From ath at limm.mgimo.ru Thu Nov 1 07:23:13 2001 From: ath at limm.mgimo.ru (Ilya V. Vasilyev) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:08 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] ÁËÃÉÑ × íÏÓË×Å: 26 ÎÏÑÂÒÑ References: <163156685.20011031104220@elcomsoft.com> Message-ID: <004801c162e9$230ab1d0$0100a8c0@sharhan> Hi, All! ?????????, ??? 26 ?????? ? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ? ?????? ??????? ????????. ??????? ?????????? ????? ?? ???? ???????????. ??? ?? ?????????? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? -- ??????????????. ??? ??? ??????? ?? ????????? ? ?????????? -- ?????????. ?? ???? ??? ? ???? ?????????? ????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ?? EFF. ;-) ?????? ???????/??????? ??? ??? ???????, ? ??? ????????? ?????????? ? ???? ??????? ????? ???????? ? ????????????. ??????????? ?????????????? ? ????????, ????? 26 ?????? ????????? ?? ? ????????, ? ??????????. ?? ? ? ???????? ???? ?????????. ;-) ????????? ???????! ????? DMCA! - - - Ilya V. Vasilyev Civil Hackers' School Moscow Center +7(095)162-4767 http://hscool.org/ From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Fri Nov 2 03:09:01 2001 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:13 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Movie industry dealt DVD-cracking blow Message-ID: <914865118.20011102140901@elcomsoft.com> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7751876.html By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com November 1, 2001, 5:05 p.m. PT update: A California court has dealt a potentially serious setback to the movie industry's attempt to rid the online world of software that can help break through copy protections on DVDs. The appeals court released a decision Thursday overturning an earlier order that barred hundreds of people from publishing the code for a software program called "DeCSS" online. Posting the code is just like publishing other types of controversial speech and is protected by the constitution, the appellate judges said. "Although the social value of DeCSS may be questionable, it is nonetheless pure speech," the decision reads. "Our respect for the legislature and its enactment of the (trade secrets law) cannot displace our duty to safeguard the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment." The decision, while not a final one on the legality of the software program, nevertheless marks a severe blow for the movie industry's legal battle against online threats. Hollywood studios have contended that software that can break through their anti-piracy techniques is simply a tool and does not warrant free-speech protections. A federal judge has agreed with much of that reasoning. The California appeals court's ruling Thursday goes the furthest to date in explicitly defining software code as speech. Under that legal reasoning, programmers could still be prosecuted for posting illegal software but could not be prevented from doing so in the first place. The difference is important for both sides, particularly in software cases. If publishers can release something online, even if it might be deemed illegal later, it can take on a life of its own as it is read, copied, and distributed by others. If copyright holders could get a prior restraint on publication, the spread of a piece of software or information could more effectively be stopped. The DeCSS software, in several legal manifestations, has become a cause celebre among open-source programmers and much of the computer underground. Allegedly created by a 15-year-old Norwegian programmer named Jon Johansen, the DeCSS software was designed to let DVDs play on computers running the Linux operating system. But it wound up being a tool useful to those who want to copy movies stored on DVDs and distribute them online. The movie industry has sued to stop the spread of the software in several ways. A federal case is still going on, in which the industry argues that the code is explicitly designed to break through a copyright protection system and therefore illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In that case, publisher Eric Corley has been blocked from posting the code online or linking to other sites that post the code. He's appealing that ruling, saying that the decision violates his free-speech rights. Prior to the federal case, the movie industry filed its suit in California against hundreds of people who had posted the code online. In this case, the DVD Copyright Control Association, an industry group aimed at fighting DVD piracy, claimed that Johansen and anyone who posted the code was illegally spreading trade secrets. The unusual argument states that Johansen reverse engineered the anti-piracy technology to create DeCSS. Although he didn't actually have access to trade secrets to steal, the reverse engineering was barred by a license agreement distributed along with software DVD players. The judges did not evaluate that argument Thursday, as they looked only at the issue of whether blocking the code's publication was appropriate. The court said that blocking publication would amount to "prior restraint." Judges typically see this as a legal no-no and have used the term to allow publication of instructions for building a nuclear weapons and to protect The New York Times' ability to print the Pentagon Papers documents on Vietnam. The movie industry's "statutory right to protect its economically valuable trade secret is not an interest that is 'more fundamental' than the First Amendment right to freedom of speech," the judges wrote. Nor is it "on equal footing with the national security interests and other vital governmental interests that have previously been found insufficient to justify a prior restraint." The Motion Picture Association of America declined comment on the ruling Thursday, saying that members had not yet had a chance to study the ruling. But the decision has re-energized online civil liberties activists. "I really think the court of appeals reinstituted the cyberliberties of individuals worldwide," said Allonn Levy, an HS Law Group attorney working for the defense. "We are a free society, and we are entitled to free speech." The California case is currently in the middle of a pretrial phase, with both parties seeking information from the other. From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Fri Nov 2 03:42:57 2001 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:13 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Movie industry dealt DVD-cracking blow In-Reply-To: <914865118.20011102140901@elcomsoft.com> References: <914865118.20011102140901@elcomsoft.com> Message-ID: <2916901352.20011102144257@elcomsoft.com> Hello, > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7751876.html More on that: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/22613.html I especially like some quotes. like: "Like the CSS decryption software, DeCSS is a writing composed of computer source code which describes an alternative method of decrypting CSS-encrypted DVDs. Regardless of who authored the program, DeCSS is a written expression of the author's ideas and information about decryption of DVDs without CSS. If the source code were compiled to create object code, we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones would not convey ideas. "That the source code is capable of such compilation, however, does not destroy the expressive nature of the source code itself. Thus, we conclude that the trial court's preliminary injunction barring Bunner from disclosing DeCSS can fairly be characterized as a prohibition of pure speech." And this, the court reminds us, is presumed unconstitutional unless proven otherwise, and of course the CCA offered no such proof: "Prior restraints on pure speech are highly disfavored and presumptively unconstitutional. (Hurvitz v. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1241.) 'In the case of a prior restraint on pure speech, the hurdle is substantially higher [than for an ordinary preliminary injunction]: publication must threaten an interest more fundamental than the First Amendment itself. Indeed, the [US] Supreme Court has never upheld a prior restraint, even faced with the competing interest of national security or the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.'" From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Fri Nov 2 03:52:59 2001 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:13 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror Message-ID: <11017502660.20011102145259@elcomsoft.com> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22536.html http://www.securityfocus.com/news/274 Citing a controversial U.S. copyright law, a top Linux developer announced this week that Americans would not be given details about the security fixes in an update to the open source operating system, a first for a software development community that prides itself on transparency. An update to version 2.2 of the Linux kernel, an older version of Linux that's still in wide use, was released Monday, conspicuously shorn of information about a number of security holes patched in the software. In an email to a Linux developer's mailing list, U.K.-based Linux guru Alan Cox wrote that the self-censorship was necessary to avoid running afoul of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a law that makes it a crime to create or distribute software "primarily designed" to circumvent a copy protection scheme. Cox controls the 2.2 release, and is generally considered Linux's second-in-command after creator Linus Torvalds. The DMCA has been under fire from computer programmers and electronic civil libertarians who argue that it is an unconstitutional impingement on speech, and interferes with consumers' traditional right to make personal copies of books, movies and music that they've purchased. In July, the first criminal prosecution under the Act kicked-off with FBI agents arresting Dmitry Sklyarov, a Russian computer programmer who was visiting the U.S. to give a talk at a security conference. Sklyarov is the author of a computer program that cracks the copy protection scheme used by Adobe Systems' eBook software. "With luck, the Sklyarov case will see that overturned on constitutional grounds," Cox wrote on the list. "Until then U.S. citizens will have to guess about security issues." America Boycotted But U.S. Linux developers and users suspect Cox of using them to carry a political message. "My personal belief is that certain people are using this as an excuse to draw attention to the dangers inherent in the DMCA," says Birmingham system administrator Wayne Brown. "I'm sympathetic to their efforts, but not at all happy that people who need access to this information will be denied just to make a point... It seems to me to be contrary to the whole spirit of free software development." "I still think this is an extremist view of the DMCA," wrote U.S. Linux developer Tom Sightler, in a post to the developer's list. "I don't see where it keeps you from posting information about security fixes to your own code." Cox didn't respond to a reporter's inquiry, but on the mailing list, he wrote that the new closed policy was necessary because Linux's standard security features may be used for "rights management" of copyrighted work. He declined to elaborate further "on a list that reaches U.S. citizens." The programmer plans to post Linux security information exclusively on a Web site that will block access from the U.S. Despite Cox's fears, describing security holes or patches in Linux doesn't violate the DMCA, because the information isn't primarily designed for the purpose of circumvention, says attorney Jennifer Granick, director of the Stanford Law School's Law and Technology Clinic. "He seems to be assuming that the DMCA prohibits discussion about any kind of security, and that's not what it does," says Granick. "The DMCA is bad, but it's not that bad." "Part of the problem with the DMCA is it doesn't make intuitive sense to people who are practicing in this field, so even after reading the statute, people don't understand exactly what they are or aren't allowed to do," says Granick. From krburger at burger-family.org Fri Nov 2 04:14:38 2001 From: krburger at burger-family.org (Kenneth Burger) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:13 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror References: <11017502660.20011102145259@elcomsoft.com> Message-ID: <000501c16397$f1481890$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> I read about this on Slashdot awhile ago. My response to it will likely piss several people off, but I feel it's necessary. Alan Cox is either using us as martyrs for his cause or he's a coward. If it's the first then he's violated our trust and also everything open source stands for. If the second, then he needs to get a law degree or at least learn something about the law as well as get a backbone. I am publicly calling upon Alan Cox to step down as second in command for Linux kernel development. His political agenda has clouded his views as a developer and I believe now is the time for him to pass the torch onto somebody who isn't a coward. If he continues to withhold security updates from us I will boycott the Linux operating system in response and I call upon other Americans to do the same. Even Microsoft and Novell release the details about their security updates. The security of my data is very important to me as an administrator and a programmer. Not releasing security update info takes away our ability as developers to look for related faults elsewhere in the source code which others may have missed. I wish it didn't have to come down to this, but when I joined the open-source movement it was in the hope that I could escape M$'s and other large companies political agendas. This is apparently no longer the case. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vladimir Katalov" To: Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 6:52 AM Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22536.html > http://www.securityfocus.com/news/274 > > Citing a controversial U.S. copyright law, a top Linux developer > announced this week that Americans would not be given details about > the security fixes in an update to the open source operating system, a > first for a software development community that prides itself on > transparency. > > An update to version 2.2 of the Linux kernel, an older version of > Linux that's still in wide use, was released Monday, conspicuously > shorn of information about a number of security holes patched in the > software. > > In an email to a Linux developer's mailing list, U.K.-based Linux guru > Alan Cox wrote that the self-censorship was necessary to avoid running > afoul of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a law that > makes it a crime to create or distribute software "primarily designed" > to circumvent a copy protection scheme. > > Cox controls the 2.2 release, and is generally considered Linux's > second-in-command after creator Linus Torvalds. > > The DMCA has been under fire from computer programmers and electronic > civil libertarians who argue that it is an unconstitutional > impingement on speech, and interferes with consumers' traditional > right to make personal copies of books, movies and music that they've > purchased. > > In July, the first criminal prosecution under the Act kicked-off with > FBI agents arresting Dmitry Sklyarov, a Russian computer programmer > who was visiting the U.S. to give a talk at a security conference. > Sklyarov is the author of a computer program that cracks the copy > protection scheme used by Adobe Systems' eBook software. > > "With luck, the Sklyarov case will see that overturned on constitutional grounds," Cox wrote on the list. "Until then U.S. citizens will have to guess about security issues." > > America Boycotted > But U.S. Linux developers and users suspect Cox of using them to carry > a political message. > > "My personal belief is that certain people are using this as an excuse > to draw attention to the dangers inherent in the DMCA," says > Birmingham system administrator Wayne Brown. "I'm sympathetic to their > efforts, but not at all happy that people who need access to this > information will be denied just to make a point... It seems to me to > be contrary to the whole spirit of free software development." > > "I still think this is an extremist view of the DMCA," wrote U.S. > Linux developer Tom Sightler, in a post to the developer's list. "I > don't see where it keeps you from posting information about security > fixes to your own code." > > Cox didn't respond to a reporter's inquiry, but on the mailing list, > he wrote that the new closed policy was necessary because Linux's > standard security features may be used for "rights management" of > copyrighted work. He declined to elaborate further "on a list that > reaches U.S. citizens." > > The programmer plans to post Linux security information exclusively on > a Web site that will block access from the U.S. > > Despite Cox's fears, describing security holes or patches in Linux > doesn't violate the DMCA, because the information isn't primarily > designed for the purpose of circumvention, says attorney Jennifer > Granick, director of the Stanford Law School's Law and Technology > Clinic. > > "He seems to be assuming that the DMCA prohibits discussion about any > kind of security, and that's not what it does," says Granick. "The > DMCA is bad, but it's not that bad." > > "Part of the problem with the DMCA is it doesn't make intuitive sense > to people who are practicing in this field, so even after reading the > statute, people don't understand exactly what they are or aren't > allowed to do," says Granick. > > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Fri Nov 2 06:46:45 2001 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:13 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] From AAP Message-ID: <3727930334.20011102174645@elcomsoft.com> http://www.printmediamag.com/doc/273435466633516.bsp BT: What will it take for most traditional publishers to invest in e-books? When do you anticipate this happening? EM: Publishers want to know that copyright in the works they publish will be protected. Without sufficient technical and legal protections, digital copies of works are subject to unauthorized copying on a mass scale. AAP has been extremely supportive of the Justice Department's prosecution of Dmitry Sklyarov and ElcomSoft for producing and selling a program to hack through Adobe's e-book DRM protection. Without copyright protection, publishers could not pay their authors. Fewer quality works would be produced and readers would lose out. Many publishers are investing in e-books now, but I think you'll see a gradual growth in the number of available titles over the next several years. With Washington actively enforcing the DMCA, publishers have a stronger incentive to put their content into e-book formats. The Open eBook Forum (OeBF), a large standards body and trade association for the e-book industry, houses a working group dedicated to producing standards for the interoperability of DRM systems. Finally, hardware, software and presentation will constantly improve to make e-books more attractive options. From ascott at tathata.org Fri Nov 2 05:50:43 2001 From: ascott at tathata.org (ascott) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:13 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: <000501c16397$f1481890$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> Message-ID: Maybe we should tell Alan that he should not worry and, citing the recent appeals court decision to "overturn the order that barred hundreds of people from publishing" DeCSS code, since it has been found to be an expression of speech (http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7751876.html), that his security fixes, updates, conversations and documentation will be covered under our country's First Ammendment to our Constitution which allows him to share this info freely and protects this freedom specifically. The last thing that I want to see is Alan Cox step down from kernel developement. Surely, you jest. I hope that this recent turn of events for DeCSS help in Dmitry's case, as well. see http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20011101_bunner_appellate_decision.html Here's the crux. "Like the CSS decryption software, DeCSS is a writing composed of computer source code which describes an alternative method of decrypting CSSencrypted DVDs. Regardless of who authored the program, DeCSS is a written expression of the author's ideas and information about decryption of DVDs without CSS. If the source code were "compiled" to create object code, we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones would not convey ideas. (See generally Junger v. Daley, supra, 209 F.3d at pp.482483.) That the source code is capable of such compilation, however, does not destroy the expressive nature of the source code itself. Thus, we conclude that the trial court's preliminary injunction barring Bunner from disclosing DeCSS can fairly be characterized as a prohibition of "pure" speech. " While I know this is not a complete win (or is it? I'm not sure.), I feel that it is a major turning point toward possibly getting it right, none the less. In fact, it may have been the first bit of good news I've read all month and I would certainly like to read more of it. Most Sincerely, -Andrew On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Kenneth Burger wrote: > I read about this on Slashdot awhile ago. My response to it will likely > piss several people off, but I feel it's necessary. Alan Cox is either > using us as martyrs for his cause or he's a coward. If it's the first then > he's violated our trust and also everything open source stands for. If the > second, then he needs to get a law degree or at least learn something about > the law as well as get a backbone. I am publicly calling upon Alan Cox to > step down as second in command for Linux kernel development. His political > agenda has clouded his views as a developer and I believe now is the time > for him to pass the torch onto somebody who isn't a coward. If he continues > to withhold security updates from us I will boycott the Linux operating > system in response and I call upon other Americans to do the same. Even > Microsoft and Novell release the details about their security updates. The > security of my data is very important to me as an administrator and a > programmer. Not releasing security update info takes away our ability as > developers to look for related faults elsewhere in the source code which > others may have missed. I wish it didn't have to come down to this, but > when I joined the open-source movement it was in the hope that I could > escape M$'s and other large companies political agendas. This is apparently > no longer the case. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vladimir Katalov" > To: > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 6:52 AM > Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror > > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22536.html > > http://www.securityfocus.com/news/274 > > > > Citing a controversial U.S. copyright law, a top Linux developer > > announced this week that Americans would not be given details about > > the security fixes in an update to the open source operating system, a > > first for a software development community that prides itself on > > transparency. > > > > An update to version 2.2 of the Linux kernel, an older version of > > Linux that's still in wide use, was released Monday, conspicuously > > shorn of information about a number of security holes patched in the > > software. > > > > In an email to a Linux developer's mailing list, U.K.-based Linux guru > > Alan Cox wrote that the self-censorship was necessary to avoid running > > afoul of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a law that > > makes it a crime to create or distribute software "primarily designed" > > to circumvent a copy protection scheme. > > > > Cox controls the 2.2 release, and is generally considered Linux's > > second-in-command after creator Linus Torvalds. > > > > The DMCA has been under fire from computer programmers and electronic > > civil libertarians who argue that it is an unconstitutional > > impingement on speech, and interferes with consumers' traditional > > right to make personal copies of books, movies and music that they've > > purchased. > > > > In July, the first criminal prosecution under the Act kicked-off with > > FBI agents arresting Dmitry Sklyarov, a Russian computer programmer > > who was visiting the U.S. to give a talk at a security conference. > > Sklyarov is the author of a computer program that cracks the copy > > protection scheme used by Adobe Systems' eBook software. > > > > "With luck, the Sklyarov case will see that overturned on constitutional > grounds," Cox wrote on the list. "Until then U.S. citizens will have to > guess about security issues." > > > > America Boycotted > > But U.S. Linux developers and users suspect Cox of using them to carry > > a political message. > > > > "My personal belief is that certain people are using this as an excuse > > to draw attention to the dangers inherent in the DMCA," says > > Birmingham system administrator Wayne Brown. "I'm sympathetic to their > > efforts, but not at all happy that people who need access to this > > information will be denied just to make a point... It seems to me to > > be contrary to the whole spirit of free software development." > > > > "I still think this is an extremist view of the DMCA," wrote U.S. > > Linux developer Tom Sightler, in a post to the developer's list. "I > > don't see where it keeps you from posting information about security > > fixes to your own code." > > > > Cox didn't respond to a reporter's inquiry, but on the mailing list, > > he wrote that the new closed policy was necessary because Linux's > > standard security features may be used for "rights management" of > > copyrighted work. He declined to elaborate further "on a list that > > reaches U.S. citizens." > > > > The programmer plans to post Linux security information exclusively on > > a Web site that will block access from the U.S. > > > > Despite Cox's fears, describing security holes or patches in Linux > > doesn't violate the DMCA, because the information isn't primarily > > designed for the purpose of circumvention, says attorney Jennifer > > Granick, director of the Stanford Law School's Law and Technology > > Clinic. > > > > "He seems to be assuming that the DMCA prohibits discussion about any > > kind of security, and that's not what it does," says Granick. "The > > DMCA is bad, but it's not that bad." > > > > "Part of the problem with the DMCA is it doesn't make intuitive sense > > to people who are practicing in this field, so even after reading the > > statute, people don't understand exactly what they are or aren't > > allowed to do," says Granick. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > From schoen at loyalty.org Fri Nov 2 08:18:54 2001 From: schoen at loyalty.org (Seth David Schoen) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:14 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: References: <000501c16397$f1481890$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> Message-ID: <20011102081854.Q2342@zork.net> ascott writes: > Maybe we should tell Alan that he should not worry and, citing the recent > appeals court decision to "overturn the order that barred hundreds of > people from publishing" DeCSS code, since it has been found to be an > expression of speech > (http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7751876.html), that his security > fixes, updates, conversations and documentation will be covered under our > country's First Ammendment to our Constitution which allows him to share > this info freely and protects this freedom specifically. > > The last thing that I want to see is Alan Cox step down from kernel > developement. Surely, you jest. > > I hope that this recent turn of events for DeCSS help in Dmitry's case, as > well. > > see > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20011101_bunner_appellate_decision.html > > Here's the crux. > > "Like the CSS decryption software, DeCSS is a writing composed of computer > source code which describes an alternative method of decrypting > CSSencrypted DVDs. Regardless of who authored the program, DeCSS is a > written expression of the author's ideas and information about decryption > of DVDs without CSS. If the source code were "compiled" to create object > code, we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones > would not convey ideas. (See generally Junger v. Daley, supra, 209 F.3d at > pp.482483.) That the source code is capable of such compilation, however, > does not destroy the expressive nature of the source code itself. Thus, we > conclude that the trial court's preliminary injunction barring Bunner from > disclosing DeCSS can fairly be characterized as a prohibition of "pure" > speech. " > > While I know this is not a complete win (or is it? I'm not sure.), I feel > that it is a major turning point toward possibly getting it right, none > the less. In fact, it may have been the first bit of good news I've read > all month and I would certainly like to read more of it. The trouble is that this only (partly, and possibly only temporarily) disposes of the "misappropriation of trade secrets" claim used to attack DeCSS. It doesn't do anything to the "circumvention device" claim -- it wasn't a ruling on or about the DMCA! The Second Circuit could do something about the latter claim by deciding Emmanuel Goldstein's appeal in his favor. That would make a lot of people breathe easier. They've been briefed pretty well and they've expressed curiosity about the free speech issues involved, so we can hope. The trade secret claim has been viewed as weaker than the DMCA claim by most lawyers I know. They often think that the DMCA was written to prevent what Emmanuel Goldstein was doing (although they hope it will be found unconstitutional), whereas the UTSA was not written to prohibit what Andrew Bunner was doing. This decision definitely doesn't provide a precedent for Dmitry's case because he's in Federal court and this decision was made by a California state court (and the law in question is a different law in each case). Although there are situations where state court decisions could affect how Federal courts rule, deciding on the constitutionality of a Federal law doesn't seem to be one of them. Anyway, I'm going to have a party to celebrate the Bunner ruling. It's great news! -- Seth David Schoen | Its really terrible when FBI arrested Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | hacker, who visited USA with peacefull down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | mission -- to share his knowledge with http://www.freesklyarov.org/ | american nation. (Ilya V. Vasilyev) From tom at lemuria.org Fri Nov 2 09:50:50 2001 From: tom at lemuria.org (Tom) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:14 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: <000501c16397$f1481890$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR>; from krburger@burger-family.org on Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 07:14:38AM -0500 References: <11017502660.20011102145259@elcomsoft.com> <000501c16397$f1481890$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> Message-ID: <20011102185050.B12008@lemuria.org> On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 07:14:38AM -0500, Kenneth Burger wrote: > I read about this on Slashdot awhile ago. My response to it will likely > piss several people off, but I feel it's necessary. Alan Cox is either > using us as martyrs for his cause or he's a coward. Obviously, you have been living in a box for a while, especially during the Sklyarov arrest. The danger of being thrown into a small room with a funny window and a doorlock only on the outside is very, very real. Now Alan's reaction may be, uh, somewhat weird. But from what I've read from his postings to the kernel list, he has good reasons, based on legal advise. I have learned quite a lot about the US legal system over the past two years, ever since the DVDCCA trial got started. I probably know more about the US legal system now than I do about the one in my own country. The essence of what I learned is this: It's completely fucked up, and the one thing you do not want to be is become involved in it. You will not win. Let me repeat that: No matter what you do, no matter how the case runs, you as the person involved will ALWAYS lose. At best, the California case has only costed me countless hours of time and several transatlantic phone calls. That's if the defense "wins" in court. For Dmitry Sklyarov, a "victory" in court means he can return to his home country after several MONTHS of imprisonment and forced stay in a foreign country. Alan isn't a coward. He is being realistic. It's the reality that's fucked up. -- -- http://web.lemuria.org -- From dmarti at zgp.org Fri Nov 2 10:20:27 2001 From: dmarti at zgp.org (Don Marti) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: <000501c16397$f1481890$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> References: <11017502660.20011102145259@elcomsoft.com> <000501c16397$f1481890$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> Message-ID: <20011102102027.C12629@zgp.org> begin Kenneth Burger quotation of Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 07:14:38AM -0500: > I read about this on Slashdot awhile ago. My response to it will likely > piss several people off, but I feel it's necessary. Alan Cox is either > using us as martyrs for his cause or he's a coward. If it's the first then > he's violated our trust and also everything open source stands for. Please. He's under no obligation to do security-related research, or to publish his results in any forum. If he wants to write in chalk on the muffler of a 1987 Ford Taurus and charge people 42 million tumtums to crawl under and look, that's his decision. Alan certainly knows that some Europeans will read his site and paraphrase it. There's no practical damage in the long run. Shortsighted quarter-to-quarter US computer executives are perfectly happy to drink from the free software well that Congress is crapping in. If Alan's action gets one "Linux industry" person to understand the danger of DMCA and DRM, it's more than worth it. I appreciate everything Alan has done to express solidarity with Dmitry. Any country that takes these actions against an indvidual for doing useful things deserves to be quarantined. -- Don Marti What do we want? Free Dmitry! When do we want it? Now! http://zgp.org/~dmarti dmarti@zgp.org Free the web, burn all GIFs. http://burnallgifs.org/ From russotto at pond.com Fri Nov 2 10:35:27 2001 From: russotto at pond.com (Matthew Russotto) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror Message-ID: <002601c163cd$24a679e0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> I'm afraid I have to agree with Kenneth Burger over the latest Alan Cox move. He's deliberately overstating the DMCA and taking extreme actions in order to draw attention to the cause, and he's punishing Linux users and maintainers to do it. His actions cannot be justified. On the face of it, publishing details of security updates does not violate the DMCA, and indeed is quite common and so far never prosecuted. There is a tortuous (no pun intended) argument by which such publishing could violate the DMCA... however, the same argument would also apply to the changes themselves, which Mr. Cox is NOT suppressing. Therefore, it seems his action is political and not based on any genuine reasonable or unreasonable fear of prosecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011102/38e7c7f5/attachment.htm From russotto at pond.com Fri Nov 2 10:46:07 2001 From: russotto at pond.com (Matthew Russotto) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Ones and Zeros Message-ID: <003101c163ce$a2450690$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> The court concluded that source code was expressive, and object code was not. This is bad news (indirectly, as the Dmitry and Elcomsoft cases are Federal) for Elcomsoft and Dmitry, because AEBPR was distributed as object code. However, the courts conclusion cannot be justified either technically or logically. Technically, object code can be more or less mechanically translated to source code form, if merely by disassembly. How can mere translation create something which expresses an idea from something which does not? Logically, Johansen is accused (and the court assumed arguendo that the accusation had basis) of taking the trade secrets from Xing's code -- object code -- to obtain the ideas expressed in DeCSS. If those ideas were not expressed in the code they were taken from, where did they come from? Technically again, what of interpreters, which execute source code? