites are SAFE FROM THE LAW,
because they use credit cards. It's the amateurs, the people who give
it away to everyone, who are subject to prosecution:
Like the CDA, COPA also provides affirmative defenses
to those subject to prosecution under the statute. An
individual may qualify for a defense if he, 'in good faith,
has restricted access by minors to material that is harmful
to minors: (A) by requiring the use of a credit card, debit
account, adult access code, or adult personal identification
number; (B) by accepting a digital certificate that verifies
age; or (C) by any other reasonable measures that are
feasible under available technology.'
t's interesting to see how poorly understood the Internet is to the justices.
I don't think the problem is that they didn't
understand. I think the problem is that they didn't
care:
While JUSTICE KENNEDY and JUSTICE STEVENS question the applicability
of this Courtís community standards jurisprudence to the Internet, we
do not believe that the medium's "unique characteristics" justify
adopting a different approach than that set forth in Hamling and
Sable.... If a publisher chooses to send its material into a
particular community, this Courtís jurisprudence teaches that it is
the publisherís responsibility to abide by that community's standards.
The publisher's burden does not change simply because it decides to
distribute its material to every com- munity in the Nation. See
Sable, supra, at 125n126. Nor does it change because the publisher
may wish to speak only to those in a "community where avant garde
culture is the norm," post, at 6 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in
judgment), but nonetheless utilizes a medium that transmits its speech
from coast to coast. If a publisher wishes for its material to be
judged only by the standards of particular communities, then it need
only take the simple step of utilizing a medium that enables it to
target the release of its material into those communities.
Jon Johansen: I'm 16 now, I was 15 when it happened... and the
encryption code wasn't in fact written by me, but written by the
German member. There seems to be a bit of confusion about that part.
LinuxWorld: The other two people that you had worked with to make
the player are remaining anonymous -- is that right?
Jon Johansen: Yes, that is correct.
...
LinuxWorld: Do you know why they want to remain anonymous?
Jon Johansen: They are both a lot older than me, and they are
employed. So I guess they just didn't want the publicity, and they
were perhaps afraid of getting fired.
Slashdot Mirror
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Per the article:
(and this is a better link too!)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
It's now an unobvious deep-link into the archives
Also available elsewhere
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
They attempted to live by the Microsoft monopoly-sword, and now they die by the Microsoft monopoly-sword.
This is not, though, Microsoft necessarily being "right", so much as having failed in one Rule The World gambit, and rationally, cut its losses. That's not the same thing at all.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Yes, I could see there being a job as a guide, but it would seem to be a rather "cold" career now :-)
Maybe the "hot" version is being an "Everquest Travel Guide" :-)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
(emphasis added below)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
FindLaw > Legal Subjects > Cyberspace Law > E-Mail > Primary Materials - Laws and Government Documents
Especially Ferguson v. Friendfinder
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
[Disclaimer: Although I'm posting a message written by Michael Sims, this has nothing to do with What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org). I thought this was an very insightful message on the topic, and I'm big enough to say so]
From: Michael Sims <jellicle@inch.com>
Subject: Re: Intel v. Hamidi
Date: 30 Apr 1999 16:32:24 -0000
Mike Godwin wrote:
> Isn't it trivial for Intel to block Hamidi?
No. It isn't, and that's the crux of the matter. China has been trying for several years now to suppress email messages from dissidents in the U.S. China has absolute technical control over the routers into the country and a willingness to use it. China is willing to incarcerate anyone they can get their hands on who aids this process. China has failed to stop the flow of email messages, or even temper it. Intel is obviously more realistic about its odds of stopping Hamidi with technical means than Godwin is.
Godwin would prefer (in his usual abrasive fashion) to simply insist that technical solutions are the be-all and end-all, and no dissent will be tolerated. Trespassing should not be a crime - after all, anyone can build a 30-foot wall with razor wire around their property, which is certainly more effective than the legal system in preventing trespass.
If anyone wants an interesting thought to chew upon, try this one. More and more military members have email access through the military, which is often their only electronic contact, and definitely their only free contact with the outside world. What if the U.S. military desired to prevent some persons from sending mail to military members at their military addresses, either because it was frivolous, or spam, or deemed a threat to morale ("Ban the Bomb!"), or what-have-you... Keep in mind that the military has a firm commitment to delivering snail-mail to its members, anytime, anywhere, which is generally to a military unit address as well.
Any thoughts? I can definitely see future electronic activists emailing 5,000 people on the carrier U.S.S. America, telling them to stop bombing whoever it may be that we're bombing that particular day. Obviously this might annoy the military. What recourse do they have, if any? Technical solutions are obvious but not particularly effective, especially since the mailer gets infinite no-cost tries to get through. What could they do, legally?