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011102/00c3cb72/attachment.html From russotto at pond.com Fri Nov 2 10:48:22 2001 From: russotto at pond.com (Matthew Russotto) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] HTML spew Message-ID: <003901c163ce$f2bb79b0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> Sorry guys, I'm on my back-up emergency back-up email connection, which is Outlook Express, and the accursed thing defaults to sending HTML even though I thought I turned it off. From tompoe at renonevada.net Fri Nov 2 11:42:10 2001 From: tompoe at renonevada.net (tom poe) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: <002601c163cd$24a679e0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> References: <002601c163cd$24a679e0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> Message-ID: <01110211421000.03572@aether> On Friday 02 November 2001 10:35, Matthew Russotto wrote: > > I'm afraid I have to agree with Kenneth Burger over the latest Alan Cox > move. He's deliberately overstating the DMCA and taking extreme actions in > order to draw attention to the cause, and he's punishing Linux users and > maintainers to do it. Hi: Whew! Pretty strong stuff, don't you think? Or do you think? Maybe, just maybe you should think about this. The DMCA is a big hammer. If it doesn't go away, you and I will see Linux go away. The Alan Cox's of the world will not only post that they fear the DMCA, but they just plain won't post. Period. What you tasted, with Alan Cox taking the time to post that he wasn't going to post, and providing the reason for not posting, was a glimpse of the future. Keep the DMCA and lose Linux, Open Source, computers as we know them, and enjoy your expensive new "certified, registered, approved" entertainment device. GET A GRIP, Matthew. Tom From russotto at pond.com Fri Nov 2 12:06:19 2001 From: russotto at pond.com (Matthew Russotto) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror References: <002601c163cd$24a679e0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> <01110211421000.03572@aether> Message-ID: <005801c163d9$d6671f20$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> "tom poe" wrote: > On Friday 02 November 2001 10:35, Matthew Russotto wrote: > > > > I'm afraid I have to agree with Kenneth Burger over the latest Alan Cox > > move. He's deliberately overstating the DMCA and taking extreme actions in > > order to draw attention to the cause, and he's punishing Linux users and > > maintainers to do it. > > Hi: Whew! Pretty strong stuff, don't you think? Or do you think? Maybe, > just maybe you should think about this. Please try to avoid the gratuitious insults. > The DMCA is a big hammer. If it > doesn't go away, you and I will see Linux go away. The Alan Cox's of the > world will not only post that they fear the DMCA, but they just plain won't > post. Period. What you tasted, with Alan Cox taking the time to post that > he wasn't going to post, and providing the reason for not posting, was a > glimpse of the future. Keep the DMCA and lose Linux, Open Source, computers > as we know them, and enjoy your expensive new "certified, registered, > approved" entertainment device. GET A GRIP, Matthew. Tom Believe me, I'm no fan of the DMCA. I've had run-ins with it myself. An example appropriate to this list (because of the server it is on): There's an old Infocom game called "A Mind Forever Voyaging". As copy protection, it requires you to enter a password found by looking things up in a table or on a code wheel provided for it. Neither the code wheel nor the table is accessible to the blind. A blind fan of interactive fiction asked that someone provide an accessible table. I disassembled the program, figured out how it generated the codes, and wrote another program to generate a table from the data in the original program. THAT program was a circumvention device. The resulting table was also a circumvention device. My sending that table to the person who asked for it was distribution of a circumvention device. Information about Linux security fixes, given that the fixes themselves are not circumvention devices? Sorry, not a circumvention device. Censoring the ChangeLog is just a political move. The DMCA does not threaten Linux or Open Source in general (though it treads all over specific projects). It's bad enough, it doesn't need to be exaggerated. (as for the device: Sorry, feds, both table and program were lost when my ISP discarded its servers without warning. Besides, no profit was involved and I doubt you'll get a complaint out of Activision) From tom at lemuria.org Fri Nov 2 13:12:23 2001 From: tom at lemuria.org (Tom) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: <002601c163cd$24a679e0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com>; from russotto@pond.com on Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 01:35:27PM -0500 References: <002601c163cd$24a679e0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> Message-ID: <20011102221223.B12162@lemuria.org> On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 01:35:27PM -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote: > There is a tortuous (no pun intended) argument by which such publishing > could violate the DMCA... however, the same argument would also apply to > the changes themselves, which Mr. Cox is NOT suppressing. Not true. Please read his arguments on the kernel list. -- -- http://web.lemuria.org -- From jono at microshaft.org Fri Nov 2 12:45:32 2001 From: jono at microshaft.org (Jon O .) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] sony dogs aibohack site Message-ID: <20011102124532.B30330@networkcommand.com> This was reported last week but this is a good story. It seems likely that Linux kernel programmers and security researchers would have more to fear from the DMCA than the owners and users of a Robot Dog, but Sony is after them now too. Seems to support Alan Cox's decision to sensor notes and things in the Linux kernel... ----- Forwarded message from nettime's_rovering_reporter ----- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 08:49:46 -0100 From: "nettime's_rovering_reporter" To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Subject: sony dogs aibohack site Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "nettime's_rovering_reporter" [via . another day, another future: sony invokes the DMCA to prevent people--and given the price of an aibo, mostly adults--from sharing tips and tricks on how to hack robotic dogs. quiz: is drawing a parallel between this and doing the same to a living thing: (a) a theoretical trap, (b) an inane misunderstanding, (c) a ruthless insight into social morphology, or (d) other? answer: it's a trick question, because the referent of 'this' isn't clear. "Looking at the last two years, I probably spent more time doing unpaid technical support for Sony than I have playing with my dog. But it's been rewarding. I've met people throughout the world." --cheers, t] November 1, 2001 Sony Dogs Aibo Enthusiast's Site The company uses a controversial law to stop owners from altering the robotic pet. Some consumers balk. By DAVE WILSON and ALEX PHAM, TIMES STAFF WRITERS Sony Corp. is using a controversial U.S. law aimed at protecting intellectual property to pull the plug on a Web site that helps owners of Aibo, Sony's popular and pricey robotic pet, teach their electronic dogs new tricks. Aibo owners are outraged, and hundreds have vowed to stop buying Sony products altogether until the company backs off. Sony has sold more than 100,000 Aibos worldwide since 1999, at prices ranging from $800 to $3,000. The dogs have spawned a community of enthusiasts who fuss over the mechanical marvels as if they were real canines. Last week, Sony executives sent a letter to the operator of a Web site, http://www.aibohack.com, alleging that much of the site's contents-programs and software tools that can modify the Aibo's behavior--was created and distributed in ways that violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The 1998 law was designed to combat the duplication of digitized materials, which can be easily distributed instantaneously worldwide on the Internet. Violators can face monetary damages and even prison time, depending on the nature of the violation. In a prepared statement, Sony officials said they asked only for removal of material it considered illegal and encouraged the distribution of Aibo-related materials that they did not believe infringed the company's rights. Sony sells a number of software kits, usually for about $150, that allow Aibo users to modify the dog's behavior. The software tools removed from the Web site are easier to use and more powerful, according to users--and are available for free. "We do not support the development of software that is created by manipulating existing Sony Aibo-ware code, copying it and/or distributing it via the Internet," the company said. "This is a clear case of copyright infringement, something that most Aibo owners can appreciate and respectfully understand." Critics of the DMCA say the law upsets the delicate balance between the rights of copyright holders to protect their intellectual property and the rights of everyone else to use such items to develop their own works. That has sparked increasing concern in Congress as scientists, librarians, researchers and consumer groups have voiced opposition to the law. "On the surface, Sony appears to be using portions of the DMCA in an attempt to keep people from putting the company's product to new and interesting uses," said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil rights group. "This is exactly the sort of thing we've been concerned about." Cohn said that if Congress does not act, the courts will eventually have to repair the situation. "Sooner or later, this is going to come to a head," she said. "This is a critical societal problem. If we can no longer stand on the shoulders of giants, take a cool thing somebody has made and make it a little bit cooler, progress is stunted, perhaps irreparably." Bob Harting, a Santa Monica potter, has programmed his three Aibos--Sparky, Agent Aibo and Aibojangles--to perform a syncopated dance routine to Madonna's "Vogue." "It's just impossible to do this sort of thing with the Sony tools," he said, as the dogs danced to the music in his living room. "I have bought every accessory made for the Aibo, and nearly every bit of equipment in my apartment--television, VCRs, computers--is from Sony," Harting said. "But I'm not comfortable giving them more money until this is resolved." The man behind Aibohack.com, who goes by the screen name Aibopet and asked to not be identified, removed the contested material from the site, leaving it largely empty except for links to other sites that have organized protests against Sony. He said he incorporates Sony's code into his programs but that no one is harmed. His programs give Aibo owners the ability to manipulate their robot dogs, but only if the user has a legitimate copy of Sony's software. He said that Sony benefits from his work because it generates consumer enthusiasm for Aibo. Although he's upset about being forced to take his tools off the Internet, he said he has no plans to litigate the matter. Before Aibohack.com went down, it saw 400 to 600 visitors a day, many of whom downloaded Aibopet's tools. One of the programs, AiboScope, wirelessly transmits images from the robot's camera to a computer. Another, Disco Aibo, programs Aibo to dance when it hears a specific song. The most recent program is Brainbo, which combines voice-recognition software with a library of answers to various questions. Users can ask the robot a question, and it will pull from the database to lip sync an answer. Aibopet said he has posted more than 1,500 comments, tips and answers to Aibosite.com in the last two years. "I guess you could call it a hobby, but it has gotten a little out of control at times. I just enjoy programming," Aibopet said. "Looking at the last two years, I probably spent more time doing unpaid technical support for Sony than I have playing with my dog. But it's been rewarding. I've met people throughout the world." Experts say Sony risks angering Aibo enthusiasts to the point that they might hurt sales of Aibo and related merchandise but could boost sales of its own software tools. It's a big risk said David A. Aaker, vice chairman of Prophet, a brand strategy consulting firm. Other companies that have faced similar situations have made the opposite choice. Lego Co., a Danish company that makes the classic plastic interlocking children's toy, introduced a computer-controlled set in 1998. MindStorms, as the kit is called, offers users the ability to add motors and an onboard computer to control the creation's behavior. Almost as soon as the toy was introduced, enthusiasts rewrote the software to allow for more complex operation. After much consideration, Lego decided to endorse such hacking, provided that nobody turns their software into a commercial product and that Lego trademarks aren't used. "The decision wasn't easy to make," said Lego spokesman Michael McNally. "We were obviously concerned that if this got out of hand, we could lose control of what we hold as our own. But we decided that if we made this easier for them, they'd be less inclined to change it and dilute it. In a way, we're protecting our own interests." McNally said the decision has helped build the Lego community, but he concedes that Lego's decision was largely made to boost sales. "We're like any other company," he said. "This was about taking the brand forward, creating a larger fan base; and what company wouldn't want to do that? It contributes to the bottom line." Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ ------------------------ http://www.anti-dmca.org ------------------------ DMCA_discuss mailing list DMCA_discuss@lists.microshaft.org http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss ----- End forwarded message ----- From dmarti at zgp.org Fri Nov 2 13:46:32 2001 From: dmarti at zgp.org (Don Marti) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: <002601c163cd$24a679e0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> References: <002601c163cd$24a679e0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> Message-ID: <20011102134632.C16553@zgp.org> begin Matthew Russotto quotation of Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 01:35:27PM -0500: > I'm afraid I have to agree with Kenneth Burger over the latest > Alan Cox move. He's deliberately overstating the DMCA and taking > extreme actions in order to draw attention to the cause, and he's > punishing Linux users and maintainers to do it. Better get your money back from him right away, then. All the rest of you free software programmers, back to work! Matthew Russotto needs working code by yesterday! Don't worry about politics, or getting arrested if you do something a company doesn't like -- that would never happen. -- Don Marti What do we want? Free Dmitry! When do we want it? Now! http://zgp.org/~dmarti dmarti@zgp.org Free the web, burn all GIFs. http://burnallgifs.org/ From krburger at burger-family.org Fri Nov 2 15:09:28 2001 From: krburger at burger-family.org (Kenneth Burger) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror References: <002601c163cd$24a679e0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> <20011102134632.C16553@zgp.org> Message-ID: <011801c163f3$6c245e10$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> If you're going to be the leader of something like this then you should be willing to take that risk. I would. If someone would get me those security updates I would post them on the Internet in a heartbeat despite the risk. If they put me in jail I'd be happy to martyr myself for the cause of overturning the DMCA. To me the security of important data is worth taking the chance. Please note that I did not say that he should stop being a kernel developer. I said he should turn over leadership and control of the changelog and website to someone who would be willing to take that risk. Lets also remember that he's not even American so the DMCA wouldn't affect him unless he came over here. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Marti" To: Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 4:46 PM Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror > begin Matthew Russotto quotation of Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 01:35:27PM -0500: > > > I'm afraid I have to agree with Kenneth Burger over the latest > > Alan Cox move. He's deliberately overstating the DMCA and taking > > extreme actions in order to draw attention to the cause, and he's > > punishing Linux users and maintainers to do it. > > Better get your money back from him right away, then. > > All the rest of you free software programmers, back to work! > Matthew Russotto needs working code by yesterday! Don't worry > about politics, or getting arrested if you do something a company > doesn't like -- that would never happen. > > -- > Don Marti What do we want? Free Dmitry! When do we want it? Now! > http://zgp.org/~dmarti > dmarti@zgp.org Free the web, burn all GIFs. > http://burnallgifs.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > From krburger at burger-family.org Fri Nov 2 15:18:49 2001 From: krburger at burger-family.org (Kenneth Burger) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror References: Message-ID: <012801c163f4$baa52640$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> I didn't say he should step down from development. I said he should step down from his leadership position. Leaders should not be cowards. There's plenty of people who are qualified to lead this project who are not so cowardly as to censor their own security fixes to prevent themselves from being jailed even though such a possibility is remote at best. I'm not qualified because my dev skills suck as compared to the actual kernel development team, but there are plenty of people on the team who do. Alan's not American, but he's still letting this get to him. Turn control over to someone else in Europe who will likely never set foot in the US. ----- Original Message ----- From: "ascott" To: Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror > Maybe we should tell Alan that he should not worry and, citing the recent > appeals court decision to "overturn the order that barred hundreds of > people from publishing" DeCSS code, since it has been found to be an > expression of speech > (http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7751876.html), that his security > fixes, updates, conversations and documentation will be covered under our > country's First Ammendment to our Constitution which allows him to share > this info freely and protects this freedom specifically. > > The last thing that I want to see is Alan Cox step down from kernel > developement. Surely, you jest. > > I hope that this recent turn of events for DeCSS help in Dmitry's case, as > well. > > see > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20011101_bunner_appellate_decision.h tml > > Here's the crux. > > "Like the CSS decryption software, DeCSS is a writing composed of computer > source code which describes an alternative method of decrypting > CSSencrypted DVDs. Regardless of who authored the program, DeCSS is a > written expression of the author's ideas and information about decryption > of DVDs without CSS. If the source code were "compiled" to create object > code, we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones > would not convey ideas. (See generally Junger v. Daley, supra, 209 F.3d at > pp.482483.) That the source code is capable of such compilation, however, > does not destroy the expressive nature of the source code itself. Thus, we > conclude that the trial court's preliminary injunction barring Bunner from > disclosing DeCSS can fairly be characterized as a prohibition of "pure" > speech. " > > While I know this is not a complete win (or is it? I'm not sure.), I feel > that it is a major turning point toward possibly getting it right, none > the less. In fact, it may have been the first bit of good news I've read > all month and I would certainly like to read more of it. > > Most Sincerely, > > -Andrew > > > On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Kenneth Burger wrote: > > > I read about this on Slashdot awhile ago. My response to it will likely > > piss several people off, but I feel it's necessary. Alan Cox is either > > using us as martyrs for his cause or he's a coward. If it's the first then > > he's violated our trust and also everything open source stands for. If the > > second, then he needs to get a law degree or at least learn something about > > the law as well as get a backbone. I am publicly calling upon Alan Cox to > > step down as second in command for Linux kernel development. His political > > agenda has clouded his views as a developer and I believe now is the time > > for him to pass the torch onto somebody who isn't a coward. If he continues > > to withhold security updates from us I will boycott the Linux operating > > system in response and I call upon other Americans to do the same. Even > > Microsoft and Novell release the details about their security updates. The > > security of my data is very important to me as an administrator and a > > programmer. Not releasing security update info takes away our ability as > > developers to look for related faults elsewhere in the source code which > > others may have missed. I wish it didn't have to come down to this, but > > when I joined the open-source movement it was in the hope that I could > > escape M$'s and other large companies political agendas. This is apparently > > no longer the case. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Vladimir Katalov" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 6:52 AM > > Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror > > > > > > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22536.html > > > http://www.securityfocus.com/news/274 > > > > > > Citing a controversial U.S. copyright law, a top Linux developer > > > announced this week that Americans would not be given details about > > > the security fixes in an update to the open source operating system, a > > > first for a software development community that prides itself on > > > transparency. > > > > > > An update to version 2.2 of the Linux kernel, an older version of > > > Linux that's still in wide use, was released Monday, conspicuously > > > shorn of information about a number of security holes patched in the > > > software. > > > > > > In an email to a Linux developer's mailing list, U.K.-based Linux guru > > > Alan Cox wrote that the self-censorship was necessary to avoid running > > > afoul of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a law that > > > makes it a crime to create or distribute software "primarily designed" > > > to circumvent a copy protection scheme. > > > > > > Cox controls the 2.2 release, and is generally considered Linux's > > > second-in-command after creator Linus Torvalds. > > > > > > The DMCA has been under fire from computer programmers and electronic > > > civil libertarians who argue that it is an unconstitutional > > > impingement on speech, and interferes with consumers' traditional > > > right to make personal copies of books, movies and music that they've > > > purchased. > > > > > > In July, the first criminal prosecution under the Act kicked-off with > > > FBI agents arresting Dmitry Sklyarov, a Russian computer programmer > > > who was visiting the U.S. to give a talk at a security conference. > > > Sklyarov is the author of a computer program that cracks the copy > > > protection scheme used by Adobe Systems' eBook software. > > > > > > "With luck, the Sklyarov case will see that overturned on constitutional > > grounds," Cox wrote on the list. "Until then U.S. citizens will have to > > guess about security issues." > > > > > > America Boycotted > > > But U.S. Linux developers and users suspect Cox of using them to carry > > > a political message. > > > > > > "My personal belief is that certain people are using this as an excuse > > > to draw attention to the dangers inherent in the DMCA," says > > > Birmingham system administrator Wayne Brown. "I'm sympathetic to their > > > efforts, but not at all happy that people who need access to this > > > information will be denied just to make a point... It seems to me to > > > be contrary to the whole spirit of free software development." > > > > > > "I still think this is an extremist view of the DMCA," wrote U.S. > > > Linux developer Tom Sightler, in a post to the developer's list. "I > > > don't see where it keeps you from posting information about security > > > fixes to your own code." > > > > > > Cox didn't respond to a reporter's inquiry, but on the mailing list, > > > he wrote that the new closed policy was necessary because Linux's > > > standard security features may be used for "rights management" of > > > copyrighted work. He declined to elaborate further "on a list that > > > reaches U.S. citizens." > > > > > > The programmer plans to post Linux security information exclusively on > > > a Web site that will block access from the U.S. > > > > > > Despite Cox's fears, describing security holes or patches in Linux > > > doesn't violate the DMCA, because the information isn't primarily > > > designed for the purpose of circumvention, says attorney Jennifer > > > Granick, director of the Stanford Law School's Law and Technology > > > Clinic. > > > > > > "He seems to be assuming that the DMCA prohibits discussion about any > > > kind of security, and that's not what it does," says Granick. "The > > > DMCA is bad, but it's not that bad." > > > > > > "Part of the problem with the DMCA is it doesn't make intuitive sense > > > to people who are practicing in this field, so even after reading the > > > statute, people don't understand exactly what they are or aren't > > > allowed to do," says Granick. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > From ilya at theIlya.com Fri Nov 2 15:20:00 2001 From: ilya at theIlya.com (Ilya Volynets) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: <011801c163f3$6c245e10$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> References: <002601c163cd$24a679e0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> <20011102134632.C16553@zgp.org> <011801c163f3$6c245e10$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> Message-ID: <20011102232006.8614.qmail@gateway.total-knowledge.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 02 November 2001 03:09 pm, you wrote: > If you're going to be the leader of something like this then you should be > willing to take that risk. I would. If you feel you have time, ability, and desire, go ahead and start your own kernel cvs tree, whith security update for US people. I'll be first to chec out. > If someone would get me those > security updates I would post them on the Internet in a heartbeat despite > the risk. I guess that posting to couple of kernel-related mailing lists would get them to you in no time. > If they put me in jail I'd be happy to martyr myself for the > cause of overturning the DMCA. To me the security of important data is > worth taking the chance. And we all will be happy to stand behind you. > Please note that I did not say that he should > stop being a kernel developer. I said he should turn over leadership and > control of the changelog and website to someone who would be willing to > take that risk. As you have said before, Linux kernel is not tool for doing politics, so why someone has to take risk of being involved into legal things in US, for leading it's development? > Lets also remember that he's not even American so the DMCA > wouldn't affect him unless he came over here. And let's also remember that many Unix-related conferences are run in US. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjvjKiYACgkQ84S94bALfyWhbACguHlItMNE99HVnh7eepGkP7K5 k1kAn2nDwDJDhC7PxX2uzyry2wIxZAfc =eRkH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jono at microshaft.org Fri Nov 2 15:29:14 2001 From: jono at microshaft.org (Jon O .) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: <012801c163f4$baa52640$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR>; from krburger@burger-family.org on Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 06:18:49PM -0500 References: <012801c163f4$baa52640$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> Message-ID: <20011102152914.C30971@networkcommand.com> Don't forget Kenneth, Alan resigned from his USENIX post very soon after Sklyarov was arrested. Other people are being threatened, having websites taken down, etc. I'm sure there is no real risk to Alan or anyone else. Or am I? Is Alan punishing Linux users and maintainers or are the corporations, government and others who support the law? Alan is merely attempting to protect linux, comply with and follow a law that is being thrown about in the interest of corporate welfare and true R&D. He knows the DMCA is a pick and choose, selective enforcement type law. It's written that way. See a DMCA voilation and report it. Linux isn't going to get anyone claiming DMCA issues, but device drivers, kernel things, other applications which interface with a possibly hostile vendor may cause problems. You are aksing people to change their organisations based on the needs of these hostile vendors and a bad law. That's bogus. Linux kernel developers shouldn't have to worry about this type of crap and you shouldn't support and suggest it. They should not have to fear coming to the US and the fact that you don't see that scares me also. On 02-Nov-2001, Kenneth Burger wrote: > I didn't say he should step down from development. I said he should step > down from his leadership position. Leaders should not be cowards. There's > plenty of people who are qualified to lead this project who are not so > cowardly as to censor their own security fixes to prevent themselves from > being jailed even though such a possibility is remote at best. I'm not > qualified because my dev skills suck as compared to the actual kernel > development team, but there are plenty of people on the team who do. Alan's > not American, but he's still letting this get to him. Turn control over to > someone else in Europe who will likely never set foot in the US. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ascott" > To: > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:50 AM > Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA > terror > > > > Maybe we should tell Alan that he should not worry and, citing the recent > > appeals court decision to "overturn the order that barred hundreds of > > people from publishing" DeCSS code, since it has been found to be an > > expression of speech > > (http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7751876.html), that his security > > fixes, updates, conversations and documentation will be covered under our > > country's First Ammendment to our Constitution which allows him to share > > this info freely and protects this freedom specifically. > > > > The last thing that I want to see is Alan Cox step down from kernel > > developement. Surely, you jest. > > > > I hope that this recent turn of events for DeCSS help in Dmitry's case, as > > well. > > > > see > > > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20011101_bunner_appellate_decision.h > tml > > > > Here's the crux. > > > > "Like the CSS decryption software, DeCSS is a writing composed of computer > > source code which describes an alternative method of decrypting > > CSSencrypted DVDs. Regardless of who authored the program, DeCSS is a > > written expression of the author's ideas and information about decryption > > of DVDs without CSS. If the source code were "compiled" to create object > > code, we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones > > would not convey ideas. (See generally Junger v. Daley, supra, 209 F.3d at > > pp.482483.) That the source code is capable of such compilation, however, > > does not destroy the expressive nature of the source code itself. Thus, we > > conclude that the trial court's preliminary injunction barring Bunner from > > disclosing DeCSS can fairly be characterized as a prohibition of "pure" > > speech. " > > > > While I know this is not a complete win (or is it? I'm not sure.), I feel > > that it is a major turning point toward possibly getting it right, none > > the less. In fact, it may have been the first bit of good news I've read > > all month and I would certainly like to read more of it. > > > > Most Sincerely, > > > > -Andrew > > > > > > On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Kenneth Burger wrote: > > > > > I read about this on Slashdot awhile ago. My response to it will likely > > > piss several people off, but I feel it's necessary. Alan Cox is either > > > using us as martyrs for his cause or he's a coward. If it's the first > then > > > he's violated our trust and also everything open source stands for. If > the > > > second, then he needs to get a law degree or at least learn something > about > > > the law as well as get a backbone. I am publicly calling upon Alan Cox > to > > > step down as second in command for Linux kernel development. His > political > > > agenda has clouded his views as a developer and I believe now is the > time > > > for him to pass the torch onto somebody who isn't a coward. If he > continues > > > to withhold security updates from us I will boycott the Linux operating > > > system in response and I call upon other Americans to do the same. Even > > > Microsoft and Novell release the details about their security updates. > The > > > security of my data is very important to me as an administrator and a > > > programmer. Not releasing security update info takes away our ability > as > > > developers to look for related faults elsewhere in the source code which > > > others may have missed. I wish it didn't have to come down to this, but > > > when I joined the open-source movement it was in the hope that I could > > > escape M$'s and other large companies political agendas. This is > apparently > > > no longer the case. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Vladimir Katalov" > > > To: > > > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 6:52 AM > > > Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA > terror > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22536.html > > > > http://www.securityfocus.com/news/274 > > > > > > > > Citing a controversial U.S. copyright law, a top Linux developer > > > > announced this week that Americans would not be given details about > > > > the security fixes in an update to the open source operating system, a > > > > first for a software development community that prides itself on > > > > transparency. > > > > > > > > An update to version 2.2 of the Linux kernel, an older version of > > > > Linux that's still in wide use, was released Monday, conspicuously > > > > shorn of information about a number of security holes patched in the > > > > software. > > > > > > > > In an email to a Linux developer's mailing list, U.K.-based Linux guru > > > > Alan Cox wrote that the self-censorship was necessary to avoid running > > > > afoul of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a law that > > > > makes it a crime to create or distribute software "primarily designed" > > > > to circumvent a copy protection scheme. > > > > > > > > Cox controls the 2.2 release, and is generally considered Linux's > > > > second-in-command after creator Linus Torvalds. > > > > > > > > The DMCA has been under fire from computer programmers and electronic > > > > civil libertarians who argue that it is an unconstitutional > > > > impingement on speech, and interferes with consumers' traditional > > > > right to make personal copies of books, movies and music that they've > > > > purchased. > > > > > > > > In July, the first criminal prosecution under the Act kicked-off with > > > > FBI agents arresting Dmitry Sklyarov, a Russian computer programmer > > > > who was visiting the U.S. to give a talk at a security conference. > > > > Sklyarov is the author of a computer program that cracks the copy > > > > protection scheme used by Adobe Systems' eBook software. > > > > > > > > "With luck, the Sklyarov case will see that overturned on > constitutional > > > grounds," Cox wrote on the list. "Until then U.S. citizens will have to > > > guess about security issues." > > > > > > > > America Boycotted > > > > But U.S. Linux developers and users suspect Cox of using them to carry > > > > a political message. > > > > > > > > "My personal belief is that certain people are using this as an excuse > > > > to draw attention to the dangers inherent in the DMCA," says > > > > Birmingham system administrator Wayne Brown. "I'm sympathetic to their > > > > efforts, but not at all happy that people who need access to this > > > > information will be denied just to make a point... It seems to me to > > > > be contrary to the whole spirit of free software development." > > > > > > > > "I still think this is an extremist view of the DMCA," wrote U.S. > > > > Linux developer Tom Sightler, in a post to the developer's list. "I > > > > don't see where it keeps you from posting information about security > > > > fixes to your own code." > > > > > > > > Cox didn't respond to a reporter's inquiry, but on the mailing list, > > > > he wrote that the new closed policy was necessary because Linux's > > > > standard security features may be used for "rights management" of > > > > copyrighted work. He declined to elaborate further "on a list that > > > > reaches U.S. citizens." > > > > > > > > The programmer plans to post Linux security information exclusively on > > > > a Web site that will block access from the U.S. > > > > > > > > Despite Cox's fears, describing security holes or patches in Linux > > > > doesn't violate the DMCA, because the information isn't primarily > > > > designed for the purpose of circumvention, says attorney Jennifer > > > > Granick, director of the Stanford Law School's Law and Technology > > > > Clinic. > > > > > > > > "He seems to be assuming that the DMCA prohibits discussion about any > > > > kind of security, and that's not what it does," says Granick. "The > > > > DMCA is bad, but it's not that bad." > > > > > > > > "Part of the problem with the DMCA is it doesn't make intuitive sense > > > > to people who are practicing in this field, so even after reading the > > > > statute, people don't understand exactly what they are or aren't > > > > allowed to do," says Granick. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov From krburger at burger-family.org Fri Nov 2 16:22:02 2001 From: krburger at burger-family.org (Kenneth Burger) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror References: <012801c163f4$baa52640$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> <20011102152914.C30971@networkcommand.com> Message-ID: <019d01c163fd$8f9b7450$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon O ." To: "Kenneth Burger" Cc: "ascott" ; Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror > > Don't forget Kenneth, Alan resigned from his USENIX post very soon after > Sklyarov was arrested. Other people are being threatened, having websites > taken down, etc. I'm sure there is no real risk to Alan or anyone else. Or > am I? > > Is Alan punishing Linux users and maintainers or are the corporations, > government and others who support the law? Alan is merely attempting to > protect linux, comply with and follow a law that is being thrown about in the interest > of corporate welfare and true R&D. > > He knows the DMCA is a pick and choose, selective enforcement type law. > It's written that way. See a DMCA voilation and report it. Linux isn't > going to get anyone claiming DMCA issues, but device drivers, kernel > things, other applications which interface with a possibly hostile > vendor may cause problems. > > You are aksing people to change their organisations based on the needs > of these hostile vendors and a bad law. That's bogus. Linux kernel > developers shouldn't have to worry about this type of crap and you > shouldn't support and suggest it. They should not have to fear coming > to the US and the fact that you don't see that scares me also. > > > > > > On 02-Nov-2001, Kenneth Burger wrote: > > I didn't say he should step down from development. I said he should step > > down from his leadership position. Leaders should not be cowards. There's > > plenty of people who are qualified to lead this project who are not so > > cowardly as to censor their own security fixes to prevent themselves from > > being jailed even though such a possibility is remote at best. I'm not > > qualified because my dev skills suck as compared to the actual kernel > > development team, but there are plenty of people on the team who do. Alan's > > not American, but he's still letting this get to him. Turn control over to > > someone else in Europe who will likely never set foot in the US. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "ascott" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:50 AM > > Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA > > terror > > > > > > > Maybe we should tell Alan that he should not worry and, citing the recent > > > appeals court decision to "overturn the order that barred hundreds of > > > people from publishing" DeCSS code, since it has been found to be an > > > expression of speech > > > (http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7751876.html), that his security > > > fixes, updates, conversations and documentation will be covered under our > > > country's First Ammendment to our Constitution which allows him to share > > > this info freely and protects this freedom specifically. > > > > > > The last thing that I want to see is Alan Cox step down from kernel > > > developement. Surely, you jest. > > > > > > I hope that this recent turn of events for DeCSS help in Dmitry's case, as > > > well. > > > > > > see > > > > > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20011101_bunner_appellate_decision.h > > tml > > > > > > Here's the crux. > > > > > > "Like the CSS decryption software, DeCSS is a writing composed of computer > > > source code which describes an alternative method of decrypting > > > CSSencrypted DVDs. Regardless of who authored the program, DeCSS is a > > > written expression of the author's ideas and information about decryption > > > of DVDs without CSS. If the source code were "compiled" to create object > > > code, we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones > > > would not convey ideas. (See generally Junger v. Daley, supra, 209 F.3d at > > > pp.482483.) That the source code is capable of such compilation, however, > > > does not destroy the expressive nature of the source code itself. Thus, we > > > conclude that the trial court's preliminary injunction barring Bunner from > > > disclosing DeCSS can fairly be characterized as a prohibition of "pure" > > > speech. " > > > > > > While I know this is not a complete win (or is it? I'm not sure.), I feel > > > that it is a major turning point toward possibly getting it right, none > > > the less. In fact, it may have been the first bit of good news I've read > > > all month and I would certainly like to read more of it. > > > > > > Most Sincerely, > > > > > > -Andrew > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Kenneth Burger wrote: > > > > > > > I read about this on Slashdot awhile ago. My response to it will likely > > > > piss several people off, but I feel it's necessary. Alan Cox is either > > > > using us as martyrs for his cause or he's a coward. If it's the first > > then > > > > he's violated our trust and also everything open source stands for. If > > the > > > > second, then he needs to get a law degree or at least learn something > > about > > > > the law as well as get a backbone. I am publicly calling upon Alan Cox > > to > > > > step down as second in command for Linux kernel development. His > > political > > > > agenda has clouded his views as a developer and I believe now is the > > time > > > > for him to pass the torch onto somebody who isn't a coward. If he > > continues > > > > to withhold security updates from us I will boycott the Linux operating > > > > system in response and I call upon other Americans to do the same. Even > > > > Microsoft and Novell release the details about their security updates. > > The > > > > security of my data is very important to me as an administrator and a > > > > programmer. Not releasing security update info takes away our ability > > as > > > > developers to look for related faults elsewhere in the source code which > > > > others may have missed. I wish it didn't have to come down to this, but > > > > when I joined the open-source movement it was in the hope that I could > > > > escape M$'s and other large companies political agendas. This is > > apparently > > > > no longer the case. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Vladimir Katalov" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 6:52 AM > > > > Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA > > terror > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22536.html > > > > > http://www.securityfocus.com/news/274 > > > > > > > > > > Citing a controversial U.S. copyright law, a top Linux developer > > > > > announced this week that Americans would not be given details about > > > > > the security fixes in an update to the open source operating system, a > > > > > first for a software development community that prides itself on > > > > > transparency. > > > > > > > > > > An update to version 2.2 of the Linux kernel, an older version of > > > > > Linux that's still in wide use, was released Monday, conspicuously > > > > > shorn of information about a number of security holes patched in the > > > > > software. > > > > > > > > > > In an email to a Linux developer's mailing list, U.K.-based Linux guru > > > > > Alan Cox wrote that the self-censorship was necessary to avoid running > > > > > afoul of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a law that > > > > > makes it a crime to create or distribute software "primarily designed" > > > > > to circumvent a copy protection scheme. > > > > > > > > > > Cox controls the 2.2 release, and is generally considered Linux's > > > > > second-in-command after creator Linus Torvalds. > > > > > > > > > > The DMCA has been under fire from computer programmers and electronic > > > > > civil libertarians who argue that it is an unconstitutional > > > > > impingement on speech, and interferes with consumers' traditional > > > > > right to make personal copies of books, movies and music that they've > > > > > purchased. > > > > > > > > > > In July, the first criminal prosecution under the Act kicked-off with > > > > > FBI agents arresting Dmitry Sklyarov, a Russian computer programmer > > > > > who was visiting the U.S. to give a talk at a security conference. > > > > > Sklyarov is the author of a computer program that cracks the copy > > > > > protection scheme used by Adobe Systems' eBook software. > > > > > > > > > > "With luck, the Sklyarov case will see that overturned on > > constitutional > > > > grounds," Cox wrote on the list. "Until then U.S. citizens will have to > > > > guess about security issues." > > > > > > > > > > America Boycotted > > > > > But U.S. Linux developers and users suspect Cox of using them to carry > > > > > a political message. > > > > > > > > > > "My personal belief is that certain people are using this as an excuse > > > > > to draw attention to the dangers inherent in the DMCA," says > > > > > Birmingham system administrator Wayne Brown. "I'm sympathetic to their > > > > > efforts, but not at all happy that people who need access to this > > > > > information will be denied just to make a point... It seems to me to > > > > > be contrary to the whole spirit of free software development." > > > > > > > > > > "I still think this is an extremist view of the DMCA," wrote U.S. > > > > > Linux developer Tom Sightler, in a post to the developer's list. "I > > > > > don't see where it keeps you from posting information about security > > > > > fixes to your own code." > > > > > > > > > > Cox didn't respond to a reporter's inquiry, but on the mailing list, > > > > > he wrote that the new closed policy was necessary because Linux's > > > > > standard security features may be used for "rights management" of > > > > > copyrighted work. He declined to elaborate further "on a list that > > > > > reaches U.S. citizens." > > > > > > > > > > The programmer plans to post Linux security information exclusively on > > > > > a Web site that will block access from the U.S. > > > > > > > > > > Despite Cox's fears, describing security holes or patches in Linux > > > > > doesn't violate the DMCA, because the information isn't primarily > > > > > designed for the purpose of circumvention, says attorney Jennifer > > > > > Granick, director of the Stanford Law School's Law and Technology > > > > > Clinic. > > > > > > > > > > "He seems to be assuming that the DMCA prohibits discussion about any > > > > > kind of security, and that's not what it does," says Granick. "The > > > > > DMCA is bad, but it's not that bad." > > > > > > > > > > "Part of the problem with the DMCA is it doesn't make intuitive sense > > > > > to people who are practicing in this field, so even after reading the > > > > > statute, people don't understand exactly what they are or aren't > > > > > allowed to do," says Granick. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > > > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > > > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > From krburger at burger-family.org Fri Nov 2 16:22:18 2001 From: krburger at burger-family.org (Kenneth Burger) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror References: <012801c163f4$baa52640$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> <20011102152914.C30971@networkcommand.com> Message-ID: <01a101c163fd$98cf1b30$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> There's a problem with the idea that we should allow large corporations to get away with this though. The only way to change the law is to challenge it. Yes, sometimes it requires people to be put in a position they rather would not be in, i.e. jail, which is why I'm not suggesting that Alan should put himself in that position, but the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people who would be willing to do such and they should be allowed to do so. The leader of the foundation should not prevent it from being posted on the site, nor forbid it from being discussed. Like I said, if people will send me the security flaws that were fixed I will post them. If I get arrested, so be it. I'll be happy to know that at least the time I spend in jail is for a good, just, and worthy cause. I'd rather do that than rot my life away doing what I'm doing now anyways. There is such a thing as the greater good you know, and sometimes you have to sacrifice to obtain it. Freedom is the greater good and this is about freedom. The freedom to speak without fear of imprisonment. The freedom to share information is vital to the foundation of our country, and if America is to be the beacon of freedom in the world, and we lose that freedom, then I will be ashamed to call myself an American. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon O ." To: "Kenneth Burger" Cc: "ascott" ; Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror > > Don't forget Kenneth, Alan resigned from his USENIX post very soon after > Sklyarov was arrested. Other people are being threatened, having websites > taken down, etc. I'm sure there is no real risk to Alan or anyone else. Or > am I? > > Is Alan punishing Linux users and maintainers or are the corporations, > government and others who support the law? Alan is merely attempting to > protect linux, comply with and follow a law that is being thrown about in the interest > of corporate welfare and true R&D. > > He knows the DMCA is a pick and choose, selective enforcement type law. > It's written that way. See a DMCA voilation and report it. Linux isn't > going to get anyone claiming DMCA issues, but device drivers, kernel > things, other applications which interface with a possibly hostile > vendor may cause problems. > > You are aksing people to change their organisations based on the needs > of these hostile vendors and a bad law. That's bogus. Linux kernel > developers shouldn't have to worry about this type of crap and you > shouldn't support and suggest it. They should not have to fear coming > to the US and the fact that you don't see that scares me also. > > > > > > On 02-Nov-2001, Kenneth Burger wrote: > > I didn't say he should step down from development. I said he should step > > down from his leadership position. Leaders should not be cowards. There's > > plenty of people who are qualified to lead this project who are not so > > cowardly as to censor their own security fixes to prevent themselves from > > being jailed even though such a possibility is remote at best. I'm not > > qualified because my dev skills suck as compared to the actual kernel > > development team, but there are plenty of people on the team who do. Alan's > > not American, but he's still letting this get to him. Turn control over to > > someone else in Europe who will likely never set foot in the US. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "ascott" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:50 AM > > Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA > > terror > > > > > > > Maybe we should tell Alan that he should not worry and, citing the recent > > > appeals court decision to "overturn the order that barred hundreds of > > > people from publishing" DeCSS code, since it has been found to be an > > > expression of speech > > > (http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7751876.html), that his security > > > fixes, updates, conversations and documentation will be covered under our > > > country's First Ammendment to our Constitution which allows him to share > > > this info freely and protects this freedom specifically. > > > > > > The last thing that I want to see is Alan Cox step down from kernel > > > developement. Surely, you jest. > > > > > > I hope that this recent turn of events for DeCSS help in Dmitry's case, as > > > well. > > > > > > see > > > > > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20011101_bunner_appellate_decision.h > > tml > > > > > > Here's the crux. > > > > > > "Like the CSS decryption software, DeCSS is a writing composed of computer > > > source code which describes an alternative method of decrypting > > > CSSencrypted DVDs. Regardless of who authored the program, DeCSS is a > > > written expression of the author's ideas and information about decryption > > > of DVDs without CSS. If the source code were "compiled" to create object > > > code, we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones > > > would not convey ideas. (See generally Junger v. Daley, supra, 209 F.3d at > > > pp.482483.) That the source code is capable of such compilation, however, > > > does not destroy the expressive nature of the source code itself. Thus, we > > > conclude that the trial court's preliminary injunction barring Bunner from > > > disclosing DeCSS can fairly be characterized as a prohibition of "pure" > > > speech. " > > > > > > While I know this is not a complete win (or is it? I'm not sure.), I feel > > > that it is a major turning point toward possibly getting it right, none > > > the less. In fact, it may have been the first bit of good news I've read > > > all month and I would certainly like to read more of it. > > > > > > Most Sincerely, > > > > > > -Andrew > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Kenneth Burger wrote: > > > > > > > I read about this on Slashdot awhile ago. My response to it will likely > > > > piss several people off, but I feel it's necessary. Alan Cox is either > > > > using us as martyrs for his cause or he's a coward. If it's the first > > then > > > > he's violated our trust and also everything open source stands for. If > > the > > > > second, then he needs to get a law degree or at least learn something > > about > > > > the law as well as get a backbone. I am publicly calling upon Alan Cox > > to > > > > step down as second in command for Linux kernel development. His > > political > > > > agenda has clouded his views as a developer and I believe now is the > > time > > > > for him to pass the torch onto somebody who isn't a coward. If he > > continues > > > > to withhold security updates from us I will boycott the Linux operating > > > > system in response and I call upon other Americans to do the same. Even > > > > Microsoft and Novell release the details about their security updates. > > The > > > > security of my data is very important to me as an administrator and a > > > > programmer. Not releasing security update info takes away our ability > > as > > > > developers to look for related faults elsewhere in the source code which > > > > others may have missed. I wish it didn't have to come down to this, but > > > > when I joined the open-source movement it was in the hope that I could > > > > escape M$'s and other large companies political agendas. This is > > apparently > > > > no longer the case. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Vladimir Katalov" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 6:52 AM > > > > Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA > > terror > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22536.html > > > > > http://www.securityfocus.com/news/274 > > > > > > > > > > Citing a controversial U.S. copyright law, a top Linux developer > > > > > announced this week that Americans would not be given details about > > > > > the security fixes in an update to the open source operating system, a > > > > > first for a software development community that prides itself on > > > > > transparency. > > > > > > > > > > An update to version 2.2 of the Linux kernel, an older version of > > > > > Linux that's still in wide use, was released Monday, conspicuously > > > > > shorn of information about a number of security holes patched in the > > > > > software. > > > > > > > > > > In an email to a Linux developer's mailing list, U.K.-based Linux guru > > > > > Alan Cox wrote that the self-censorship was necessary to avoid running > > > > > afoul of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a law that > > > > > makes it a crime to create or distribute software "primarily designed" > > > > > to circumvent a copy protection scheme. > > > > > > > > > > Cox controls the 2.2 release, and is generally considered Linux's > > > > > second-in-command after creator Linus Torvalds. > > > > > > > > > > The DMCA has been under fire from computer programmers and electronic > > > > > civil libertarians who argue that it is an unconstitutional > > > > > impingement on speech, and interferes with consumers' traditional > > > > > right to make personal copies of books, movies and music that they've > > > > > purchased. > > > > > > > > > > In July, the first criminal prosecution under the Act kicked-off with > > > > > FBI agents arresting Dmitry Sklyarov, a Russian computer programmer > > > > > who was visiting the U.S. to give a talk at a security conference. > > > > > Sklyarov is the author of a computer program that cracks the copy > > > > > protection scheme used by Adobe Systems' eBook software. > > > > > > > > > > "With luck, the Sklyarov case will see that overturned on > > constitutional > > > > grounds," Cox wrote on the list. "Until then U.S. citizens will have to > > > > guess about security issues." > > > > > > > > > > America Boycotted > > > > > But U.S. Linux developers and users suspect Cox of using them to carry > > > > > a political message. > > > > > > > > > > "My personal belief is that certain people are using this as an excuse > > > > > to draw attention to the dangers inherent in the DMCA," says > > > > > Birmingham system administrator Wayne Brown. "I'm sympathetic to their > > > > > efforts, but not at all happy that people who need access to this > > > > > information will be denied just to make a point... It seems to me to > > > > > be contrary to the whole spirit of free software development." > > > > > > > > > > "I still think this is an extremist view of the DMCA," wrote U.S. > > > > > Linux developer Tom Sightler, in a post to the developer's list. "I > > > > > don't see where it keeps you from posting information about security > > > > > fixes to your own code." > > > > > > > > > > Cox didn't respond to a reporter's inquiry, but on the mailing list, > > > > > he wrote that the new closed policy was necessary because Linux's > > > > > standard security features may be used for "rights management" of > > > > > copyrighted work. He declined to elaborate further "on a list that > > > > > reaches U.S. citizens." > > > > > > > > > > The programmer plans to post Linux security information exclusively on > > > > > a Web site that will block access from the U.S. > > > > > > > > > > Despite Cox's fears, describing security holes or patches in Linux > > > > > doesn't violate the DMCA, because the information isn't primarily > > > > > designed for the purpose of circumvention, says attorney Jennifer > > > > > Granick, director of the Stanford Law School's Law and Technology > > > > > Clinic. > > > > > > > > > > "He seems to be assuming that the DMCA prohibits discussion about any > > > > > kind of security, and that's not what it does," says Granick. "The > > > > > DMCA is bad, but it's not that bad." > > > > > > > > > > "Part of the problem with the DMCA is it doesn't make intuitive se nse > > > > > to people who are practicing in this field, so even after reading the > > > > > statute, people don't understand exactly what they are or aren't > > > > > allowed to do," says Granick. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > > > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > > > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon O ." To: "Kenneth Burger" Cc: "ascott" ; Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror > > Don't forget Kenneth, Alan resigned from his USENIX post very soon after > Sklyarov was arrested. Other people are being threatened, having websites > taken down, etc. I'm sure there is no real risk to Alan or anyone else. Or > am I? > > Is Alan punishing Linux users and maintainers or are the corporations, > government and others who support the law? Alan is merely attempting to > protect linux, comply with and follow a law that is being thrown about in the interest > of corporate welfare and true R&D. > > He knows the DMCA is a pick and choose, selective enforcement type law. > It's written that way. See a DMCA voilation and report it. Linux isn't > going to get anyone claiming DMCA issues, but device drivers, kernel > things, other applications which interface with a possibly hostile > vendor may cause problems. > > You are aksing people to change their organisations based on the needs > of these hostile vendors and a bad law. That's bogus. Linux kernel > developers shouldn't have to worry about this type of crap and you > shouldn't support and suggest it. They should not have to fear coming > to the US and the fact that you don't see that scares me also. > > > > > > On 02-Nov-2001, Kenneth Burger wrote: > > I didn't say he should step down from development. I said he should step > > down from his leadership position. Leaders should not be cowards. There's > > plenty of people who are qualified to lead this project who are not so > > cowardly as to censor their own security fixes to prevent themselves from > > being jailed even though such a possibility is remote at best. I'm not > > qualified because my dev skills suck as compared to the actual kernel > > development team, but there are plenty of people on the team who do. Alan's > > not American, but he's still letting this get to him. Turn control over to > > someone else in Europe who will likely never set foot in the US. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "ascott" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:50 AM > > Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA > > terror > > > > > > > Maybe we should tell Alan that he should not worry and, citing the recent > > > appeals court decision to "overturn the order that barred hundreds of > > > people from publishing" DeCSS code, since it has been found to be an > > > expression of speech > > > (http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7751876.html), that his security > > > fixes, updates, conversations and documentation will be covered under our > > > country's First Ammendment to our Constitution which allows him to share > > > this info freely and protects this freedom specifically. > > > > > > The last thing that I want to see is Alan Cox step down from kernel > > > developement. Surely, you jest. > > > > > > I hope that this recent turn of events for DeCSS help in Dmitry's case, as > > > well. > > > > > > see > > > > > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20011101_bunner_appellate_decision.h > > tml > > > > > > Here's the crux. > > > > > > "Like the CSS decryption software, DeCSS is a writing composed of computer > > > source code which describes an alternative method of decrypting > > > CSSencrypted DVDs. Regardless of who authored the program, DeCSS is a > > > written expression of the author's ideas and information about decryption > > > of DVDs without CSS. If the source code were "compiled" to create object > > > code, we would agree that the resulting composition of zeroes and ones > > > would not convey ideas. (See generally Junger v. Daley, supra, 209 F.3d at > > > pp.482483.) That the source code is capable of such compilation, however, > > > does not destroy the expressive nature of the source code itself. Thus, we > > > conclude that the trial court's preliminary injunction barring Bunner from > > > disclosing DeCSS can fairly be characterized as a prohibition of "pure" > > > speech. " > > > > > > While I know this is not a complete win (or is it? I'm not sure.), I feel > > > that it is a major turning point toward possibly getting it right, none > > > the less. In fact, it may have been the first bit of good news I've read > > > all month and I would certainly like to read more of it. > > > > > > Most Sincerely, > > > > > > -Andrew > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Kenneth Burger wrote: > > > > > > > I read about this on Slashdot awhile ago. My response to it will likely > > > > piss several people off, but I feel it's necessary. Alan Cox is either > > > > using us as martyrs for his cause or he's a coward. If it's the first > > then > > > > he's violated our trust and also everything open source stands for. If > > the > > > > second, then he needs to get a law degree or at least learn something > > about > > > > the law as well as get a backbone. I am publicly calling upon Alan Cox > > to > > > > step down as second in command for Linux kernel development. His > > political > > > > agenda has clouded his views as a developer and I believe now is the > > time > > > > for him to pass the torch onto somebody who isn't a coward. If he > > continues > > > > to withhold security updates from us I will boycott the Linux operating > > > > system in response and I call upon other Americans to do the same. Even > > > > Microsoft and Novell release the details about their security updates. > > The > > > > security of my data is very important to me as an administrator and a > > > > programmer. Not releasing security update info takes away our ability > > as > > > > developers to look for related faults elsewhere in the source code which > > > > others may have missed. I wish it didn't have to come down to this, but > > > > when I joined the open-source movement it was in the hope that I could > > > > escape M$'s and other large companies political agendas. This is > > apparently > > > > no longer the case. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Vladimir Katalov" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 6:52 AM > > > > Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA > > terror > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22536.html > > > > > http://www.securityfocus.com/news/274 > > > > > > > > > > Citing a controversial U.S. copyright law, a top Linux developer > > > > > announced this week that Americans would not be given details about > > > > > the security fixes in an update to the open source operating system, a > > > > > first for a software development community that prides itself on > > > > > transparency. > > > > > > > > > > An update to version 2.2 of the Linux kernel, an older version of > > > > > Linux that's still in wide use, was released Monday, conspicuously > > > > > shorn of information about a number of security holes patched in the > > > > > software. > > > > > > > > > > In an email to a Linux developer's mailing list, U.K.-based Linux guru > > > > > Alan Cox wrote that the self-censorship was necessary to avoid running > > > > > afoul of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a law that > > > > > makes it a crime to create or distribute software "primarily designed" > > > > > to circumvent a copy protection scheme. > > > > > > > > > > Cox controls the 2.2 release, and is generally considered Linux's > > > > > second-in-command after creator Linus Torvalds. > > > > > > > > > > The DMCA has been under fire from computer programmers and electronic > > > > > civil libertarians who argue that it is an unconstitutional > > > > > impingement on speech, and interferes with consumers' traditional > > > > > right to make personal copies of books, movies and music that they've > > > > > purchased. > > > > > > > > > > In July, the first criminal prosecution under the Act kicked-off with > > > > > FBI agents arresting Dmitry Sklyarov, a Russian computer programmer > > > > > who was visiting the U.S. to give a talk at a security conference. > > > > > Sklyarov is the author of a computer program that cracks the copy > > > > > protection scheme used by Adobe Systems' eBook software. > > > > > > > > > > "With luck, the Sklyarov case will see that overturned on > > constitutional > > > > grounds," Cox wrote on the list. "Until then U.S. citizens will have to > > > > guess about security issues." > > > > > > > > > > America Boycotted > > > > > But U.S. Linux developers and users suspect Cox of using them to carry > > > > > a political message. > > > > > > > > > > "My personal belief is that certain people are using this as an excuse > > > > > to draw attention to the dangers inherent in the DMCA," says > > > > > Birmingham system administrator Wayne Brown. "I'm sympathetic to their > > > > > efforts, but not at all happy that people who need access to this > > > > > information will be denied just to make a point... It seems to me to > > > > > be contrary to the whole spirit of free software development." > > > > > > > > > > "I still think this is an extremist view of the DMCA," wrote U.S. > > > > > Linux developer Tom Sightler, in a post to the developer's list. "I > > > > > don't see where it keeps you from posting information about security > > > > > fixes to your own code." > > > > > > > > > > Cox didn't respond to a reporter's inquiry, but on the mailing list, > > > > > he wrote that the new closed policy was necessary because Linux's > > > > > standard security features may be used for "rights management" of > > > > > copyrighted work. He declined to elaborate further "on a list that > > > > > reaches U.S. citizens." > > > > > > > > > > The programmer plans to post Linux security information exclusively on > > > > > a Web site that will block access from the U.S. > > > > > > > > > > Despite Cox's fears, describing security holes or patches in Linux > > > > > doesn't violate the DMCA, because the information isn't primarily > > > > > designed for the purpose of circumvention, says attorney Jennifer > > > > > Granick, director of the Stanford Law School's Law and Technology > > > > > Clinic. > > > > > > > > > > "He seems to be assuming that the DMCA prohibits discussion about any > > > > > kind of security, and that's not what it does," says Granick. "The > > > > > DMCA is bad, but it's not that bad." > > > > > > > > > > "Part of the problem with the DMCA is it doesn't make intuitive sense > > > > > to people who are practicing in this field, so even after reading the > > > > > statute, people don't understand exactly what they are or aren't > > > > > allowed to do," says Granick. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > > > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > > > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > free-sklyarov mailing list > > free-sklyarov@zork.net > > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > From tompoe at renonevada.net Fri Nov 2 16:28:28 2001 From: tompoe at renonevada.net (tom poe) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: <20011102134632.C16553@zgp.org> References: <002601c163cd$24a679e0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> <20011102134632.C16553@zgp.org> Message-ID: <01110216282800.04523@aether> On Friday 02 November 2001 13:46, Don Marti wrote: > Better get your money back from him right away, then. > > All the rest of you free software programmers, back to work! > Matthew Russotto needs working code by yesterday! Don't worry > about politics, or getting arrested if you do something a company > doesn't like -- that would never happen. Hi: And, you know, Don. For this feeble brain, it just doesn't make sense that folks want to premise their comments with the assumption that DMCA, SSSCA, and Sklyarov are mutually exclusive topics. The man's life is a shambles, because companies think individuals are nonpersons. Who, in their right mind, can justify a company's profits rising above Free Speech, Employee rights, or universal Human Rights? More ridiculous, are the recent proclamations by industry, that they're entitled to put people in jail for legal acts! When the "arm of the law" reaches out across the globe, to bring to justice a programmer/employee, rather than bring to justice the CEO, or individual responsible, it just boggles the mind! Sure, I'd be just as upset if it were the CEO listed in the indictment, but that begs the question. What the hell's wrong with these legal minds out there? What's wrong with the Adobe executives? What's wrong with our legislators? Nope. In the final analysis on this thread, Alan Cox is showing us the future. We should look, see, and expand this dramatically. I posted a suggestion before, and I do it again, here. A national, maybe global demonstration by all the Alan Cox's of Open Source projects should be undertaken. A day, a week, a month of DMCA/SSSCA/Sklyarov "results" so that folks will get the message, loud and clear. Those on this list that suggest FULL ENFORCEMENT as a call to action are right. It needs to be done. Tom From krburger at burger-family.org Fri Nov 2 16:24:28 2001 From: krburger at burger-family.org (Kenneth Burger) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:15 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] AGH!!! Message-ID: <01aa01c163fd$e6824fa0$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> I apologize for the last two messed up posts. I'm in kind of a hurry and wasn't paying close attention when I sent the first. It was supposed to go to Jon and the group, it just went to jon, then it went to the group but I forgot to paste my text in, then it went to the group, but I pasted in the whole bloody message. Sorry bout that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011102/5af86289/attachment.htm From martinb at kemokid.com Fri Nov 2 23:23:16 2001 From: martinb at kemokid.com (Martin Baker) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:16 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] jail and privilege Message-ID: This is in regard to complaints that Alan Cox should perhaps stand down and let someone in his place who might be willing to take certain consequences, such as jail time in a foreign country (the US). I'm not going to question Mr. Cox's view of the law or his recent actions, although I don't necessarily agree with either. I just want to point out a couple things. What one person might be willing to do, another might not, and often because of their own personal circumstances. I suspect that some of those who want their "leaders" to be willing to risk imprisonment or a self-imposed ban on travel to the US are young and single. Nothing wrong with that, but do try to empathize in light of the fact that Alan Cox is married and may not relish the idea of spending a potentially very long time away from his wife. Others (such as Linus Torvalds and our very own Dmitry Sklyarov) are not only married but have small children; for them the consequences would be even greater. There are many ways to resist, and none should be valued as inherently "better" than others. For example, if we escalate our protests to civil disobedience, some people may be willing to risk arrest. Other people may not, and their contributions of legal protest, support, outreach, solidarity, etc. are just as important. A given person's choices may change over time depending on job and family obligations, illness, or other factors. It is, in a sense, a privilege to be able to risk arrest and other legal consequences. Your average white person is probably going to fare better at the hands of the police than a minority of any kind. Youth and health will help someone withstand adverse conditions. Making bail and hiring a good lawyer require money. And so on.... Those of you who have this kind of privilege and are willing to use it for a good cause, I applaud you. But please realize that not everyone is your shoes. Peace, Martin From krburger at burger-family.org Sat Nov 3 06:15:17 2001 From: krburger at burger-family.org (Kenneth Burger) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:16 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] jail and privilege References: Message-ID: <001c01c16471$f714c4a0$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> First of all, I got a hold of the uncensored changelogs from a source I would rather not disclose so as to keep the person out of trouble and I have posted them at http://www.burger-famly.org/chglog-2_2_20.txt and http://www.burger-family.org/chglog-2_2_20pre11.txt Since this is my home server run on something less than a T1 though I would appreciate if you used the mirrors at http://www.geocities.com/vsavatar/chglog-2_2_20.txt and http://www.geocities.com/vsavatar/chglog-2_2_20pre11.txt If anyone wants to volunteer space on their servers I'd be more than glad to accept. Unfortunately, since my artistic ability is absolutely zero, I haven't been able to design a web page to link to this stuff yet. I'm a pretty good coder, but my ability to do any type of graphic art or layout design is totally nonexistent. If anyone wants to make a page up that I can maintain (i.e. mostly in HTML) and email the the zip file to me I'll be glad to put it up. Now, onto the rest of the reply to this message. I'm sure if I was arrested or if Alan was arrested for this we would both get legal assitance from the EFF in fighting this till the bitter end. I'm not rich. Slightly priviliged yes, but not rich. If Alan doesn't want to do it I understand. He should at least, however be willing to give access to people who will. For your info, yes I am young, but in a long term relationship. I've discussed the possibility of what could happen with my gf and we are both in agreement that I am doing the right thing by posting these. Civil disobedience has paid off in the past, and I hope and pray that it will pay off now. Yes, that's right... pray. I am a Christian and believe that the Lord will keep me free, and if he will not, then praise Him anyways. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Baker" To: Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 2:23 AM Subject: [free-sklyarov] jail and privilege > This is in regard to complaints that Alan Cox should perhaps stand down > and let someone in his place who might be willing to take certain > consequences, such as jail time in a foreign country (the US). I'm not > going to question Mr. Cox's view of the law or his recent actions, > although I don't necessarily agree with either. I just want to point out a > couple things. > > What one person might be willing to do, another might not, and often > because of their own personal circumstances. I suspect that some of those > who want their "leaders" to be willing to risk imprisonment or a > self-imposed ban on travel to the US are young and single. Nothing wrong > with that, but do try to empathize in light of the fact that Alan Cox is > married and may not relish the idea of spending a potentially very long > time away from his wife. Others (such as Linus Torvalds and our very own > Dmitry Sklyarov) are not only married but have small children; for them > the consequences would be even greater. > > There are many ways to resist, and none should be valued as inherently > "better" than others. For example, if we escalate our protests to civil > disobedience, some people may be willing to risk arrest. Other people may > not, and their contributions of legal protest, support, outreach, > solidarity, etc. are just as important. A given person's choices may > change over time depending on job and family obligations, illness, or > other factors. > > It is, in a sense, a privilege to be able to risk arrest and other legal > consequences. Your average white person is probably going to fare better > at the hands of the police than a minority of any kind. Youth and health > will help someone withstand adverse conditions. Making bail and hiring a > good lawyer require money. And so on.... > > Those of you who have this kind of privilege and are willing to use it for > a good cause, I applaud you. But please realize that not everyone is your > shoes. > > Peace, > Martin > > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > From eaerme at newnorth.net Sat Nov 3 00:59:11 2001 From: eaerme at newnorth.net (ERNEST A. ERICKSON) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:16 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] It's all a matter of PERCEPTION/S.. Message-ID: <3BE3B1DF.776F42CF@newnorth.net> Hello: Being a new subscriber, I feel that the U.S. is doing all it can to begin its downward spiral and take all of our rights along with them. Mr. Lemuria is right when he states that the PERSON can NOT win in federal court, it takes everybody involved to make the difference felt by the court and the legal "rape" system we have here too. Have you ever wondered WHY the "in-justice" system works night and day to protect corporate america, when the remainder of the population have a complaint/s; they ignore us with the same fervent zeal? I complained and filed statements of abuse of authority for one of our Oneida County "law" enforcement droids. The senator seems to be dragging his heels doing anything to look into the charges, so weeks afterwards, i await a call from him. No matter what drives us, the problem lies with a very corrupt legal/judicial system that favors big corporations and their deep pockets of "campaign donations" makes our ever growing government a protector of the evil and jailer of the innocent! Just recall the Diallo fiasco...4 cops shot an innocent man at his home; but they HAD to fire 41 rounds so he would surely NEVER be able to file charges against them, in a word..M U R D E R! Thanks to the "jury", they all walked away free to murder again! The judge presiding on the case should have been disbarred for damn near ordering the jury to vote not guilty for those "poor" cops were once again, "just doing their jobs" excuse. Free speech is what the COURTS say it is, think nothing about what it really is or states in the Constitution, "we" simple-minded folk have no idea how to read yet, let alone understand what the full meaning and intent of those documents mean to the liberty, rights and freedoms they GUARANTEE, because we all know that government shall always decide against the people when money is involved. Dmitry Sklyarov has been forced to be the pawn in a corporate protectionist play by the government over MONEY, nothing more. Regardless of what is "said" in the court documents, this is a trial about who has the biggest bankroll gets the justice that bankroll deserves(see FCC auctions for more deep pocket law at work). Enough ranting here for one sitting...this is a job for us ALL to be witnesses for, and support any injustice by any means possible as well. Sign my name to any letters, documents, complaints and briefs that you see fit to file, and i will be behind you 100% of the way! It is said that "The law is tempered with justice", let's find out how much of that is true. If this is about "pure" justice, then Mr. Sklyarov would be walking about a free man, not imprisoned by a corporation, and that is exactly what got him there to begin with. Corporations have more rights to liberties and freedom/s than those with very shallow pockets have...no money, no rights! Remember, driving is a "privilege", not a right, but YOU MUST pay for it out of your pockets. Who decided that forced payments are constitutional? If you PAID for it, it becomes a right by default, as does property you paid for, it's YOURS, not under the control of another, or am I missing something here now? Some deep pocketed corporate "monster" wanted to change the constitution to allow ONLY those with huge bankrolls the right to vote in all elections. This was introduced to our ungracious senator/s from California or New York i think..set me straight here if you know what i am trying to convey here please. Big money gets big government to protect big companies so their will can be forced upon us. Can you say BAAAAAA? Why do you think the C.I.A now wants engineers, cryptologists, language experts and electronic design people in their portfolio of snooping? The N.S.A is also the BIGGEST snoop into all of our lives, they listen in on anything, anywhere and at any time, without YOU knowing about it. ECPA is a "law" that is placed and forced upon the people, but the government does NOT obey that law, they make it a crime for us to "listen in", but they listen to many private conversations daily, all illegal, but WHO can stop this BLOATED PIG from violating our right to privacy? When i use my radio equipment and want to keep comments to the intended party only, I enable DES on the keypad and I can be relatively sure that nobody can eavesdrop on my conversation, but even if they CAN crack the DES codes fast, my conversations do not last long enough for them to "lock-on" to me, PLUS, I change my key many times a month, so the codes are damn near impossible to crack. Our government wants security, but at the high cost of individual freedoms, NOT the government's, after all, "they" are the "protectors" of justice? Ernest.......`?v?' Give a hoot! From krburger at mail.burger-family.org Sat Nov 3 07:12:23 2001 From: krburger at mail.burger-family.org (krburger@mail.burger-family.org) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:16 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] It's all a matter of PERCEPTION/S.. Message-ID: You're correct, we cannot win against corporate America as a single person, but as a coalition, as a large organization of people who are willing to stand up for their rights, we can win. It's all in which side has the best lawyers. In any case, the preliminary injunction was overturned in DVDCCA vs. Bunner, which, though a small victory, is still a victory in and of itself because it shows us that corporate America does not COMPLETELY own the justice system YET. The reason I have posted uncensored changelogs which, according to Alan Cox may be a violation of the DMCA is because it's the right thing to do. Damn the laws if they restrict what we should morally have the freedom to do. By the way, corporate America does not own the criminal justice system. They may have their foot upon the civil justice one, but criminal justice is still handled by state and federal attorneys which can be beaten in many cases. That's not to say that there aren't innocent people in jail, because there are, but it is at least very possible to win in criminal court without having to have Geoffrey Feiger as a lawyer. Original Message: ----------------- From: ERNEST A. ERICKSON eaerme@newnorth.net Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 08:59:11 +0000 To: free-sklyarov@zork.net, eaerme@newnorth.net, eae@nnex.net Subject: [free-sklyarov] It's all a matter of PERCEPTION/S.. Hello: Being a new subscriber, I feel that the U.S. is doing all it can to begin its downward spiral and take all of our rights along with them. Mr. Lemuria is right when he states that the PERSON can NOT win in federal court, it takes everybody involved to make the difference felt by the court and the legal "rape" system we have here too. Have you ever wondered WHY the "in-justice" system works night and day to protect corporate america, when the remainder of the population have a complaint/s; they ignore us with the same fervent zeal? I complained and filed statements of abuse of authority for one of our Oneida County "law" enforcement droids. The senator seems to be dragging his heels doing anything to look into the charges, so weeks afterwards, i await a call from him. No matter what drives us, the problem lies with a very corrupt legal/judicial system that favors big corporations and their deep pockets of "campaign donations" makes our ever growing government a protector of the evil and jailer of the innocent! Just recall the Diallo fiasco...4 cops shot an innocent man at his home; but they HAD to fire 41 rounds so he would surely NEVER be able to file charges against them, in a word..M U R D E R! Thanks to the "jury", they all walked away free to murder again! The judge presiding on the case should have been disbarred for damn near ordering the jury to vote not guilty for those "poor" cops were once again, "just doing their jobs" excuse. Free speech is what the COURTS say it is, think nothing about what it really is or states in the Constitution, "we" simple-minded folk have no idea how to read yet, let alone understand what the full meaning and intent of those documents mean to the liberty, rights and freedoms they GUARANTEE, because we all know that government shall always decide against the people when money is involved. Dmitry Sklyarov has been forced to be the pawn in a corporate protectionist play by the government over MONEY, nothing more. Regardless of what is "said" in the court documents, this is a trial about who has the biggest bankroll gets the justice that bankroll deserves(see FCC auctions for more deep pocket law at work). Enough ranting here for one sitting...this is a job for us ALL to be witnesses for, and support any injustice by any means possible as well. Sign my name to any letters, documents, complaints and briefs that you see fit to file, and i will be behind you 100% of the way! It is said that "The law is tempered with justice", let's find out how much of that is true. If this is about "pure" justice, then Mr. Sklyarov would be walking about a free man, not imprisoned by a corporation, and that is exactly what got him there to begin with. Corporations have more rights to liberties and freedom/s than those with very shallow pockets have...no money, no rights! Remember, driving is a "privilege", not a right, but YOU MUST pay for it out of your pockets. Who decided that forced payments are constitutional? If you PAID for it, it becomes a right by default, as does property you paid for, it's YOURS, not under the control of another, or am I missing something here now? Some deep pocketed corporate "monster" wanted to change the constitution to allow ONLY those with huge bankrolls the right to vote in all elections. This was introduced to our ungracious senator/s from California or New York i think..set me straight here if you know what i am trying to convey here please. Big money gets big government to protect big companies so their will can be forced upon us. Can you say BAAAAAA? Why do you think the C.I.A now wants engineers, cryptologists, language experts and electronic design people in their portfolio of snooping? The N.S.A is also the BIGGEST snoop into all of our lives, they listen in on anything, anywhere and at any time, without YOU knowing about it. ECPA is a "law" that is placed and forced upon the people, but the government does NOT obey that law, they make it a crime for us to "listen in", but they listen to many private conversations daily, all illegal, but WHO can stop this BLOATED PIG from violating our right to privacy? When i use my radio equipment and want to keep comments to the intended party only, I enable DES on the keypad and I can be relatively sure that nobody can eavesdrop on my conversation, but even if they CAN crack the DES codes fast, my conversations do not last long enough for them to "lock-on" to me, PLUS, I change my key many times a month, so the codes are damn near impossible to crack. Our government wants security, but at the high cost of individual freedoms, NOT the government's, after all, "they" are the "protectors" of justice? Ernest.......`?v?' Give a hoot! _______________________________________________ free-sklyarov mailing list free-sklyarov@zork.net http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From russotto at pond.com Sun Nov 4 14:38:30 2001 From: russotto at pond.com (Matthew Russotto) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:16 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] (no subject) Message-ID: Don Marti wrote: >begin Matthew Russotto quotation of Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 01:35:27PM -0500: >> I'm afraid I have to agree with Kenneth Burger over the latest >> Alan Cox move. He's deliberately overstating the DMCA and taking >> extreme actions in order to draw attention to the cause, and he's >> punishing Linux users and maintainers to do it. > Better get your money back from him right away, then. > All the rest of you free software programmers, back to work! > Matthew Russotto needs working code by yesterday! Don't worry > about politics, or getting arrested if you do something a company > doesn't like -- that would never happen. I don't think I said anything of the sort. In fact, I'm quite sure of it. I'm not suggesting he do anything which would get him arrested, or barred from the United States. I'm suggesting that, as ridiculous as the DMCA is, it does not bar public disclosure of the security fixes in an operating system. And I think Alan Cox _knows_ this, but is melodramatically pretending to fear jail in order to call attention to his objections to the DMCA. He's abusing Linux users, he's abusing other Linux maintainers, and he's abusing the Skylarov case in order to call attention to his cause (which happens to be one I agree with). From ruben at mrbrklyn.com Sun Nov 4 18:56:36 2001 From: ruben at mrbrklyn.com (Ruben Safir) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:16 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] (no subject) In-Reply-To: ; from russotto@pond.com on Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 17:38:30 -0500 References: Message-ID: <20011104215636.G8950@www2.mrbrklyn.com> << He's abusing Linux users, he's abusing other Linux maintainers, and he's abusing the Skylarov case in order to call attention to his cause (which happens to be one I agree with).>> He's not abusing anyone. You have no idea what abuse is. Abuse is the DMCA. And today the DMCA can be used to make Linux illegal and all new hardware, with no change in the law. Matthew, you abuse the Linux community by not fighting the DMCA. and accusing Cox of any wrong doing. People like you will destroy Linux, libraries and the economy.... Ruben -- Brooklyn Linux Solutions http://www.mrbrklyn.com http://www.brooklynonline.com http://www.nylxs.com http://www.nyfairuse.org 1-718-382-5752 http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/brooklyn_national_antheum.mp3 For Jim --- From david.haworth at altavista.net Sun Nov 4 22:52:41 2001 From: david.haworth at altavista.net (David Haworth) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:16 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: <20011102081854.Q2342@zork.net>; from schoen@loyalty.org on Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 08:18:54AM -0800 References: <000501c16397$f1481890$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> <20011102081854.Q2342@zork.net> Message-ID: <20011105075241.A1354@3soft.de> On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 08:18:54AM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > The trouble is that this only (partly, and possibly only temporarily) > disposes of the "misappropriation of trade secrets" claim used to > attack DeCSS. It doesn't do anything to the "circumvention device" > claim -- it wasn't a ruling on or about the DMCA! It doesn't really dispose of the "misappropriation" claim - although it does give a hint about what the court is thinking. All it really does is dispose of the prior restraint - i.e. a restraint on their speech before the main decision of the court. The court could still decide that Bunner et al have misappropriated a trade secret and must pay the damages. Then there would also be grounds for a restraint against publication. Dave -- David Haworth Baiersdorf, Germany david.haworth@altavista.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011105/3210f44e/attachment.pgp From david.haworth at altavista.net Sun Nov 4 23:22:50 2001 From: david.haworth at altavista.net (David Haworth) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:16 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: <005801c163d9$d6671f20$4b0710ac@glogtech.com>; from russotto@pond.com on Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 03:06:19PM -0500 References: <002601c163cd$24a679e0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> <01110211421000.03572@aether> <005801c163d9$d6671f20$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> Message-ID: <20011105082250.B1354@3soft.de> On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 03:06:19PM -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote: > Information > about Linux security fixes, given that the fixes themselves are not > circumvention devices? Sorry, not a circumvention device. Censoring the > ChangeLog is just a political move. Please read Alan's arguments again. He isn't saying that the fixes are a circumvention device. Quite the contrary, in fact. The Linux kernel could be considered to be a protection mechanism for copyrighted works. One way to circumvent the protection would be to exploit security bugs. So the information about the bugs could be argued to be information how to build a circumvention device. Dave -- David Haworth Baiersdorf, Germany david.haworth@altavista.