-- Michael Sims
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
No. It's in the main part a discussion of personal legal risk, in the context of someone urging me to personally take action similar to the DMCA case which 2600 has done (on-topic!). I could do it (on-topic!), in a censorware context . And I am quite worried about what will happen to me if I do (on-topic! - wow, given this legal appeal failure, is it on-topic!). That's very far from "nothing more".
For background, please read about programmers having been sued for anticensorware work, and even going to jail over the DMCA.
That's not "personal" at all, except in the sense that I don't personally want to go to jail, or get sued. Am I wrong for that? (or is it off-topic?).
That's not what I said. Quote:
Which part of this do you disagree, purely as a statement of fact? Was Michael Sims correct in the domain hijacking of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) ? Am I wrong to worry about the potential for him to abuse his power as a Slashdot editor? I am indeed concerned about personal smears, because such attacks, even from Slashdot comments, ended up as DeCSS court evidence! Is this inaccurate? Is this false? Is this even off-topic for this thread, given that it's about the court decision in the 2600 DeCSS case against the DMCA?
I realize people say these Slashdot comments lessen me. What can I tell you? It's very frustrating to contemplate the potential legal consequences of doing something to fight the DMCA. It's one thing to post rah-rah comments in a discussion thread. But when one sits down to real consideration of what's involved, that's far, far, more serious.
Look, you don't have to like me. You don't have to believe that I'm a pleasant person. But I would ask you to respect the severe legal and personal consequences involved in any action against the DMCA.
That is incorrect. The original question concerned. Librarian of Congress exemptions. I am quite familiar with that topic, having played a role in establishing one of the only two DMCA exemptions granted. Those two exemptions were for obsoleteness and for censorware. I then quoted part of the actual text of the exemption to demonstrate how narrow was the exemption granted. I suppose I could have quoted the text for the obsoleteness exemption, but given a choice, why not use the relevant topic dear to my heart?
So you are mistaken, it was written in direct and accurate response to the original poster's question.
Of course, I talk about censorware a great deal. I've done much of the pioneering work on that topic. And if I may say so, I'm expert about it and familiar with the relevant legal issues surrounding it. And these legal issues strongly connect with the DMCA, per above.
I usually don't reply to personal attacks in these threads. But since you're not a troll, and it is arguably on-topic, I'll make an exception here.
Regarding going up against the DMCA myself, well, just how eager would you be to take legal risk in my place, given that Michael Sims has done actions such as What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) ? That's an extremely serious question. This isn't a game. It's not a silly flame-war. Note what this story is about - 2600 has lost at every LEGAL level, been outright flamed by the judge in the original case decision, and DeCSS cases have even had comments from Slashdot postings used against them. The smears you mention, have been against me. If I take too much legal risk, as sure as the other side has lawyers, it's all going to be in their court evidence. So I feel heavily constrained as to what I can do to fight the DMCA, in large part because I have to worry about a Slashdot editor who has already shown he's extremely willing to abuse power for revenge.
Maybe I'll get modded down for this, but it's late, and I'm tired. It's not a nice topic. But going to jail over the DMCA is far worse. And I didn't take any vow of silence about Michael Sims.
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/NY/trial/op . tml
This is part of Harvard's Openlaw site, which has an excellent OpenDVD section
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
"Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works"
Already happened, and it'll be a while before it can be lobbied again. It only applies to doing circumvention, not to technology.
Take a look at the formal text (I'm mentioned twice! :-) ) at
Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights and Determination of the Librarian of Congress, 65 FR 64555, October 27, 2000
For example:
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Judge Kaplan wasn't exactly shy about his views, no sirreee bob ...
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
There's a good index of various references at
http://cs-www.bu.edu/~dm/pubs/replaytv.html
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Now compare this old business-week article
And this USA today article:
What may have happened is that the sources tried to get to porn sites, didn't work, and then concluded that those sites were being banned in specific. But it could be a general compatibility problem affecting many sites.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Please take this into account for testing. So far, looking over the web, I've found no supporting evidence for the story.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
From the old, district-court, CDA decision:
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
This is often said. But both the CDA and this decision are clear that, paradoxically, outright commercial pornographers have affirmative defenses in the law. It's one of the ironies of this whole debate. Out-and-out professional sex sites are SAFE FROM THE LAW, because they use credit cards. It's the amateurs, the people who give it away to everyone, who are subject to prosecution:
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
I don't think the problem is that they didn't understand. I think the problem is that they didn't care:
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
It is EXTREMELY stressful to be an anonymous developer for legal-risky work. Let me tell you, I know.
As Jon Johansen said, in an old interview about DeCSS:
(emphasis added)
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-01/lw -01-dvd-interview.html
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)