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011105/b188dba2/attachment.pgp From david.haworth at altavista.net Sun Nov 4 23:24:56 2001 From: david.haworth at altavista.net (David Haworth) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:16 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: <011801c163f3$6c245e10$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR>; from krburger@burger-family.org on Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 06:09:28PM -0500 References: <002601c163cd$24a679e0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> <20011102134632.C16553@zgp.org> <011801c163f3$6c245e10$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> Message-ID: <20011105082456.C1354@3soft.de> On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 06:09:28PM -0500, Kenneth Burger wrote: > Lets also remember that he's not even American so the DMCA wouldn't affect > him unless he came over here. I don't know Alan personally. Maybe his day-job involves travel to the US. Dave -- David Haworth Baiersdorf, Germany david.haworth@altavista.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011105/002de29c/attachment.pgp From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Mon Nov 5 06:31:31 2001 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:16 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Softman Products Company, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al Message-ID: <6829324403.20011105173131@elcomsoft.com> http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm Bery interesting, especially about "first sale" doctrine! Sincerely yours, Vladimir ElcomSoft Co.Ltd. http://www.elcomsoft.com mailto:vkatalov@elcomsoft.com From russotto at pond.com Mon Nov 5 07:22:35 2001 From: russotto at pond.com (Matthew Russotto) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:16 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Softman Products Company, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al Message-ID: <003f01c1660d$b27c1990$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> Does anyone know where the quote footnoted "20" in the Softman decision comes from? "The only countervailing forces favoring users are those rights specifically granted to users by federal law. In this context more than any other, therefore, it is justifiable to fear that removing or eviscerating those user rights may bring the whole edifice crumbling down." The reference is "Lemley, Intellectual Property, at 1283." Particularly I'd like to know if this was pre-or post-DMCA. The package known as UCITA would render many of the arguments in this decision without foundation -- and would indeed bring the whole edifice crumbling down, if it hasn't already. From russotto at pond.com Mon Nov 5 07:27:37 2001 From: russotto at pond.com (Matthew Russotto) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:17 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror Message-ID: <004701c1660e$661df860$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> > Please read Alan's arguments again. He isn't saying that the fixes are > a circumvention device. Quite the contrary, in fact. The Linux kernel > could be considered to be a protection mechanism for copyrighted > works. One way to circumvent the protection would be to exploit > security bugs. So the information about the bugs could be argued > to be information how to build a circumvention device. Yes, this is the tortuous argument I referred to. However, the fixes to the security bugs (which he is not withholding), particularly in source form, ALSO embody information about the bugs and how to circumvent them. Therefore if the DMCA forbids distribution of the ChangeLog, it also forbids distribution of the fixes. From tmorizot at ccsi.com Mon Nov 5 09:04:17 2001 From: tmorizot at ccsi.com (Scott Morizot) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:17 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Alan's day job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3BE67231.29838.8D236C5@localhost> > On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 06:09:28PM -0500, Kenneth Burger wrote: > > Lets also remember that he's not even American so the DMCA wouldn't affect > > him unless he came over here. > > I don't know Alan personally. Maybe his day-job involves travel to > the US. I don't know Alan either, but I do know he works for Redhat, a US company. His day job has had him come to the US in the past. Scott From sethf at sethf.com Mon Nov 5 09:47:12 2001 From: sethf at sethf.com (Seth Finkelstein) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:17 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Softman Products Company, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al In-Reply-To: <003f01c1660d$b27c1990$4b0710ac@glogtech.com>; from russotto@pond.com on Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 10:22:35AM -0500 References: <003f01c1660d$b27c1990$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> Message-ID: <20011105124711.A16836@sethf.com> On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 10:22:35AM -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote: > Does anyone know where the quote footnoted "20" in the Softman decision > comes from? > ... > The reference is "Lemley, Intellectual Property, at 1283." [http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm] It's explained in the footnote 19 just above it. "Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property and Shrinkwrap Licenses, 68 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1239, 1283 (1995)" That's a law review article. You can read it at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/alternative/lemley1.html > Particularly I'd like to know if this was pre-or post-DMCA. Pre-DMCA. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com http://sethf.com http://college2.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2001/07/19/859384.xml BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php BESS vs Google: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php From mylung at ku.edu Mon Nov 5 20:32:24 2001 From: mylung at ku.edu (Lung, Mon Yin) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:17 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: free-sklyarov digest, Vol 1 #266 - 5 msgs Message-ID: First of all, my apology for posting this message so late. I am a law student who has chosen DMCA and Mr. Sklyarov's case as my research topic, hence my being on this list. I can't suppress my urge to comment on FIJA: I skipped through their website, and noticed that this organization is promoting something that is no longer within the current legal practice. I don't want to comment on the merit of their idea and opinion. I only want to point out that what they promote is not what generally accepted by the U.S. Court system. Under the current system, a jury is the finder of fact, but only a judge can decide on the matter of law. Whether Mr. Sklyarov violate DMCA is a matter of fact, whether DMCA is unconstitutional is a matter of law. FIJA's discussion and "advices" are based on its ideology and not the system Mr. Sklyarov has to deal with. I am afraid that employing FIJA's theory and approach would not get Mr. Sklyarov out of jail. Short of revolution one cannot fight the system from outside. We are living with the current system. Any potential juror with an agenda would be screened out by attorneys of either side. I would rather make no move but trust my fellow citizens. I personally consider DMCA illogical and an infringement on the statutory right of fair use (to say the least). If we want to free Mr. Sklyarov may be we do not want to waste our resources on other issues, particularly not on some ideology that has no bearing on the principal case. Respectfully, M.Y. Lung -----Original Message----- From: free-sklyarov-request@zork.net [mailto:free-sklyarov-request@zork.net] Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 6:31 AM To: free-sklyarov@zork.net Subject: free-sklyarov digest, Vol 1 #266 - 5 msgs Send free-sklyarov mailing list submissions to free-sklyarov@zork.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to free-sklyarov-request@zork.net You can reach the person managing the list at free-sklyarov-admin@zork.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of free-sklyarov digest..." Today's Topics: 1. FIJA - fully informed juries (Martin Baker) 2. Re: FIJA - fully informed juries (Christopher R. Maden) 3. Hollings Schedules SSSCA Hearings October 25 (Ilya V. Vasilyev) 4. Re: Re: [DMCA_discuss] Hollings Schedules SSSCA Hearings October 25 (Sonia =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ara=F1a?=) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:26:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Baker To: free-sklyarov@zork.net Subject: [free-sklyarov] FIJA - fully informed juries I recently ran across this organization, FIJA, the Fully Informed Jury Association: http://www.fija.org/ See especially the Jurors' Handbook: A Citizens Guide to Jury Duty: http://www.fija.org/juror-handbook.htm They strive to educate Americans about their right when on a jury - their duty even - to consider the law as well as the facts of a case. I think this may have some bearing on the Sklyarov case, and any criminal prosecution of the DMCA, since one part of the defense may be that the law itself is unconstitutional or unjust. I would be an extremely happy camper to see Dmitry go free because a jury declared that the DMCA is unconstitutional. Two birds, one stone. Plus twelve more empowered and politicized people. We might want to distribute some of this material ourselves, especially at the courthouse before jury selection (assuming the case goes that far), invite FIJA representatives to speak at informational meetings, what have you. I submit this as food for your thought. Peace, Martin --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:28:28 -0700 To: free-sklyarov@zork.net From: "Christopher R. Maden" Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] FIJA - fully informed juries -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 00:26 28-10-2001, Martin Baker wrote: >We might want to distribute some of this material ourselves, especially at >the courthouse before jury selection (assuming the case goes that far), >invite FIJA representatives to speak at informational meetings, what have >you. I submit this as food for your thought. I'd love to see this - I'm a big FIJA fan - but many judges are opposed to FIJA and will have you arrested for jury tampering. So I'd be prepared to help with this, but anyone involved needs to understand that it may be an act of civil disobedience with the corresponding risks of arrest and imprisonment. - -crism - -- Libertarian candidate, California State Assembly, District 13 Free Sklyarov: Freelance text nerd: PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9uznKxS+CWv7FjaEQIdzQCfQH9IrmnKHMA9M/c6wRH9WM4ZcyQAn06N 3wHSA1xxyKZ+wtN3aZo+Zkcc =D6/a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --__--__-- Message: 3 From: "Ilya V. Vasilyev" To: "Kenneth Burger" , Subject: [free-sklyarov] Hollings Schedules SSSCA Hearings October 25 Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 10:39:51 +0300 Hi, Kenneth Burger! > Oh, I swear, if this goes through I am leaving the US for another country. And why not to make revolution in US? ;-) It is quite easy, and technology is well-known. We, Russians, already made one in our country in 1917, and teach the whole world a lesson or two. > This is totally unacceptable and gives sweeping power to large businesses > and the federal government. Something which the constitution was designed > to prevent. If politicians, business & government goes crazy, they definitely must be taught. Good Luck! Arvi the Hacker (AtH//UgF@hMoscow) --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 01:11:55 -0800 To: "Christopher R. Maden" , free-sklyarov@zork.net From: Sonia =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ara=F1a?= Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: [DMCA_discuss] Hollings Schedules SSSCA Hearings October 25 >At 10:48 19-10-2001, Tom wrote: >>On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 08:37:01AM -0700, tom poe wrote: >> > > I propose a three month boycott of all Disney products, >>beginning the day >> > > of the hearing (Oct 25th) and lasting until January 25th. This >>should hurt >> > > them significantly (if enough people are involved) since they >>will miss out >> > > on all Christmas sales etc. > >Good luck. The Southern Baptists have been boycotting Disney for >years over their same-sex partner benefits and general friendliness >towards queers. There are a lot more of them than there are angry >nerds, and Disney hasn't even flinched. They haven't flinched because gay people and their supporters greatly outnumber the Southern Baptists. Also because a good lot of their work force would disappear if they started taking the Baptist view of homosexuality. If our boycott was big enough (ie, get a lot more than angry geeks to participate) they'd notice. But I don't know that we could educate that many people in so short a time. It took how many years for homosexuality to be moved from a crime and a mental illness to a political cause worth defending? Sonia --__--__-- _______________________________________________ free-sklyarov mailing list free-sklyarov@zork.net http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov End of free-sklyarov Digest From wiljan at pobox.com Tue Nov 6 07:32:37 2001 From: wiljan at pobox.com (Will Janoschka) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:17 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: FJIA etc Message-ID: <200111061616.KAA000.42@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> On Mon, 5 Nov 2001 22:32:24 Lung, Mon Yin mylung@ku.edu wrote: > First of all, my apology for posting this message so late. I am a law > student who has chosen DMCA and Mr. Sklyarov's case as my research topic, > hence my being on this list. > I can't suppress my urge to comment on FIJA: I skipped through their > website, and noticed that this organization is promoting something that is > no longer within the current legal practice. I don't want to comment on the > merit of their idea and opinion. I only want to point out that what they > promote is not what generally accepted by the U.S. Court system. Under the > current system, a jury is the finder of fact, but only a judge can decide on > the matter of law. Whether Mr. Sklyarov violate DMCA is a matter of fact, > whether DMCA is unconstitutional is a matter of law. ........... Uh! I believe they are both a matter of fact as there is no case law on the criminal portions of the DMCA. A jury, by reason of the need for agreement, is far more qualified than a trial judge to determine if an untested "law" is illegal for whatever reason. Please show the circumstances under which a jury's unanimous decision to acquit, in a criminal trial, may be challenged. -will- "Erwin," said Frau Schroedinger, "What did you do to the cat; it looks half dead." From alex at 2600.COM Tue Nov 6 09:28:18 2001 From: alex at 2600.COM (Neon Samurai) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:17 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: FJIA etc In-Reply-To: <200111061616.KAA000.42@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> Message-ID: A jury is not qualified to rule on issue of law, only a judge is the arbiter of issues of law; for instance, if the issue is whether or not a particular statute is applicable in a certain situation, like the DMCA, a judge makes that determination. A jury can only find whether or not Dmitry has violated the DMCA; and a jury properly instructed, I believe, would find that Dmitry broke the law. It's a very similar situation to 2600's in that Judge Kaplan ruled that simply by DeCSS existing, it violated the DMCA. Whether or not the law is an equitable and just law is another thing entirely, and that's an issue of law for the judges to decide, most of the time appellate judges; and if so, it could be a long and arduous haul for Dmitry. Best, Alex http://www.VerizonEatsPoop.com On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Will Janoschka wrote: > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 01 09:32:37 CST > From: Will Janoschka > To: free-sklyarov@zork.net > Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: FJIA etc > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2001 22:32:24 Lung, Mon Yin mylung@ku.edu wrote: > > > First of all, my apology for posting this message so late. I am a law > > student who has chosen DMCA and Mr. Sklyarov's case as my research topic, > > hence my being on this list. > > > I can't suppress my urge to comment on FIJA: I skipped through their > > website, and noticed that this organization is promoting something that is > > no longer within the current legal practice. I don't want to comment on the > > merit of their idea and opinion. I only want to point out that what they > > promote is not what generally accepted by the U.S. Court system. Under the > > current system, a jury is the finder of fact, but only a judge can decide on > > the matter of law. Whether Mr. Sklyarov violate DMCA is a matter of fact, > > whether DMCA is unconstitutional is a matter of law. ........... > > Uh! I believe they are both a matter of fact as there is no case law on the > criminal portions of the DMCA. A jury, by reason of the need for agreement, > is far more qualified than a trial judge to determine if an untested "law" > is illegal for whatever reason. Please show the circumstances under which a > jury's unanimous decision to acquit, in a criminal trial, may be challenged. > -will- > "Erwin," said Frau Schroedinger, "What did you do to the cat; it looks half dead." > > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > From wiljan at pobox.com Tue Nov 6 09:41:25 2001 From: wiljan at pobox.com (Will Janoschka) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:17 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: FJIA etc Message-ID: <200111061819.MAA000.44@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> I was speaking of jury nullification in a US criminal trial. I believe that is still legal in the US. I am sure there can be exceptions, i.e. external evidence of jury tampering etc. I believe that not even the judge is allowed to investigate the deliberations of the jury. I believe the jury may agree to acquit because the prostituting attorney was picking his nose during the trial, and that such a verdict would withstand challenge. I would really like to know. -will- On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:28:18 Neon Samurai alex@2600.COM wrote: > A jury is not qualified to rule on issue of law, only a judge is > the arbiter of issues of law; for instance, if the issue is whether or not > a particular statute is applicable in a certain situation, like the DMCA, > a judge makes that determination. A jury can only find whether or not > Dmitry has violated the DMCA; and a jury properly instructed, I believe, > would find that Dmitry broke the law. It's a very similar situation to > 2600's in that Judge Kaplan ruled that simply by DeCSS existing, it > violated the DMCA. > ...... From david.haworth at altavista.net Wed Nov 7 00:19:07 2001 From: david.haworth at altavista.net (David Haworth) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:17 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: FJIA etc In-Reply-To: ; from alex@2600.COM on Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 12:28:18PM -0500 References: <200111061616.KAA000.42@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> Message-ID: <20011107091907.C2333@3soft.de> On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 12:28:18PM -0500, Neon Samurai wrote: > > A jury can only find whether or not > Dmitry has violated the DMCA; and a jury properly instructed, I believe, > would find that Dmitry broke the law. It's a very similar situation to > 2600's in that Judge Kaplan ruled that simply by DeCSS existing, it > violated the DMCA. Judge Kaplan may had been able to do that in the Goldstein case (that was a civil case - no jury). In this case, as you say, the jury will decide whether Dmitry is innocent - but it's far from being as clear cut as you think. There are lots of open questions: - is source code a "device" as defined by the DMCA? I hope that's not true. - is a "compiled program" a device as defined by the DMCA? ISTR Congress' intention was that it shouldn't be. - is Adobe's E-Book reader an "effective technological measure" as defined in the DMCA? I don't think it is, and I think many others in the crypto field will agree. - did Dmitry "distribute" (traffic, whatever) anything? If so, what? - did he do it for commercial gain? His company did make a charge for the software, but I don't think Dmitry made any commercial gain. It's far from clear even if Elcomsoft made any commercial gain from the limited number of copies they sold or expected to sell. Dave -- David Haworth Baiersdorf, Germany david.haworth@altavista.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011107/d211e480/attachment.pgp From crumley at mail.com Wed Nov 7 07:34:36 2001 From: crumley at mail.com (Jim Crumley) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:17 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Bruce Schneier talk Message-ID: <20011107093436.A27697@gordo.space.umn.edu> Students for Fair Copyright[1] is pleased to announce Bruce Schneier's talk[2] about the DMCA on Thursday, November 15th at 7:00 in room 2-690 of the Moos Tower on the University of Minnesota's Minneapolis campus. This is the third lecture in our continuing series: "Reclaiming the Public Domain: Intellectual Property in the Digital Millennium." More details about the talk, including a link to a map to Moos Tower, are available at the press release link below. 1. http://faircopyright.org/ 2. http://faircopyright.org/press/schneier.html -- Jim Crumley | Free Dmitry Sklyarov! crumley@fields.space.umn.edu | http://faircopyright.org/ Work: 612 624-6804 or -0378 | http://freesklyarov.org/ From russotto at pond.com Wed Nov 7 08:52:45 2001 From: russotto at pond.com (Matthew Russotto) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:18 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: FJIA etc Message-ID: <003901c167ac$9f893610$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> > Judge Kaplan may had been able to do that in the Goldstein case > (that was a civil case - no jury). In this case, as you say, the jury > will decide whether Dmitry is innocent - but it's far from being > as clear cut as you think. There are lots of open questions: > - is source code a "device" as defined by the DMCA? I hope that's > not true. > - is a "compiled program" a device as defined by the DMCA? ISTR > Congress' intention was that it shouldn't be. The DMCA doesn't define "device". But what it forbids is "technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" That's pretty broad, and it's clear that AEBPR is a "product" if nothing else. The device question is more interesting in patent cases, where some companies (notably Dolby) have been sending takedown notices for source code based on patents they hold. > - is Adobe's E-Book reader an "effective technological measure" > as defined in the DMCA? I don't think it is, and I think many > others in the crypto field will agree. (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. Unfortunately, while the measure is ineffective in the real world, it does seem to fall squarely under this clause. From morganw at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 10:19:35 2001 From: morganw at yahoo.com (Morgan) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:18 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Re: free-sklyarov digest, Vol 1 #273 - 4 msgs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20011107181935.76582.qmail@web13408.mail.yahoo.com> David Haworth wrote: There are lots of open questions: > - is source code a "device" as defined by the DMCA? I hope that's > not true. > - is a "compiled program" a device as defined by the DMCA? ISTR > Congress' intention was that it shouldn't be. > - is Adobe's E-Book reader an "effective technological measure" > as defined in the DMCA? I don't think it is, and I think many > others in the crypto field will agree. > - did Dmitry "distribute" (traffic, whatever) anything? If so, what? > - did he do it for commercial gain? His company did make a charge for > the software, but I don't think Dmitry made any commercial gain. > It's far from clear even if Elcomsoft made any commercial gain > from the limited number of copies they sold or expected to sell. I think there's another important question. It didn't occur to me until I actually read Title 17, Section 1201 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html is one source). 1201 c says: (c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title. (2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof. (3) Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1). (4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products. In RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/RIAA_v_Diamond/ the judge, building on Sony v. Universal City Studios (the Betamax case) found that there were uses of the Rio mp3 player that didn't involve contributory infringement. He seemed (to me) to be building from the District Court's finding in the Betamax case that "Selling a staple article of commerce -- e. g., a typewriter, a recorder, a camera, a photocopying machine -- technically contributes to any infringing use subsequently made thereof, but this kind of 'contribution,' if deemed sufficient as a basis for liability, would expand the theory beyond precedent and arguably beyond judicial management. I'm not sure how to read the Supreme Court's final opinion, but it seems that they were overturning the appeals court overturn of the district court findings. There are a bunch of findings of law & fact, though, so I can't figure out which ones stand today. ---- Is 1201 (c) only an exception to 1201 (a) which is about the act of circumventing itself or is it also about (b)? It doesn't *claim* to be about (a) only. Is the DMCA self contradictory? So... Dmitry's code has non-infringing uses (how do you write a book review if you can't quote some text from the book?) and other judges have said they don't want the courts clogged with cases where judges have to weigh the infringing vs. non-infringing uses of a product ("beyond judicial management". (I guess you can argue that the DMCA says "OK judges, you can't figure this out, fine, we'll handle it in the legislative branch). Under Betamax & Rio, the producer of a device isn't liable for infringing uses by the devices's users. Does the DMCA overturn that?? -Morgan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com From jei at cc.hut.fi Wed Nov 7 11:40:52 2001 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:18 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] [Eurorights] [Fwd: EuroLinux press release : Juridical Coup at the European Patent Office] (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 07 Nov 2001 14:36:43 +0100 From: Simo Sorce Reply-To: eurorights@eurorights.org To: eurorights@eurorights.org Subject: [Eurorights] [Fwd: EuroLinux press release : Juridical Coup at the European Patent Office] -----Forwarded Message----- From: Frederic Couchet To: discussion@fsfeurope.org Subject: EuroLinux press release : Juridical Coup at the European Patent Office Date: 07 Nov 2001 12:22:05 +0100 Juridical Coup at the European Patent Office EuroLinux demands European governments to replace the current board of the European Patent Office and to strengthen democratic control EuroLinux Alliance petition.EuroLinux.org For immediate Release Munich, Paris. 2001-11-05 - Without waiting for the expected vote by the European Union of a directive on the patentatibility of software, the European Patent Office just published a new examination directive which extends the realm of the European patent practice to software, business methods and mathematics [1,2]. This decision constitutes a violation of the European democracy and a provocation against European governments which had publicly stated last November 2000 that they wanted tighter political control over the European Patent Office and decided to preserve the exception for computer programmes. [3] This shameful and unacceptable decision also constitutes a violation of Article 22 of of the European Patent Convention which stipulates that only the Enlarged Board of Appeal may take decisions on significant patent policy issues. However, the European Patent Office has extended the realm of the European patent practice through hidden decisions of technical boards in order not to ask their opinion to European governments. The European Patent Office has tried to circumvent the democratic control of European Governments through adventurous administrative processes. The European Patent Office ignores its ruling authorities. [4] The European Patent Office scorns the 80% of software companies which are against software patents. [5, 6] EuroLinux demands that European governments act firmly. All projects of directive on the patentability of software, based on the opinion of European governments, and written by the General Directorate for Internal Market, require the European Patent Office to act in a controlable and sensible way. However, control and common sense do not seem to be appropriate terms for the current behaviour of the European Patent Office. Therefore, EuroLinux demands governments to * clearly state their oppositioons to the patentability of software and intangible innovations, * demonstrate to the public opinion their ability to control the European Patent Office by replacing urgently the current board, responsible of repeated violations of the European Patent Convention and of the Diplomatic Conference. EuroLinux urges all companies, all software users and all citizens who whish to protect software innovation in Europe and free competition in the information society to join the 90.000 individual supporters and 300 corporate supporters of our petition for a software patent free Europe [7]. References [1] EPO Press Release for the new examination rules for software - http://swpat.ffii.org/cnino/epgl01A/indexen.html [2] New EPO examination rules for software - http://www.epo.co.at/legal/gui_lines/f/c_iv_2.htm [3] EPO Press Release after the November 2001 conference 2001 - http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/2000_11_29_e.htm [4] Stealing with a Righteous Effect, a tale explaining how the EPO could patnet the unpatentable - http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/epc52/moses/indexen.html [5] The Results of the European Commission Consultation Exercise - http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indprop/softanalyse.pdf [6] Acceptable protection of software intellectual property: a survey of software developers and lawyers - http://www.pro-innovation.org/rapport_brevet/economy/elsevier/acceptab le.pdf [7] EuroLinux Petition - http://petition.eurolinux.org About EuroLinux - www.EuroLinux.org The EuroLinux Alliance for a Free Information Infrastructure is an open coalition of commercial companies and non-profit associations united to promote and protect a vigourous European Software Culture based on Open Standards, Open Competition, Linux and Open Source Software. Companies members or supporters of EuroLinux develop or sell software under free, semi-free and non-free licenses for operating systems such as Linux, MacOS or Windows. The EuroLinux Alliance launched on 2000-06-15 an electronic petition to protect software innovation in Europe. The EuroLinux petition has received so far massive support from more than 90.000 European citizens, 2000 corporate managers and 300 companies. The EuroLinux Alliance has co-organised in 1999, together with the French Embassy in Japan, the first Europe-Japan conference on Linux and Free Software. The EuroLinux Alliance is at the initiative of the www.freepatents.org web site to promote and protect innovation and competition in the European IT industry. Press Contacts France & Europe: Jean-Paul Smets jp@smets.com +33-6 62 05 76 14 Germany & Europe: Harmut Pilch phm@ffii.org +49-89 127 89 608 Denmark and Northern Europe: Anne ?stergaard aoe@sslug.dk Belgium: Nicolas Pettiaux nicolas.pettiaux@linuxbe.org Permanent URL for this PR http://petition.EuroLinux.org/pr/pr14.html Legalese Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other trademarks and copyrights are owned by their respective companies. -- Petition contre les brevets logiciels http://petition.eurolinux.org/ Frederic Couchet Tel: 06 60 68 89 31 / 01 49 22 67 89 APRIL http://www.april.org/ Free Software Foundation Europe http://www.fsfeurope.org/ _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussion -- Simo Sorce ---------- Una scelta di liberta': Software Libero. A choice of freedom: Free Software. http://www.softwarelibero.it _______________________________________________ Eurorights mailing list Eurorights@eurorights.org http://www.eurorights.org/mailman/listinfo/eurorights From david.haworth at altavista.net Wed Nov 7 23:29:13 2001 From: david.haworth at altavista.net (David Haworth) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:18 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: FJIA etc In-Reply-To: <003901c167ac$9f893610$4b0710ac@glogtech.com>; from russotto@pond.com on Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 11:52:45AM -0500 References: <003901c167ac$9f893610$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> Message-ID: <20011108082913.A2794@3soft.de> On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 11:52:45AM -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote: > The DMCA doesn't define "device". But what it forbids is > "technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" > That's pretty broad, and it's clear that AEBPR is a "product" if nothing > else. I won't argue that the binary version of AEBPR isn't a product. But I recall reading some quotation (I think by John Ashcroft) that said Congress didn't intend to outlaw software. Source code, however, is a different matter. The source code by itself won't decrypt anything. And it isn't a component of AEBPR. AEBPR will function quite nicely without it. > The device question is more interesting in patent cases, where some > companies (notably Dolby) have been sending takedown notices for > source code based on patents they hold. Patents are an entirely different matter and probably not relevant here. > > - is Adobe's E-Book reader an "effective technological measure" > > as defined in the DMCA? I don't think it is, and I think many > > others in the crypto field will agree. > > (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a > work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, > requires the application of information, or a process or a > treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain > access to the work. So what exactly is the "technological measure"? - If it's the "encrypted" file, it cannot be said in any sense to "operate". What's more, the legal owner of an Ebook has the authority of the copyright owner to apply a "process" to access the book. AEBPR is such a process. - If it's the reader program - you don't even need to run the reader program, or even have it, to use AEBPR. How can you circumvent something you don't have? - If it's a combination of the two, the second still applies. > Unfortunately, while the measure is ineffective in the real world, it > does seem to fall squarely under this clause. I agree that the DMCA's definition of "effective ..." is extremely nasty, but that doesn't mean that ther definition can't be dismantled and shown to have no legal force under certain circumstances. Dave -- David Haworth Baiersdorf, Germany david.haworth@altavista.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011108/96904e17/attachment.pgp From eaerme at newnorth.net Thu Nov 8 06:16:04 2001 From: eaerme at newnorth.net (ERNEST A. ERICKSON) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:18 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: # 274..."Infringement/s" References: Message-ID: <3BEA93A4.FBD275D0@newnorth.net> I noticed several disturbing sentences/phrases and paragraphs that appears to have been solely designed for the use of the government and it's own brand/s of "circumvention" as it applies to "them" and not us(They can, We can't). DMCA "allows" certain useful and protected work/s to be "circumvented" by the very technology employed to protect such work/s "IF" the use is for "legal" acts of obtaining "information" about the "suitability" of such work/s to be used and employed in other programs, materials and computer systems, technologies and encryption "schemes" that may/will allow "porting" of said work/s to different platforms for the sole purpose of ensuring such "devices" are first "legally" obtained(did YOU buy that book you thief?) and for determining if such work/s can be made to "interoperate" within the "new" platforms and operate in accordance with the original work/s protections intact and fully operable so that the compiled, completed and ported "new" work can be fully comprehended on/in several platforms in addition to the original, intended platform to which the use was first designed and administered. Did that have enough words of confusion to make the entire comment on "suitability" appear meaningless? The copyright "act" is just that; an ACT upon which the government has full right and title to covet, secure, copy and disseminate within itself, the entire protected works of anybody without the worries of royalty payments, infringement/s, or violations of any law/s that the government sees fit to avoid and ignore for the simple reason/s of information gathering and ensuring such laws and acts are being complied with by the citizens, consumers and those NOT connected directly, or through any governmental body within the states and acting as an agent of those states for the purpose of regulating and enforcing DMCA, copyrights, and all "devices" designed for protecting a work or works from being copied without the permission of the copyright owner/s. *WHEW*...so much wording for saying NO. *DAMN THE TORPEDOES!....FULL SPEED AHEAD*!!! Ignorance of the "law" WILL get you killed....ask Mrs. Diallo!!!! From russotto at pond.com Thu Nov 8 06:24:40 2001 From: russotto at pond.com (Matthew Russotto) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:18 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: FJIA etc Message-ID: <00e001c16861$1a557890$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> David Haworth wrote: On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 11:52:45AM -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote: > (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a > work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, > requires the application of information, or a process or a > treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain > access to the work. > So what exactly is the "technological measure"? > - If it's the "encrypted" file, it cannot be said in any sense to > "operate". What's more, the legal owner of an Ebook has the authority > of the copyright owner to apply a "process" to access the book. > AEBPR is such a process. The technological measure is the encryption. The process is decryption. The information is that available in the voucher. The legality of _using_ AEBPR isn't in question in this case -- no user has yet been prosecuted. >> Unfortunately, while the measure is ineffective in the real world, it >> does seem to fall squarely under this clause. > > I agree that the DMCA's definition of "effective ..." is extremely nasty, > but that doesn't mean that ther definition can't be dismantled and shown > to have no legal force under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, courts are extremely reluctant to read a law or section of a law as meaningless. Unless of course the law purports to protect rights rather than take them away, as Judge Kaplan did with the DMCAs savings clause. From wiljan at pobox.com Thu Nov 8 06:27:31 2001 From: wiljan at pobox.com (Will Janoschka) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:18 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: FJIA etc That is supposed to be FIJA (dislexia I guess) Message-ID: <200111081444.IAA000.55@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:52:45 Matthew Russotto russotto@pond.com wrote: > (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a > work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, > requires the application of information, or a process or a > treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain > access to the work. > >Unfortunately, while the measure is ineffective in the real world, it >does seem to fall squarely under this clause. Dimtry is being charged under a part of the DMCA with a different definition. (B) a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title. What right of a copyright holder is being restricted? (owner is a new word) Can I ever exercise YOUR right? -will- "Erwin," said Frau Schroedinger, "What did you do to the cat; it looks half dead." From igormotsnyi at hotmail.com Thu Nov 8 06:58:03 2001 From: igormotsnyi at hotmail.com (Igor Motsnyi) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:18 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Free Sklyarov. Message-ID: Dmitry’s arrest and the charges against him pose serious questions as to the proper application of Sec. 1201 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371-Conspiracy provisions by the Federal prosecutor’s office. I would like to stress here the word application. The provisions of the DMCA under consideration have been a constant target for the criticism from various sides: practitioners, scholars, etc. For a moment let’s set aside all the flaws of the DMCA anti-circumvention rules and concentrate on the actual language of Sec. 1201. Whether the software produced by ElcomSoft is a “device or product primarily designed to circumvent effective technological measures” needs to be argued in detail and the answer can not be given very easily. The most striking point here is the acts that are prohibited by the Statute: “manufacture, import, offer to the public or otherwise traffic in any technology...”-Sec. 1201(a)(2). Dmitry has entered the US with the purpose of taking part in a conference. He was not manufacturing, importing, offering to the public or trafficking it in any other technology. ElcomSoft was selling the software via the Internet in the US but not Dmitry himself. He did not come to the US to sell some samples of the Advanced eBook Processor (AEBPR). He was not going to distribute software on the US territory. Making a speech on the security aspects of Electronic books and documents as well as demonstration of their weaknesses can not amount to the acts prohibited by the DMCA. The fact that he was a copyright holder does not bring any changes to the outcome. There are two completely different things: the one is to be the author, and the other is to behave in a way forbidden by the DMCA, that is to say manufacture, offer to the public, etc. If you are the author it does not necessarily mean that it is you and only you who exploits the work. The distinction between Moral and Economic rights is of a great importance in that respect. Under Russian software law and copyright law the copyright on software created in connection with employment relationships always belongs to the employee as oppose to economic rights belonging normally to the employer (Articles 9 & 12 of Russian software law and Article 14 of Russian Copyright Law). It is ElcomSoft who has economic rights, i.e. to manufacture, import, offer to the public, etc. Dmitry can by no means be accountable for the allegations he is charged with. He did none of the acts enumerated in Sec 1201. Reading the Indictment I could not find anywhere the support of the charges against Dmitry in relation to Sec. 371 of the U.S.C. either. How can charged with conspiracy to commit acts listed above if he could by no means be able of performing all these actions (manufacture, offer to the public, etc). He is just an employee of ElcomSoft, not a director or a holder of any other top position in the company. He can not be responsible for the behavior of the whole company. In short, despite all the drawbacks of the American legislation in question the accusation looks quite ridiculous and seems to ignore obvious facts and general legal principles. The wrong interpretation and, as a corollary, application of the legislation is the starting point of the problem. Igor Motsnyi. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Thu Nov 8 07:36:23 2001 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:18 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Judge: Yahoo! Not Subject to Order Message-ID: <17831404538.20011108183623@elcomsoft.com> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011107/tc/yahoo_nazi_auctions_1.html U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled that the First Amendment protects content generated in the United States by American companies from being regulated by authorities in countries that have more restrictive laws on freedom of expression. ... Fogel pointed out that many Internet users in the United States often make postings or create content that would violate laws in other countries, such as China. ... Still, Yahoo asked Fogel to reassure the U.S. Internet industry that other countries do not have jurisdiction over Web content produced by an American business. From tom at lemuria.org Thu Nov 8 16:02:30 2001 From: tom at lemuria.org (Tom) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:19 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: <011801c163f3$6c245e10$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR>; from krburger@burger-family.org on Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 06:09:28PM -0500 References: <002601c163cd$24a679e0$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> <20011102134632.C16553@zgp.org> <011801c163f3$6c245e10$9865fea9@BALTHAZAR> Message-ID: <20011109010230.B20121@lemuria.org> On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 06:09:28PM -0500, Kenneth Burger wrote: > If you're going to be the leader of something like this then you should be > willing to take that risk. I would. but most of the "leaders" of Free Software didn't want to become leaders. they wanted to hack some cool code, and after a few years realized that people came to rely on them. -- -- http://web.lemuria.org -- From john.dempsey7 at verizon.net Thu Nov 8 15:50:16 2001 From: john.dempsey7 at verizon.net (John Dempsey) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:19 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: <20011109010230.B20121@lemuria.org> Message-ID: >On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 06:09:28PM -0500, Kenneth Burger wrote: >> If you're going to be the leader of something like this then you should be >> willing to take that risk. I would. >but most of the "leaders" of Free Software didn't want to become >leaders. they wanted to hack some cool code, and after a few years >realized that people came to rely on them. I also resent the idea of personal accountability extending to someone else's person. We all face the perils of DMCA in our own cases, hopefully with bravery, but not with the stupidity a suicidal choice can mean. Sklyarov faces 25 years for doing his job. Don't tell people what risks they should take for "our" movement. It is a movement of individuals making individual choices, with serious consequences. I believe the Open Source movement should leave America behind. What did Churchill say? 'And if... this island was subject and starving... in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forward to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.' I saw this site--would welcome the URL, which I've misplaced--which planned to publish all data prohibited by the DMCA to the *rest* of the world. No American would be allowed to view it. That accurately summarizes where Linux should go... with or without America. From david.haworth at altavista.net Thu Nov 8 22:45:23 2001 From: david.haworth at altavista.net (David Haworth) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:19 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Judge: Yahoo! Not Subject to Order In-Reply-To: <17831404538.20011108183623@elcomsoft.com>; from vkatalov@elcomsoft.com on Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 06:36:23PM +0300 References: <17831404538.20011108183623@elcomsoft.com> Message-ID: <20011109074523.C3338@3soft.de> On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 06:36:23PM +0300, Vladimir Katalov wrote: > Still, Yahoo asked Fogel to reassure the U.S. Internet industry that > other countries do not have jurisdiction over Web content produced by > an American business. Pity he didn't also rule the converse: the US has no jurisdiction over web content produced by businesses in other countries. Dave -- David Haworth Baiersdorf, Germany david.haworth@altavista.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011109/d150e8d7/attachment.pgp From ilya at theIlya.com Thu Nov 8 23:01:04 2001 From: ilya at theIlya.com (Ilya Volynets) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:19 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20011109070107.17378.qmail@gateway.total-knowledge.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 08 November 2001 03:50 pm, John Dempsey wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 06:09:28PM -0500, Kenneth Burger wrote: > >> If you're going to be the leader of something like this then you should > > be > > >> willing to take that risk. I would. > > > >but most of the "leaders" of Free Software didn't want to become > >leaders. they wanted to hack some cool code, and after a few years > >realized that people came to rely on them. > > I also resent the idea of personal accountability extending to someone > else's person. We all face the perils of DMCA in our own cases, hopefully > with bravery, but not with the stupidity a suicidal choice can mean. > Sklyarov faces 25 years for doing his job. Don't tell people what risks > they should take for "our" movement. It is a movement of individuals > making individual choices, with serious consequences. I agree with this. > I believe the Open Source movement should leave America behind. Well. Following this logic, oss movement should leave all western world behind (I'm not familiar enough with East to state it). US is not only place, it's just first. > What did > Churchill say? 'And if... this island was subject and starving... in God's > good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forward to > the rescue and the liberation of the Old.' > I saw this site--would welcome the URL, which I've misplaced--which planned > to publish all data prohibited by the DMCA to the *rest* of the world. No > American would be allowed to view it. That accurately summarizes where > Linux should go... with or without America. Divide and conquer... Open Source software movement is world-wide. Anti open-source software movement (though not as explicit and unifies) is also becoming world-wide. This "anti-oss" movement doesn't realize itself as one yet, but very large and powerfull entities see free software as danger to itself. Microsoft, for example, claims free software to be a cancer to software industry (sorry, don't have a reference). And as such entities realize danger of free software to their life model, pressure on governemnts of all major coutries for laws that in one way or another prevent it from development. And with US government leading the way, it's not going to take long. I'm fine with acts of public disobidience. I'm fine with Alan's actions as well -- it's everyone's own choice. I'm also fine with site that collects all DMCA-forbidden software -- that's good way to show what is really DMCA designed to outlaw. WHat I'm not fine with is forbidding huge and very influential part of world population -- american lusers -- to access this information. Without their support it would be very hard to reverse these processes in US, and, like it or not, it affects the whole world right now. Also, do not forget, that *huge* number of lesser free software developers reside in US. Ilya. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjvrfzMACgkQ84S94bALfyWsnQCgoeYuCCwkBgkJ5KOngqS3Ig5n easAn3HUz7Xq8L648WPs92b6s0OldbAL =/eiC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Thu Nov 8 23:10:01 2001 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:19 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Judge: Yahoo! Not Subject to Order In-Reply-To: <20011109074523.C3338@3soft.de> References: <17831404538.20011108183623@elcomsoft.com> <20011109074523.C3338@3soft.de> Message-ID: <13687421775.20011109101001@elcomsoft.com> Hello, > Pity he didn't also rule the converse: the US has no jurisdiction > over web content produced by businesses in other countries. Isn't that obvious? ;) /Vladimir vkatalov@elcomsoft.com From tom at lemuria.org Fri Nov 9 00:09:26 2001 From: tom at lemuria.org (Tom) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:19 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Linux update withholds security info on DMCA terror In-Reply-To: ; from john.dempsey7@verizon.net on Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 06:50:16PM -0500 References: <20011109010230.B20121@lemuria.org> Message-ID: <20011109090926.A25837@lemuria.org> On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 06:50:16PM -0500, John Dempsey wrote: > I saw this site--would welcome the URL, which I've misplaced--which planned > to publish all data prohibited by the DMCA to the *rest* of the world. No > American would be allowed to view it. That accurately summarizes where > Linux should go... with or without America. http://www.thefreeworld.net/ From peter at rsub.com Fri Nov 9 00:35:17 2001 From: peter at rsub.com (peter winnberg) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:19 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Hacking, Online Piracy and the DMCA under Fire: What Do They Mean For Publishing Message-ID: <20011109083517.9587.qmail@whiskas.chek.com> Hey, I don't know if this is old news but I found this conference on the AAP website: Hacking, Online Piracy and the DMCA under Fire: What Do They Mean For Publishing? http://www.publishers.org/confpub/113001more.htm Is anyone attending this? _____________RSUB__________________________ http://www.rsub.com go there now - - - - -> From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Fri Nov 9 00:57:14 2001 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:19 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Hacking, Online Piracy and the DMCA under Fire: What Do They Mean For Publishing In-Reply-To: <20011109083517.9587.qmail@whiskas.chek.com> References: <20011109083517.9587.qmail@whiskas.chek.com> Message-ID: <593855463.20011109115714@elcomsoft.com> Hello, > Hey, I don't know if this is old news but I found this conference on the AAP website: > > Hacking, Online Piracy and the DMCA under Fire: What Do They Mean For Publishing? > http://www.publishers.org/confpub/113001more.htm > > Is anyone attending this? Funny fact. The moderator of that event is: BONNIE BEACHER, DIRECTOR, CONTRACTS, COPYRIGHTS & PERMISSIONS, MCGRAW-HILL ^^^^^^^^^^^ On July 10th (just a few days before the arrest, when we were not selling AEBPR already), I have received the following request: > I would like to request a full version of the Advanced eBook Procesessor > software. > > [name skipped] > Software Engineer > Media Technology > McGraw-Hill Higher Education > Two Penn Plaza, 9th Floor > New York, NY 10121 > Tel. 212-904-4232 :) /Vladimir vkatalov@elcomsoft.com From russotto at pond.com Fri Nov 9 07:38:42 2001 From: russotto at pond.com (Matthew Russotto) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:19 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: FJIA etc That is supposed to be Message-ID: <008201c16934$9c357710$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> Will Janoschka wiljan@pobox.com wrote: >Dimtry is being charged under a part of the DMCA with a different definition. > (B) a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a > copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the > ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or > otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner > under this title. > What right of a copyright holder is being restricted? (owner is a new word) > Can I ever exercise YOUR right? Ugh, I get those sections confused too frequently. In order to parse this so it has any meaning (and the courts only consider clauses meaningless when that's a bad thing, in my cynical opinion), "right of a copyright owner under this title" must refer to the rights reserved to the copyright owner by 17 USC 106 and 106A. That is, the reproduction right, the right to prepare derivative works, the right to distribute copies, the right to perform the work publicly, and the right to display the work publicly. (the 106A rights are for visual arts and don't seem particularly relevant). The only rights possibly implicated here seem to be the reproduction right and the right to prepare derivative works. The encryption, combined with the rights-management information, limits the ability of the user to make copies of the work in the clear, and to make modified copies. Unfortunately, this is likely to be enough for the courts, despite the sloppy language. BTW, "owner" isn't a new word; that's the language used in 17 USC 106. From wiljan at pobox.com Fri Nov 9 08:15:40 2001 From: wiljan at pobox.com (Will Janoschka) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:19 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: FJIA etc Message-ID: <200111091702.LAA000.67@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> Matthew Russotto russotto@pond.com wrote: > Will Janoschka wiljan@pobox.com wrote: >>... (B) a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a >> copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the >> ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or >> otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner >> under this title. >> What right of a copyright holder is being restricted? >> Can I ever exercise YOUR right? >...The only rights possibly implicated here seem to be the reproduction right >and the right to prepare derivative works. The encryption, combined with the >rights-management information, limits the ability of the user to make copies >of the work in the clear, and to make modified copies. Unfortunately, this is >likely to be enough for the courts, despite the sloppy language. You are probably correct at least at the trial court level. The US Supreme may very well invalidate a "law" written with words that reverse the intent of congress. If I am copyright owner, I can exercise my (copy) rights. You cannot, in either a linguistic or legal sense, "exercise". You can infringe on my rights or exercise your own rights. Only if the technological measure limits, in some way, the copyright owner "under this title" can it claim to "effectively protect a right of the copyright owner under this title". Circumvention then, would remove the limits imposed on the copyright owner. The user or "circumventee" isn't affected, except he can go to jail. The word should have been "infringement" rather than "exercise". The substitution clearly reverses the meaning of (B) above. From schoen at loyalty.org Fri Nov 9 09:41:25 2001 From: schoen at loyalty.org (Seth David Schoen) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:19 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Hacking, Online Piracy and the DMCA under Fire: What Do They Mean For Publishing In-Reply-To: <20011109083517.9587.qmail@whiskas.chek.com> References: <20011109083517.9587.qmail@whiskas.chek.com> Message-ID: <20011109094125.J6256@zork.net> peter winnberg writes: > Hey, I don't know if this is old news but I found this conference on the AAP website: > > Hacking, Online Piracy and the DMCA under Fire: What Do They Mean For Publishing? > http://www.publishers.org/confpub/113001more.htm > > Is anyone attending this? I'll see if I can get a journalist to go (by no means guaranteed). It costs $95 for non-AAP members. -- Seth David Schoen | Its really terrible when FBI arrested Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | hacker, who visited USA with peacefull down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | mission -- to share his knowledge with http://www.freesklyarov.org/ | american nation. (Ilya V. Vasilyev) From morganw at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 11:05:21 2001 From: morganw at yahoo.com (Morgan) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:19 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] DMCA 1201(c) - what the heck is it for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20011109190521.88509.qmail@web13404.mail.yahoo.com> What's the point of 1201(c)? If it doesn't absolve Dmitry from 1201(b), how are people supposed to exercise their fair use rights? Is it only supposed to apply to 1201(a) for the circumventor, not (b) the circumvention device creator? Any ideas? (c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title. (2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof. (3) Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1). (4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com From russotto at pond.com Fri Nov 9 12:24:31 2001 From: russotto at pond.com (Matthew Russotto) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:19 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] DMCA 1201(c) - what the heck is it for? Message-ID: <00a501c1695c$8a356f70$4b0710ac@glogtech.com> IMO, IANAL: 1201(c)(1) prevents courts from changing the standards for copyright infringement based on DMCA violations -- so someone using a DMCA-forbidden program to accomplish a noninfringing goal isn't committing copyright infringement, only (possibly) DMCA violation. 1201(c)(2) prevents courts from changing the standards for contributory copyright infringement based on DMCA violations -- so Dmitry can't be also sued for contributory infringment based on AEBPR, if publication of such software wasn't contributory infringement prior to the DMCA. (anyone know where the whole concept of contributory infringment has its basis?) 1201(c)(3) says that the DMCA isn't the SSSCA; that is, no one is obliged to actively assist in protecting technological measures. 1201(c)(4) is sugar coating intended to help the bill pass and has no other meaning. From igormotsnyi at hotmail.com Fri Nov 9 13:17:25 2001 From: igormotsnyi at hotmail.com (Igor Motsnyi) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:19 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Sec. 1201(c)-What the heck? Message-ID: Sec 1201(c) attempts to reconcile Anti-circumvention provisions with traditional principles of copyright (fair use, contributory, vicarious liability) and 1201(c)(4) does not affect the free speech. As to the contributory liability standard it has been formulated in Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971)-"One who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a 'contributory infringer.'" However, Dmitry is not sued for copyright infringement at this moment (and it is very unlikely that Adobe will change its mind once again given that it has already withdrawn the complaint, therefore, I do not think the issue of contributory liability is going to arise in the near future for one can speak about contrib. infringement only in the case of copyright violation). _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From eaerme at newnorth.net Fri Nov 9 18:26:23 2001 From: eaerme at newnorth.net (ERNEST A. ERICKSON) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:20 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] PGP CA sites.. Message-ID: <3BEC904F.60DAE937@newnorth.net> Hello: I am in dire need of any CA sites so my key can be posted in the public "domain". I finally bit the bullet and downloaded PGP and have it all configured except for the X.509 certs. I need. All help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! Ernest From tompoe at renonevada.net Fri Nov 9 20:56:17 2001 From: tompoe at renonevada.net (tom poe) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:20 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Hacking, Online Piracy and the DMCA under Fire: What Do They Mean For Publishing In-Reply-To: <593855463.20011109115714@elcomsoft.com> References: <20011109083517.9587.qmail@whiskas.chek.com> <593855463.20011109115714@elcomsoft.com> Message-ID: <01110920561702.09931@aether> On Friday 09 November 2001 00:57, Vladimir Katalov wrote: > Hello, - - - snip - - - > Funny fact. The moderator of that event is: > > BONNIE BEACHER, DIRECTOR, CONTRACTS, COPYRIGHTS & PERMISSIONS, MCGRAW-HILL > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > On July 10th (just a few days before the arrest, when we were not > > selling AEBPR already), I have received the following request: > > I would like to request a full version of the Advanced eBook Procesessor > > software. > > > > [name skipped] > > Software Engineer > > Media Technology > > McGraw-Hill Higher Education > > Two Penn Plaza, 9th Floor > > New York, NY 10121 > > Tel. 212-904-4232 > > > :) > > /Vladimir > vkatalov@elcomsoft.com Hi: Nice to share that. At this point, my reaction to the term "publisher" brings immediate revulsion. There's a generation of us that grew up listing "used car salesman" as the lowest of the low. Now, it seems "publisher" has taken front seat in this class. They should all be ashamed of themselves. Tom From jei at cc.hut.fi Sun Nov 11 09:53:56 2001 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:20 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] [ParanoidTimes] Britain placed under state of emergency (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 01:18:37 +1100 From: Bond Reply-To: ParanoidTimes@yahoogroups.com To: ParanoidTimes@yahoogroups.com Subject: [ParanoidTimes] Britain placed under state of emergency Britain placed under state of emergency Kamal Ahmed, Antony Barnett and Martin Bright Sunday November 11, 2001 The Observer Britain is to be placed under a state of 'public emergency' as part of an unprecedented government move to allow internment without trial of suspected terrorists. In a historic initiative that will incense civil liberties groups, David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, will lay the order before the House of Commons in the next 48 hours, to be followed by anti-terrorist legislation which will be rushed through in the next four weeks. The order, which says the events of 11 September are 'threatening the life of the nation', will allow Britain to opt out of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which bans detention without trial. It will pave the way for indefinite imprisonment of foreign nationals who the Government suspects are terrorists, and comes less than 24 hours after warnings from America that Britain is a top target for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network. The move reveals the seriousness the Government places on the threat to Britain. Such orders can be used only in times of war or when there has been an event that puts the security of the nation at risk. Whitehall sources said the order would not be reviewed 'for at least a year'. Internment was last used during the Gulf war against Iraqis suspected of links to Saddam Hussein's army. It has also been used against terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland and Germans during the Second World War. It is the first time the Government has sought such a major opt-out of the Convention, which is the cornerstone of human rights laws in the country. John Wadham, director of Liberty, said it would seek to challenge the order in the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. 'This is a fundamental violation of the rule of law, our rights and traditional British values,' he said. 'There is no evidence of direct plans to commit atrocities against Britain.' Government officials insisted this was a 'formal procedure' and did not signal a change in the level of risk to the country, but said the police needed more powers to detain suspected terrorists. 'Britain is closed to terrorism, and we will take whatever action we can,' the Prime Minister's official spokesman said. 'People will object to it, but we are absolutely determined to get the balance right between human rights, which are important, and society's right to live free from terror.' Downing Street believes that the public will back the moves, which it says are necessary to maintain national security. Intelligence reports suggest a number of terrorists linked to extremist Middle Eastern organisations have attempted to enter the country using the cloak of asylum laws. The official spokesman said a handful of people would be targeted by the new laws and they would be offered the opportunity to travel to a third country if it could be arranged. Even suspects who attempt to travel through British airports can be detained if the new terrorism laws are passed. The Government plans to rush the legislation through both Houses of Parliament by Christmas and is hoping for cross-party support. The public emergency order will be the first of a series of controversial measures closing what the Government says are loopholes in the law. As well as internment, the terrorism Bill will contain new laws to tackle religious hatred and harsh sentences for people behind 'non-bomb' hoaxes, such as anthrax scares. It will also contain new measures against money- laundering and a crackdown on bureaux de change, which are often used to move terrorists' assets, and will order banks to scrutinise and report on any suspicious transactions. New bills on fast-track extradition laws and asylum reform are not now expected until the new year. *The Home Office is also planning to seize passports from British Muslims who are planning to travel abroad to fight for the Taliban or Osama bin Laden. Home Office Minister Angela Eagle has confirmed she will give 'serious consideration' to powers at present used against football hooligans trying to travel abroad. The law allows action against 'a person whose past or proposed activities are so demonstrably undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities would be contrary to the public interest'. Andrew Dismore, Labour MP for Hendon, said he would now pass a list of names to Eagle of people who had expressed a desire to travel abroad to fight for the Taliban. 'It is clear that if any British Muslim says he wants to travel to Afghanistan to try to kill British or US soldiers, then that is clearly against the public interest and his passport should be removed,' Dismore said. http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4296620,00.html From tom at lemuria.org Sun Nov 11 12:16:04 2001 From: tom at lemuria.org (Tom) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:20 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] [ParanoidTimes] Britain placed under state of emergency (fwd) In-Reply-To: ; from jei@cc.hut.fi on Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 07:53:56PM +0200 References: Message-ID: <20011111211604.A22711@lemuria.org> On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 07:53:56PM +0200, Jei wrote: > Britain placed under state of emergency > Kamal Ahmed, Antony Barnett and Martin Bright > Sunday November 11, 2001 > The Observer yes, the whole WTC attack is being used as a "reason" for a government- powergrab precedentes only by the nazi's in 1933. however, that has nothing to do with sklyarov, has it? -- -- http://web.lemuria.org -- From tompoe at renonevada.net Sun Nov 11 13:00:42 2001 From: tompoe at renonevada.net (tom poe) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:20 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] [ParanoidTimes] Britain placed under state of emergency (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01111113004201.01819@aether> On Sunday 11 November 2001 09:53, Jei wrote: - - - snip - - - > Government officials insisted this was a 'formal procedure' and did not > signal a change in the level of risk to the country, but said the police > needed more powers to detain suspected terrorists. - - - snip - - - > Home Office Minister Angela Eagle has confirmed she will give 'serious > consideration' to powers at present used against football hooligans trying > to travel abroad. > - - - snip - - - > The law allows action against 'a person whose past or proposed activities > are so demonstrably undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of > passport facilities would be contrary to the public interest'. > Hi: All in the same breath, mind you! Absolutely terrifying. Our only hope in this democratic world is that "they", the self-chosen few, permit us to stay and wait in our homes until they get the world prison system built. Tom From jei at cc.hut.fi Wed Nov 14 13:32:46 2001 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:20 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases (fwd) Message-ID: Fast, secret non-public tribuals and executions for non-americans. Just what we need to get those annoying mp3 pirates and DMCA terrorists in the UK. :-) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:47:22 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh To: politech@politechbot.com Subject: FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases President Bush has quietly signed an executive order allowing civilians to be tried by military tribunals. This may be outrageous. I say "may be" because the degree to which we should be outraged depends on the details of this not-yet-released executive order. Does the executive order apply only to non-U.S. citizens, as some news reports say? Perhaps it applies only abroad, to Al Qaeda saboteurs trying to blow up U.S. military bases? Does it apply solely to illegal immigrants? If it applies to people living in or visiting the U.S. legally, what happened to our Sixth Amendment right "to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury?" One thing that seems apparent is that the writ of Habeas Corpus, the so-called Great Writ and bulwark of liberty, is in danger of disappearing. The Constitution says "the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and ordered that suspected political criminals be tried before military tribunals. Alas, and predictably, you won't see anything on the White House website. The staff there managed to place online an executive order creating a "task force on citizen prepardness" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011109-15.html) -- but somehow neglected to do the same with news that's just a tad more important. -Declan http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/national/14DETA.html WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 ? President Bush signed an order today allowing special military tribunals to try foreigners charged with terrorism. A senior administration official said that any such trials would "not necessarily" be public and that the American tribunals might operate in Pakistan and Afghanistan. See also: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/13/inv.military.trials/index.html http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2001/nov/13/111302554.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23716-2001Nov13.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From dmarti at zgp.org Wed Nov 14 13:50:58 2001 From: dmarti at zgp.org (Don Marti) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:20 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20011114135058.A10418@zgp.org> begin Jei quotation of Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 11:32:46PM +0200: > Fast, secret non-public tribuals and executions for non-americans. Please somebody point out that this doesn't apply to DMCA violations, or at least that it isn't retroactive to Dmitry's case. Anyone? -- Don Marti What do we want? Free Dmitry! When do we want it? Now! http://zgp.org/~dmarti dmarti@zgp.org Free the web, burn all GIFs. KG6INA http://burnallgifs.org/ From tom at lemuria.org Wed Nov 14 15:06:11 2001 From: tom at lemuria.org (Tom) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:20 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20011114135058.A10418@zgp.org>; from dmarti@zgp.org on Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 01:50:58PM -0800 References: <20011114135058.A10418@zgp.org> Message-ID: <20011115000611.E25234@lemuria.org> On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 01:50:58PM -0800, Don Marti wrote: > > Fast, secret non-public tribuals and executions for non-americans. > > Please somebody point out that this doesn't apply to DMCA violations, > or at least that it isn't retroactive to Dmitry's case. Anyone? unlikely by the logic of this war: the russians are with the good guys (at least as long as you need their airstrips, supply depots and intelligence on afghanistan). -- pub 1024D/D88D35A6 2001-11-14 Tom Vogt Key fingerprint = 276B B7BB E4D8 FCCE DB8F F965 310B 811A D88D 35A6 From martinb at kemokid.com Wed Nov 14 14:23:32 2001 From: martinb at kemokid.com (Martin Baker) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:20 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20011114135058.A10418@zgp.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Don Marti wrote: > begin Jei quotation of Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 11:32:46PM +0200: > > > Fast, secret non-public tribuals and executions for non-americans. > > Please somebody point out that this doesn't apply to DMCA violations, > or at least that it isn't retroactive to Dmitry's case. Anyone? Don't worry, such actions are not quite ready to be called "economic terrorism". First they have to harass the anti-globalization activists (as they have been doing). THEN they will go after less explicitly political people. Martin From jei at cc.hut.fi Wed Nov 14 15:04:36 2001 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:20 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] [ParanoidTimes] Bush Orders Terror Trials by Military (fwd) Message-ID: Put that Sklyarov terrorist to military court? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:12:23 +1100 From: Bond Reply-To: ParanoidTimes@yahoogroups.com To: ParanoidTimes@yahoogroups.com Subject: [ParanoidTimes] Bush Orders Terror Trials by Military Bush Orders Terror Trials by Military NewsMax.com Wires Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2001 WASHINGTON (UPI) - President Bush on Tuesday signed an executive order allowing foreigners to be tried in a special U.S. military court if accused of terrorist acts. "I have determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes," Bush said in his order. The order drew immediate criticism from self-described civil libertarians, and some suggested that the order would be challenged as unconstitutional. The executive order directs U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to establish a military commission to try individuals whom federal authorities have reason to believe are members of the Muslim extremist group al-Qaeda and have engaged in, or aided acts of international terrorism against the United States, or harbored anyone doing so. The directive spells out that those held under the order could be detained inside or outside the United States, and says that they must be treated humanely: given "food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment," and be allowed the freedom to exercise their religion. The White House said Tuesday that the order provided Bush with options to bring terrorists to justice. Claire Buchan, White House spokeswoman, said that trial of terrorists by military commission provided important security advantages, physically protecting the American public and classified information that may emerge during court proceedings. But some worry that the order sets up an unprecedented separate legal standard for foreigners. "First, the president must justify why the current system does not allow for the timely prosecution of those accused of terrorist activities," said Laura W. Murphy of American Civil Liberties Union. "Absent such a compelling justification, today's order is deeply disturbing and further evidence that the administration is totally unwilling to abide by the checks and balances that are so central to our democracy. Increasingly they appear willing to circumvent the requirements of the Bill of Rights." Peacetime court-martials of civilians were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1957. That year Reid vs. Covert found, according to the syllabus of the decision, "Under our Constitution, courts of law alone are given power to try civilians for their offenses against the United States." Virginia attorney and board member of the National Institute of Military Justice Philip Cave, who represents military defendants, said: "This is certainly unprecedented since trials of German saboteurs in World War II. And the difference is, we're not at war now." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/13/193921.shtml From swive at getnet.com Wed Nov 14 21:51:14 2001 From: swive at getnet.com (Eric) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:20 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: Free Sklyarov In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > He was not manufacturing, importing, > offering to the public or trafficking it in any other technology. He owns the copyright on the Advanced eBook Processor. Elcom could not have distributed it in the U.S. without his permission. The concept here is that he had the intent to commit a crime and is liable under a theory of accomplicehood. Ergo he was charged for that. Don't misunderstand; his arrest and indictment have nothing legally to do with his trip to Vegas. > ElcomSoft > was selling the software via the Internet in the US but not > Dmitry himself. Dimitri authorized it; it's *his* copyright. > He did not come to the US to sell some samples of the Advanced eBook > Processor (AEBPR). You are missing the point. Read the indictment. > He was not going to distribute software on the US > territory. You don't get it. See above. > The fact that he was a copyright holder does > not bring any changes to the outcome. There are two completely different > things: the one is to be the author, and the other is to behave in a way > forbidden by the DMCA, that is to say manufacture, offer to the > public, etc. They are not completely different, but if he is exculpated, it will be on this distinction. > If you are the author it does not necessarily mean that it is you and only > you who exploits the work. It means that no one can distribute your work without your permission. > The distinction between Moral and > Economic rights > is of a great importance in that respect. The U.S. does not recognize moral rights in copyright, or barely. > Under Russian software law and > copyright law the copyright on software created in connection with > employment relationships always belongs to the employee as oppose to > economic rights belonging normally to the employer (Articles 9 & 12 of > Russian software law and Article 14 of Russian Copyright Law). Russian law is not involved here. > It is > ElcomSoft who has economic rights, i.e. to manufacture, import, > offer to the > public, etc. Dimitri is the copyright holder, so he has all the rights unless assigned. > Dmitry can by no means be accountable for the > allegations he is > charged with. He did none of the acts enumerated in Sec 1201. > Reading the Indictment I could not find anywhere the support of > the charges > against Dmitry in relation to Sec. 371 of the U.S.C. either. How > can charged > with conspiracy to commit acts listed above if he could by no > means be able > of performing all these actions (manufacture, offer to the > public, etc). His permission was necessary to distribute AEBPR. His is therefore under a theory of accomplice. Elcom could not have distributed AEBPR without his permission. Therefore he assisted the trafficking of 1201 contraband. > He > is just an employee of ElcomSoft, not a director or a holder of any other > top position in the company. His degree of control is a question for the jury, not us. > He can not be responsible for the behavior of > the whole company. But he may be liable for the distribution of AEBPR. > In short, despite all the drawbacks of the American legislation > in question > the accusation looks quite ridiculous and seems to ignore obvious > facts and > general legal principles. Hmmmmmm..... Eric From kfoss at planetpdf.com Wed Nov 14 21:05:43 2001 From: kfoss at planetpdf.com (Kurt Foss) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:21 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: Free Sklyarov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 9:51 PM -0800 11/14/01, Eric wrote: >Dimitri is the copyright holder, so he has all the rights unless assigned. It's not quite as "clear" as you suggest: "Who Really Owns the Copyright to Advanced eBook Processor?" http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=1546 rgds ~ Kurt ____________________ Kurt Foss - Editor _______________________ Planet PDF - A world of Acrobat/PDF news, tips, tools and forums mailto:kfoss@binarything.com | mailto:kfoss@planetpdf.com http://www.binarything.com/ | http://www.planetpdf.com/ NOW OPEN: The ePublish Store http://www.epublishstore.com/ BinaryThing.com - The ePublishing Network -- From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Wed Nov 14 23:29:58 2001 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:21 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: Free Sklyarov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2171010258.20011115102958@elcomsoft.com> Hello, >> He was not manufacturing, importing, >> offering to the public or trafficking it in any other technology. > He owns the copyright on the Advanced eBook Processor. > [...] > Dimitri is the copyright holder, so he has all the rights unless assigned. Sorry, have you ever read "license.txt" enclosed with AEBPR? It states: > - All copyrights to AEBPR are exclusively owned by > ElcomSoft Co.Ltd. > [...] > All rights not expressly granted here are reserved by > ElcomSoft Co.Ltd. Also, you wrote: > Russian law is not involved here. It is. At leats, everything regarding copyrights -- at least because the program has been developed in Russia. /Vladimir vkatalov@elcomsoft.com From debug at centras.lt Thu Nov 15 00:44:50 2001 From: debug at centras.lt (DeBug) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:21 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: Free Sklyarov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1311806743.20011115094450@centras.lt> >>Dimitri is the copyright holder, so he has all the rights unless assigned. KF> It's not quite as "clear" as you suggest: KF> "Who Really Owns the Copyright to Advanced eBook Processor?" KF> http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=1546 I find it very dangerous to REQUIRE that every software had a copyright holder. For example i want to put my program into public domain anonymously so that noone can control how other people use it. It seems to be impossible because BY DEFAULT any program has an owner i.e. lawers want to have a person that could answer in the court who can and who cannot use the program. They do not want to understand that there CAN exists not proprietary things, the things that belong to NOONE. It is very dangerous to require that every thing had an owner. -- Best regards, DeBug mailto:debug@centras.lt -- "Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good." -- Mohandas Gandhi -- From debug at centras.lt Thu Nov 15 00:56:35 2001 From: debug at centras.lt (DeBug) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:21 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: Free Sklyarov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <732511395.20011115095635@centras.lt> >> If you are the author it does not necessarily mean that it is you and only >> you who exploits the work. E> It means that no one can distribute your work without your permission. This is why i dont like software AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted I am the author but i had never agreed that i own my work i created it for the public and noone own it Under Bern convention it seems to be impossible and i find it extremely dangerous. An example is the way GPL works : a) You copyright your work b) You allow wide range of its uses ( what is called free software) But i dont like the way it works this is not the same (even if you state it in your license) as saying "noone owns it, noone controls how other people use it"... -- Best regards, DeBug mailto:debug@centras.lt -- "Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good." -- Mohandas Gandhi -- From crism at maden.org Thu Nov 15 00:13:34 2001 From: crism at maden.org (Christopher R. Maden) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:21 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: Free Sklyarov In-Reply-To: <1311806743.20011115094450@centras.lt> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011115001123.00abc600@mail.maden.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 00:44 15-11-2001, DeBug wrote: >I find it very dangerous to REQUIRE that every software had a >copyright holder. For example i want to put my program >into public domain anonymously so that noone can control >how other people use it. It seems to be impossible because >BY DEFAULT any program has an owner i.e. lawers want to have >a person that could answer in the court who can and who cannot use the >program. Well, you have copyright when you create it - you can then assign that copyright to the public domain. The default state, legally, is that a work is copyright as soon as someone creates it. And if your program is held to be illegal in some way, then you could be charged (at least as an accomplice) for creating and distributing the program, copyright issues aside. This demonstrates, I think, some of the problems that arise when a work is held itself to be illegal in some way, as opposed to just its use. ~crism - -- Libertarian candidate, California State Assembly, District 13 Free Sklyarov: Freelance text nerd: PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8 iQA/AwUBO/N5LqxS+CWv7FjaEQJvZgCgjAjFV4URxMAI3swoHHAFD2ta20oAn3SQ SGTJYxo2JwnNjwmHX+WSGKQM =xTob -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mlc67 at columbia.edu Thu Nov 15 00:17:54 2001 From: mlc67 at columbia.edu (mike castleman) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:21 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Public Domain (Was: Re: Free Sklyarov) In-Reply-To: <1311806743.20011115094450@centras.lt>; from debug@centras.lt on Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 09:44:50AM +0100 References: <1311806743.20011115094450@centras.lt> Message-ID: <20011115031754.S19192@pinetree.columbia.edu> As far as I know (and I've been wrong before), you're certainly allowed to put your program in the public domain if you want. You must, however, explicitly state that you are doing so. At least under US copyright law, the default is for a work to be copyrighted by its author. mike On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 09:44:50AM +0100, DeBug wrote: > I find it very dangerous to REQUIRE that every software had a > copyright holder. For example i want to put my program > into public domain anonymously so that noone can control > how other people use it. It seems to be impossible because > BY DEFAULT any program has an owner i.e. lawers want to have > a person that could answer in the court who can and who cannot use the program. > They do not want to understand that there CAN exists not proprietary things, > the things that belong to NOONE. It is very dangerous to require that > every thing had an owner. -- mike castleman, mlc67@columbia.edu, ph: +1 (646) 382-7220 current location: columbia university, new york, ny, us students for an orwellian society: http://www.studentsfororwell.org/ because 2001 is 17 years too late. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011115/b9904303/attachment.pgp From debug at centras.lt Thu Nov 15 01:34:29 2001 From: debug at centras.lt (DeBug) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:21 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: Free Sklyarov In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011115001123.00abc600@mail.maden.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011115001123.00abc600@mail.maden.org> Message-ID: <1444785532.20011115103429@centras.lt> CRM> Well, you have copyright when you create it - you can then assign that CRM> copyright to the public domain. I must say it again - I am the author but i had never agreed that i own my work so dont forse me to copyright it. CRM> This demonstrates, I think, some of the problems that arise when a work is CRM> held itself to be illegal in some way, as opposed to just its use. Who decides that the work is illegal ? The answer is simple. If you think that it is illegal - don't use it but please let everyone to decide it for himself. Is A-bomb illegal ? It depends on how it is going to be used (e.g. it could be headed to destoy an incoming disaster from the space) -- Best regards, DeBug mailto:debug@centras.lt -- "Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good." -- Mohandas Gandhi -- From jei at cc.hut.fi Thu Nov 15 01:14:39 2001 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:21 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Crypto Terrorists to be Tried in Military Tribunal Message-ID: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html http://cryptome.org/pmo111301.htm http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/13/193921.shtml And what is a Crypto Terrorist? Of course, it is someone who hides things with cryptography, e.g. a potential Cyber Terrorist. It can also be someone who DeCSS's their filez. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:43:51 -0400 From: John Noble Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications To: CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases (fwd) At 9:07 PM -0500 11/14/01, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote: >I saw the part in article III about one supreme court and subsidiary >courts. Sorry, where, exactly, does it say that military tribunals have >jurisdiction over civilians? > Article III extends the judicial power to cases arising under the Constitution, laws of the United States, etc. Article I authorizes Congress to define and punish offenses against the law of nations, something apparently apart from the laws of the United States. The real issue is not an Article III tribunal vs an Article I tribunal, but whether you get the little niceties like a public trial, a jury, and a lawyer. In other words, it's not about whether the military tribunal has jurisdiction, but whether the "defendant" has constitutional rights in either forum. Wong Wing v. U.S., 163 US 228 (1896) holds that resident aliens are entitled to the protection of the 5th and 6th Amendment (due process, jury trial) if they are to be charged and imprisoned instead of deported. U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 1092 (1990) distinguishes Wong Wing in holding the 4th Amendment does not apply to searches outside of the United States where the alien has "no significant voluntary connection" to the U.S. In that case the defendant was grabbed and his house searched in Mexico before he was whisked into the U.S. for trial, where his 4th Amendment claims were rejected because the Bill of Rights doesn't protect non-resident aliens. It is likely that the rationale of Verdugo-Urquidez supports the constitutionality of the executive order as applied to alleged terrorists captured in Afghanistan, and either tried there or like Verdugo-Rodriguez brought here involuntarily. Non-resident aliens are simply unprotected by the Bill of Rights. With respect to those captured in the U.S., Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) indicates that "unlawful belligerents" accused of violations of the "laws of war" are not entitled to jury trials because violations of the laws of war were not among the crimes triable by jury at common law (like claims in equity). The problem is the uncertain scope of the terms "laws of war" and "unlawful belligerents" -- Quirin seems to be define each only by reference to the other, and the terms seem even less exact today than they did in 1942. Quirin characterizes as unlawful belligerents (in contrast with lawful belligerents who must be treated as POWs) those "secretly passing through the defenses of the United States in civilian dress, for purpose of committing hostile acts." In the context of the current "war on terrorism," the terrorists found in the U.S. likely qualify as unlawful belligerents if they are here to commit "hostile acts." It seems to me that "hostile acts" might include money laundering, drug smuggling, even credit card fraud. It's not even clear that the "hostile acts" have to be otherwise criminal acts, but it is clear from Quirin that ordinary crimes, like conspiracy to blow up a building, can be re-cast as violations of the law of war when perpetrated by "unlawful belligerents." Moreover, Quirin indicates that even U.S. citizenship does not entitle an unlawful belligerent to a jury trial. Quirin claimed to have been a citizen since he was 4 years old, an issue that the Court found unnecessary to address. The problem with this is that in Quirin the court looked to a real honest-to-god declaration of war as the source of the President's authority to send the German spies to a military tribunal. This time, we're looking at a joint resolution authorizing the President to use necessary and appropriate force to end terrorism, which is undefined. The foreign belligerent is not a foreign nation, but a network that is not altogether foreign. It raises a question as to whether there is a distinction between a war on terrorism, and, for example, a war on drug trafficking; or whether terrorism might be defined to include drug trafficking, or almost any other anti-social behavior that we want to deal with free of all the nasty complications caused by lawyers and juries. How hard would it be to define people who blow up abortion clinics, or set free lab animals, or write computer viruses, or (you'll like this, Andrew) distribute DeCSS, as among the enemies in the war against terrorism. John Noble ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@listserv.aol.com ********************************************************************** From debug at centras.lt Thu Nov 15 02:16:35 2001 From: debug at centras.lt (DeBug) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:21 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Public Domain (Was: Re: Free Sklyarov) In-Reply-To: <20011115031754.S19192@pinetree.columbia.edu> References: <1311806743.20011115094450@centras.lt> <20011115031754.S19192@pinetree.columbia.edu> Message-ID: <167312078.20011115111635@centras.lt> mc> As far as I know (and I've been wrong before), you're certainly mc> allowed to put your program in the public domain if you want. I am quite enough informed about what is public domain. This is not my point here. I just wanted to point out that it is dangerous to think that every thing must be under somebody's control If we lack something then naturally we have to decide how to control the usage of it, but things like air, sunlight, ideas etc are not limited and there is no need to artificially restrict their usage and doing so can lead to unnecessary conflicts ... I personally think that Sklyarov case fits this pattern and the questions like who is the owner? who is the copyright holder ? or who was selling it in US ? are just lawers' garbarge to deal with What i am interested in is just one simle questions - Has Dmitry caused any actual damage ? -- Best regards, DeBug mailto:debug@centras.lt -- "Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good." -- Mohandas Gandhi -- From jei at cc.hut.fi Thu Nov 15 02:08:03 2001 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:21 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Dual Moralism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it been determined to be legal for FBI agent's to hack into foreign computers to get evidence? I.e. it is now legal for them to break the laws of other countries to get results and their work done. I believe some Russian hackers were lured to US, where their keystrokes and passwords were logged, and used to break into Russian servers to get the evidence against them. The FBI agents who committed the crime, are still running free and unaccused. And as Dmitry Sklyarov's case is showing, a foreigner is now being tried for something he did in Russia and that was legal there, and now stands arrested and accused for it in the USA. (Writing a decryption program for some files and giving a speech about it.) I am wondering how much more blatant do things need to go? America is showing incredible disrespect for the laws of other countries, as well as the basic civil and human rights of any non-americans. > > > Gross Usurpation of Power > > by David Dieteman ... > The guarantee of due process of law is universal in its application > to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of a state or the > United States, without regard to any differences of race, color, or > nationality, when they have come within the territory of the United > States and have developed substantial connections with this country. > 16B Am. Jur.2d Constitutional Law ? 928; U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, > 494 U.S. 259, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1064 (1990). > > As a matter of international law, it may be argued that, if the > foreign state consents to American exercise of such power overseas, > i.e., if Afghanistan consents to an American Star Chamber handing out > death sentences to Afghans, then such power is legitimately > exercised. This would be a matter of treaty, or other such > international agreement. > > Such a new policy, however, would be contrary to what is arguably an > evolving norm of international law, i.e., utilizing international > tribunals to try war criminals. In the case of Nuremberg, Rwanda, and > the former Yugoslavia, international tribunals were established to > handle war crimes. These tribunals have been attacked as conducting > mere show trials, which is bad enough. The Bush administration > complains, however, that international tribunals do not administer > the death penalty. > > This is disturbing, even if possibly allowed under international law. > Recall that last week, the Justice Department authorized the > wiretapping of conversations between prisoners and their attorneys. > So much for attorney-client privilege. > > What's next: wiretaps in the confessional? > > And another question: remember Senator Kerrey? So much for quick > justice when an American is accused. What if Vietnam were a > superpower seeking to impose a Star Chamber on a feeble and > impoverished United States? Does might make right? To some people, it > seems that it does. > > Note: with respect to Senator Kerrey, and to the Afghan war, I > continue to have grave reservations about international criminal > tribunals. A military tribunal would be appropriate for Kerrey > because he is accused of crimes while a member of the armed forces; > that is within the jurisdiction of a military tribunal. In addition, > I would not object if those foreigners seized by the United States in > the war on terrorism were tried in U.S. civil courts; that is within > the jurisdiction of the civil courts. The problem with President > Bush's order is that it simply ignores the Constitutional limits on > executive power. > > The due process of law is not given when the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth > Amendments are simply ignored. As Justice Davis wrote in Ex parte > Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), > > > Certainly no part of judicial power of the country was conferred on > them, because the Constitution expressly vests it "in one supreme > court and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time > ordain and establish," and it is not pretended that the commission > was a court ordained and established by Congress. They cannot justify > on the mandate of the President, because he is controlled by law, and > has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, > the laws, and there is "no unwritten criminal code to which resort > can be had as a source of jurisdiction." > > > To be blunt, President Bush has no authority under the U.S. > Constitution to make such an order. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. > > Albert Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court judge, claimed that > there was precedent for the order. Indeed there is. It is bad > precedent. ... From swive at getnet.com Thu Nov 15 12:14:00 2001 From: swive at getnet.com (Eric) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:21 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Dual Moralism Message-ID: > > > > If America applies the DMCA extraterritorially to Russian > activity, it would > > not be the first time a country has done this. What country > are you from? > > If you are from somewhere besides the U.S., I bet I can find an instance > > where your country has applied its law extraterritorially. > Countries do it > > all the time, and have been doing it for hundreds of years. > > Finland 1. Finland is a member of the EU. The EU supports the extraterritorial application of the EU Data Privacy Directive. See Parliament and Council Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, 1995 O.J. (L 281) 1. 2. The Antibribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998 is a law that amended the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (15 U.S.C. ?? 78a, 78dd-1 to 78dd-3, 78ff (1994 & Supp. IV 1998)) which was first adopted in 1977. The OECD Convention called upon signatories to assert both territorial and national forms of jurisdiction. Convention, art. 4, 37 I.L.M. 5. "National" jurisdiction means that a member country can enforce the law against its citizens no matter where on earth they roam. This is otherwise called "extraterritoriality." Finland has ratified this ammendment, http://www.oecd.org/media/release/nw98-124a.htm, and so has ratified the extraterritorial application of its laws. 3. Also, the Finnish Criminal Code, for example, provides in Section 1(3) that a crime is considered to have been directed at Finland if the act endangers the Finnish state, military, or economic rights, even if the crime occurred outside the Finnish territory. 4. Also, Finland applies its child porn laws extraterritorially, but I can't give you a cite for that. From swive at getnet.com Thu Nov 15 13:08:41 2001 From: swive at getnet.com (Eric) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:21 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] russian copyright law Message-ID: I am doing research, and I would appreciate it if someone could tell me whether Russian copyright law gives the exclusive right to copyright holders to permit or deny the distribution of their copyrighted works of authorship. I would like also to have a formal citation for this (i.e., in the Russian code). Any help would be appreciated. Eric From igormotsnyi at hotmail.com Thu Nov 15 13:57:27 2001 From: igormotsnyi at hotmail.com (Igor Motsnyi) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:21 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Re-Russian copyright law. Message-ID: "I am doing research, and I would appreciate it if someone could tell me whether Russian copyright law gives the exclusive right to copyright holders to permit or deny the distribution of their copyrighted works of authorship. I would like also to have a formal citation for this (i.e., in the Russian code). Any help would be appreciated". Erik, Russian copyright law 1993 (Copyright and Related rights law) indeed grants the exclusive rights to the copyright holders to authorize the distribution, reproduction, comunnication to the public, etc of their works (Art 16). However, as I have stated in one of my previous messages the situation is slightly different under the employment contract. If the work is created in the course of employment the person who actually creates the work has MORAL RIGHTS on his creation (i.e. the right to claim authorship) but all the ECONOMIC RIGHTS belong to his EMPLOYER (Art. 14 of the Copyright and Related rights law). Therefore, under Russian Copyright law it is the employer who decides to distribute, communicate to the public the work or make use of it in any other way. The employee will always be the author but he does not normally have economic benefits out of it (apart from his salary). In these kind of relationships the employee transfers the exclusive rights to permit or prohibit the use of his work to the employer although he is still considered an author. Igor. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From kmself at ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 15 17:15:18 2001 From: kmself at ix.netcom.com (Karsten M. Self) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: Free Sklyarov In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011115001123.00abc600@mail.maden.org>; from crism@maden.org on Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:13:34AM -0800 References: <1311806743.20011115094450@centras.lt> <5.1.0.14.0.20011115001123.00abc600@mail.maden.org> Message-ID: <20011115171518.E19665@navel.introspect> on Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:13:34AM -0800, Christopher R. Maden (crism@maden.org) wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 00:44 15-11-2001, DeBug wrote: >> I find it very dangerous to REQUIRE that every software had a >> copyright holder. For example I want to put my program into public >> domain anonymously so that noone can control how other people use it. >> It seems to be impossible because BY DEFAULT any program has an owner >> i.e. lawers want to have a person that could answer in the court who >> can and who cannot use the program. > > Well, you have copyright when you create it - you can then assign that > copyright to the public domain. It's not clear that this is possible. "Public domain" is not a term defined in the US copyright statute. The definition I have from _Black's Law Dictionary_ is The realm of publications, inventions, and processes that are not protected by copyright or patent. The strict legal argument I've seen is that a work doesn't enter public domain until it has lapsed copyright, isn't subject to copyright in the first place (e.g.: works of the US Federal Government), or has had copyright stripped of it by court order or other legal means. A work may be *licensed freely*, but it is still subject to copyright status -- absent the license, it *is* covered by copyright law, and isn't freely available for use. Copyright ownership can be assigned. I'm not sure what entities a copyright may be assigned to to place it in the public domain -- "assigned to all persons for any use"? Or if a registration indicating same would be accepted by the US Library of Congress. Such an assignment would seem to be non controversial, but.... > The default state, legally, is that a work is copyright as soon as > someone creates it. And if your program is held to be illegal in some > way, then you could be charged (at least as an accomplice) for > creating and distributing the program, copyright issues aside. > > This demonstrates, I think, some of the problems that arise when a > work is held itself to be illegal in some way, as opposed to just its > use. I think we're in some agreement here, though I'll amplify the point. There are specific legal obligations which come about as a result of copyright, largely under the DMCA, but also other liabilities. Dmitry may well be a victim of this contingent liability. These are obligations of ownership, and simply stating that a work is "public domain" may not be sufficient to transfer these liabilities to the public at large without consideration or affirmation, or it may not be possible to transfer them from the author at all. The latter situation creates a distinction between "copyright holder" (including "public at large") and "author", as concerns liability. IANAL, TINLA -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011115/74ca2b29/attachment.pgp From kmself at ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 15 17:19:41 2001 From: kmself at ix.netcom.com (Karsten M. Self) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: Off-topic cross-posting (was: Re: [free-sklyarov] Dual Moralism) In-Reply-To: ; from jei@cc.hut.fi on Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:08:03PM +0200 References: Message-ID: <20011115171941.G19665@navel.introspect> on Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:08:03PM +0200, Jei (jei@cc.hut.fi) cross-posted to the following lists: Law & Policy of Computer Communications cc: dmca_discuss@lists.microshaft.org, free-sklyarov@zork.net, free-sklyarov-uk-admin@xenoclast.org, InfoSec News , politech@politechbot.com, eurorights@eurorights.org This is both: 1) Off topic to free sklyarov. 2) Cross posted. Neither activity is appreciated. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011115/1a33a69f/attachment.pgp From kmself at ix.netcom.com Thu Nov 15 17:46:02 2001 From: kmself at ix.netcom.com (Karsten M. Self) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] OT: [postmaster@eth.net: Mail Delivery Status Notification] Message-ID: <20011115174602.A22568@navel.introspect> Skipped content of type multipart/mixed-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011115/fedbd01d/attachment.pgp From swive at getnet.com Thu Nov 15 19:59:04 2001 From: swive at getnet.com (Eric) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Re-Russian copyright law. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well, I have to admit that what you say is true because I found an article to verify it. And that distinction does change my view quite a bit. > Russian copyright law 1993 (Copyright and Related rights law) > indeed grants > the exclusive rights to the copyright holders to authorize the > distribution, > reproduction, comunnication to the public, etc of their works (Art 16). > > However, as I have stated in one of my previous messages the situation is > slightly different under the employment contract. > If the work is created in the course of employment the person who > actually > creates the work has MORAL RIGHTS on his creation (i.e. the right > to claim > authorship) but all the ECONOMIC RIGHTS belong to his EMPLOYER > (Art. 14 of > the Copyright and Related rights law). Therefore, under Russian Copyright > law it is the employer who decides to distribute, communicate to > the public > the work or make use of it in any other way. The employee will > always be the > author but he does not normally have economic benefits out of it > (apart from > his salary). In these kind of relationships the employee transfers the > exclusive rights to permit or prohibit the use of his work to the > employer > although he is still considered an author. > > Igor. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > From igormotsnyi at hotmail.com Fri Nov 16 05:11:44 2001 From: igormotsnyi at hotmail.com (Igor Motsnyi) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Re-Russian Copyright Law Message-ID: Eric, Unfortunately, I do not know where you can find the text of Russian copyright legislation in English. The text of all Russian law in IP are available at www.ipmenu.com However, the documents there are available only in Russian. I will try to find out whether there are any other web sites containitng the information you are interested in. In any case, the employment contract is reflected not only in Russian Copyright law but also in Russian software law (Art. 12 of Russian software law states that "all economic rights on the computer programs made in the course of employment belong to the employeer unless the contract stipulates the opposite"). Only and ONLY if the contract between the employeer and the employee stipulates the opposite the employee may have economic rights but that does not happen normally. Igor. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From wdlamb at notwires.com Sat Nov 17 08:54:49 2001 From: wdlamb at notwires.com (William Lamb) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FIJA Message-ID: I have been monitoring the free-sklyarov mailing list for some time, but until now I have never felt compelled to contribute. The following letter on FIJA and jury nullification is objectionable in so many ways that it's best to take it line by line: >From: "Lung, Mon Yin" >To: "'free-sklyarov@zork.net'" >Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 22:32:24 -0600 >Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE: free-sklyarov digest, Vol 1 #266 - 5 msgs >First of all, my apology for posting this message so late. I am a law >student who has chosen DMCA and Mr. Sklyarov's case as my research topic, >hence my being on this list. >I can't suppress my urge to comment on FIJA: I skipped through their >website, and noticed that this organization is promoting something that >is no longer within the current legal practice. This is simply not true. Legal practice is based on the constitution and on the laws passed by congress. There has never been a law passed denying juries the right to nullify law. If Mr./Ms. Lung can find one, I'd like to know about it. >I don't want to comment on the merit of their idea and opinion. I only >want to point out that what they promote is not what generally accepted >by the U.S. Court system. Under the current system, a jury is the finder >of fact, but only a judge can decide on the matter of law. What is 'generally accepted by the U.S. Court system' is a gradual and informal usurpation of power away from juries and toward judges, prosecutors and lawyers. That usurpation started just over 100 years ago and has now progressed to the point where most of the population has completely forgotten not only that jury nullification is possible, but also what a jury actually IS. Two hundred some years ago when this country was founded, people knew that juries were created as a check on the power of nobility, the wealthy and the legislatures they controlled. Service on a jury was the average man's opportunity to make his voice and his own sense of right and wrong heard. The alternative was that the king, or whatever government a country had, would arbitrarily create laws and their judges would convict anyone who had any reasonable appearance of guilt. This was a situation that millions of common people in Europe had found oppressive and intolerable. Juries were demanded as a remedy for injustices perpetrated by legal systems controlled by the powerful, and were the last thing in the world that anyone in a position of power wanted. It was understood that a jury presiding in a court of law was there to do justice as they saw fit; not as a government appointed judge would have done in their place. When the U.S. constitution was written, jury trials were specified as a basic right for citizens in order to insure that power rested with the people. Several very famous cases at the time had made it plain that juries had the power to acquit defendants accused under laws which they considered unjust, even if the defendant was clearly guilty. (Read more about it at http://www.fija.org/jury.pdf) The intention behind jury trials must have seemed obvious to the framers of the constitution. After all, if they had wanted a court system which simply did the bidding of the legislature, they could have let judges decide everything. Unfortunately, the rights and responsibilities of a jury were not enumerated. Because of this oversight, an opening has been created which has allowed judges and other people in a position of power to distract and disinform the public about their rights as jurists. In any case, the idea that juries are there to make a decision based only on the facts of a case has no legal basis. Whether it is 'generally accepted practice' or not, juries are legally enabled to make any decision they feel is just in a particular case and judges cannot second guess them or reverse their decisions. >Whether Mr. Sklyarov violate DMCA is a matter of fact, whether DMCA is >unconstitutional is a matter of law. FIJA's discussion and "advices" are >based on its ideology and not the system Mr. Sklyarov has to deal with. M.Y. Lung is correct in that whether Mr. Sklyarov violated the DMCA is a matter of fact and whether or not the law is unconstitutional is a matter of law. On the other hand, a jury is within its legal grounds to acquit a defendant because they think he's innocent, because they don't like the law he's accused under, or for any other reason they can collectively dream up. So the fact/law distinction is really beside the point. FIJA's discussion and 'advices' are based on two centuries of American law and another six centuries of English common law before that. This IS the system Mr. Sklyarov has to deal with. The fact that juries don't know their own power is a matter for public education. It remains that juries can rule as they see fit and judges may not challenge them. >I am afraid that employing FIJA's theory and approach would not >get Mr. Sklyarov out of jail. Short of revolution one cannot fight the >system from outside. Fortunately, there's no need to. >We are living with the current system. Any potential juror with an >agenda would be screened out by attorneys of either side. Maybe, and maybe not. In any case, knowing your rights as a juror is not an 'agenda'. >I would rather make no move but trust my fellow citizens. The position you are arguing for is not one of trust for your fellow citizens. A jury which is disempowered to do anything but rule according to the laws and the facts presented to them by lawyers and judges is being entrusted with very little. That's exactly the intention of the people who have worked to bring about this de facto change in American jurisprudence. They feel that their own views are the correct ones, and they don't trust juries to do what they think is right. >I personally consider DMCA illogical and an infringement on the statutory >right of fair use (to say the least). If we want to free Mr. Sklyarov >maybe we do not want to waste our resources on other issues, particularly >not on some ideology that has no bearing on the principal case. If a jury decides to acquit him because they disapprove of the DMCA, the 'ideology' espoused by FIJA will have had plenty of bearing on the case. A court ruling declaring DMCA unconstitutional would be great, and convincing our legislators to go back and repeal or revise the law would be even better. We're not likely to see either of those very soon, but a jury nullification of the charges against Dmitri Sklyarov would be a healthy shot across the bow of the DMCA. >Respectfully, >M.Y. Lung My respectful suggestion to M.Y. Lung is to go to your law library and do some research on jury nullification. I think you'll find it a real education. Sincerely, William Lamb Former Illinois Director of FIJA From swive at getnet.com Sat Nov 17 23:02:51 2001 From: swive at getnet.com (Eric) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FIJA Message-ID: > >First of all, my apology for posting this message so late. I am a law > >student who has chosen DMCA and Mr. Sklyarov's case as my research topic, > >hence my being on this list. So what's your thesis as to Sklyarov and the DMCA? From ruben at mrbrklyn.com Sat Nov 17 22:31:34 2001 From: ruben at mrbrklyn.com (Ruben Safir) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20011114135058.A10418@zgp.org>; from dmarti@zgp.org on Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 16:50:58 -0500 References: <20011114135058.A10418@zgp.org> Message-ID: <20011118013134.A7015@www2.mrbrklyn.com> I'll point it out, and also point out that it's in bad taste to compare the two. As far as I'm concerned, they can shoot the bastards straight up and skip the tribunals. On 2001.11.14 16:50:58 -0500 Don Marti wrote: >>begin Jei quotation of Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 11:32:46PM +0200: >> >>> Fast, secret non-public tribuals and executions for non-americans. >> >>Please somebody point out that this doesn't apply to DMCA violations, >>or at least that it isn't retroactive to Dmitry's case. Anyone? >> >>-- >>Don Marti What do we want? Free Dmitry! When do we want it? >>Now! >>http://zgp.org/~dmarti >>dmarti@zgp.org Free the web, burn all >>GIFs. >>KG6INA >>http://burnallgifs.org/ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>free-sklyarov mailing list >>free-sklyarov@zork.net >>http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov >> -- __________________________ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __________________________ http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.brooklynonline.com - For the love of Brooklyn http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www.nyfairuse.org - The foundation of Democracy http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/annie.mp3 - Armed and Dangerous.... 1-718-382-5752 From ilya at theIlya.com Sat Nov 17 23:06:35 2001 From: ilya at theIlya.com (Ilya Volynets) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20011118013134.A7015@www2.mrbrklyn.com> References: <20011114135058.A10418@zgp.org> <20011118013134.A7015@www2.mrbrklyn.com> Message-ID: <20011118070638.23897.qmail@gateway.total-knowledge.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 17 November 2001 10:31 pm, Ruben Safir wrote: > I'll point it out, and also point out that it's in bad taste to compare > the two. > > As far as I'm concerned, they can shoot the bastards straight up and skip > the tribunals. > > On 2001.11.14 16:50:58 -0500 Don Marti wrote: > >>begin Jei quotation of Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 11:32:46PM +0200: > >>> Fast, secret non-public tribunals and executions for non-americans. Let me get this straight, Ruben. Are you saying that all non-americans should be just shot? No wonder things like Sklyarov imprisonment happen here. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjv3Xf4ACgkQ84S94bALfyUKQQCgkMEjc4Pa9ifcfISGPmFBTfGP MIYAn2yF6hu4jfpnJIc+/t36hJhx8He/ =Fuz6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ruben at mrbrklyn.com Sun Nov 18 15:14:32 2001 From: ruben at mrbrklyn.com (Ruben Safir) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20011118070638.23897.qmail@gateway.total-knowledge.com>; from ilya@theIlya.com on Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 02:06:35 -0500 References: <20011114135058.A10418@zgp.org> <20011118013134.A7015@www2.mrbrklyn.com> <20011118070638.23897.qmail@gateway.total-knowledge.com> Message-ID: <20011118181432.A12832@www2.mrbrklyn.com> Yes I do think you need to get it straight, instead of misreading the plain english and unobscured point I made. The point was so clear and your response such impossible to understand that I consider it an intentional personal smear and attach. Enjoy me reject bin.... Ruben >>Let me get this straight, Ruben. Are you saying that all non-americans >>should >>be just shot? No wonder things like Sklyarov imprisonment happen here. >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) >>Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org >> >>iEYEARECAAYFAjv3Xf4ACgkQ84S94bALfyUKQQCgkMEjc4Pa9ifcfISGPmFBTfGP >>MIYAn2yF6hu4jfpnJIc+/t36hJhx8He/ >>=Fuz6 >>-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> -- __________________________ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __________________________ http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.brooklynonline.com - For the love of Brooklyn http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www.nyfairuse.org - The foundation of Democracy http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/annie.mp3 - Armed and Dangerous.... 1-718-382-5752 From wiljan at pobox.com Sun Nov 18 16:41:11 2001 From: wiljan at pobox.com (Will Janoschka) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases Message-ID: <200111190050.SAA001.21@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 18:14:32 Ruben Safir ruben@mrbrklyn.com said:> > Yes > I do think you need to get it straight, instead of misreading the plain > english and unobscured point I made. The point was so clear and your > response such impossible to understand that I consider it an intentional > personal smear and attach. Enjoy me reject bin.... > Ruben What plain English and unobscured point were you making? Me thinks you insult us all. -will- ------Meddle not in affairs of dragons, Thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. From ilya at theIlya.com Sun Nov 18 17:41:50 2001 From: ilya at theIlya.com (Ilya Volynets) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases In-Reply-To: <200111190050.SAA001.21@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> References: <200111190050.SAA001.21@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> Message-ID: <20011119014153.754.qmail@gateway.total-knowledge.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 18 November 2001 04:41 pm, Will Janoschka wrote: > On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 18:14:32 Ruben Safir ruben@mrbrklyn.com said:> > > > Yes > > I do think you need to get it straight, instead of misreading the plain > > english and unobscured point I made. The point was so clear and your > > response such impossible to understand that I consider it an intentional > > personal smear and attach. Enjoy me reject bin.... > > Ruben > > What plain English and unobscured point were you making? > Me thinks you insult us all. -will- > > > ------Meddle not in affairs of dragons, > Thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. Shame on me for not recognizing a troll. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjv4Y2EACgkQ84S94bALfyWVCgCffXSq3YSluiv78Z3TFp5FDoLD Y5IAnRYJ2j8hoOOPR/Lf5Dtbt2cUElDq =1P/A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From robertl1 at home.com Sun Nov 18 19:40:14 2001 From: robertl1 at home.com (Bob La Quey) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20011118013134.A7015@www2.mrbrklyn.com> References: <20011114135058.A10418@zgp.org> <20011114135058.A10418@zgp.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011118185816.038fa710@mail.dt1.sdca.home.com> On 2001.11.14 16:50:58 -0500 Don Marti wrote: >>begin Jei quotation of Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 11:32:46PM +0200: >> >>> Fast, secret non-public tribuals and executions for non-americans. >> >>Please somebody point out that this doesn't apply to DMCA violations, >>or at least that it isn't retroactive to Dmitry's case. Anyone? >> >>-- >>Don Marti At 01:31 AM 11/18/01 -0500, Ruben Safir replied: >I'll point it out, it == "that this doesn't apply to DMCA violations". >and also point out that it's in bad taste to compare the two. "The Sklyarov Affair" != "The Bin Laden Affair". >As far as I'm concerned, they can shoot the bastards straight up and skip >the tribunals. bastards == "Bin Laden and Al Qeda" bastards != Dmitry Ruben expressed himself clearly although using pronouns often leads to confusion. Nowhere is he saying that "all non-americans should be shot". That is a complete misreading of what Ruben said. I am not surprised that he would be offended that anyone could so distort his statement into such a meaning. OTOH it was perhaps a simple misreading. Was it? The secret tribunals are supposedly targeted at Bin Laden and Al Qeda. Some of us may well fear that the government will overreach and apply this power in cases like Dmitry's. I hope not, but feel we must be vigilant. Others may doubt the responsility of Bin Laden and Al Qeda for the events of Sept 11. Nonetheless, I must say that I won't lose any sleep if they shoot the "bastards". Indeed it would be a much better solution then secret tribunals which can be used far too easily for other purposes. I live in California, often work in Mexico, and am more effected by absurdites of "security" at the border with Mexico then the WTC disaster, but Ruben is in Brooklyn, close to that scene, and has probably earned a right to some strong feelings about that subject. There was certainly no trial or due process available to the victims of the WTC destruction. See that smoke. That is them. I don't see the need to pillory Ruben for expressing those strong feelings. The USA in alliance with a number of other nations is after all killing people every day as a direct result of the event on Sept 11. Not all of that killing is passion free calculation. If we condemn Ruben then we must also condemn a very large number of people. Given the circumstances I am willing to ask the Ruben's of this world to look beyond this evil toward a better outcome but I am also unwilling to condemn them for their natural human passions. Bob La Quey From tompoe at renonevada.net Sun Nov 18 20:32:53 2001 From: tompoe at renonevada.net (tom poe) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases (fwd) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011118185816.038fa710@mail.dt1.sdca.home.com> References: <20011114135058.A10418@zgp.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20011118185816.038fa710@mail.dt1.sdca.home.com> Message-ID: <01111820325300.18388@aether> On Sunday 18 November 2001 19:40, Bob La Quey wrote: - - -snip - - - > The secret tribunals are supposedly targeted at Bin Laden and Al Qeda. > Some of us may well fear that the government will overreach and apply > this power in cases like Dmitry's. I hope not, but feel we must be > vigilant. - - -snip - - - Hi: An understatement, for sure. I don't think it was a week ago, in England, with regard to their security measures discussion, it was something like, and I paraphrase, we are passing security measures necessary to fight terrorism, and, oh, yes, this law will also be used to control the football hooligans. Unbelievable, but true. If I recall, it was a measure that altered how passport holders would be treated. Yes, you should know, my source was the infamous The Register. Thanks, Tom From ilya at theIlya.com Sun Nov 18 20:44:39 2001 From: ilya at theIlya.com (Ilya Volynets) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases (fwd) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011118192930.038d1470@mail.dt1.sdca.home.com> References: <20011118013134.A7015@www2.mrbrklyn.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011118192930.038d1470@mail.dt1.sdca.home.com> Message-ID: <20011119044442.2534.qmail@gateway.total-knowledge.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 n Sunday 18 November 2001 07:32 pm, you wrote: > At 11:06 PM 11/17/01 -0800, you wrote: > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Hash: SHA1 > > > >On Saturday 17 November 2001 10:31 pm, Ruben Safir wrote: > >> I'll point it out, and also point out that it's in bad taste to compare > >> the two. > >> > >> As far as I'm concerned, they can shoot the bastards straight up and > >> skip the tribunals. > >> > >> On 2001.11.14 16:50:58 -0500 Don Marti wrote: > >> >>begin Jei quotation of Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 11:32:46PM +0200: > >> >>> Fast, secret non-public tribunals and executions for non-americans. > > > >Let me get this straight, Ruben. Are you saying that all non-americans > > should be just shot? No wonder things like Sklyarov imprisonment happen > > here. > > Ruben certainly did not say that "all non-americans should be shot". > > We have serious problems here in the USA but misreading statements > like this won't help solve those problems. OK. So, let's unmisread this. I'm seing two sentecnes: 1. Fast, secret non-public tribunals and executions for non-americans. 2. they can shoot the bastards straight up and skip the tribunals. Taken out of context (as they were in original email) there is very little choice of ways to understand them. And if you think that Mr. Ruben didn't mean what he said, you are closer to wrong then to right. Even if he didn't intend to, he said truth about his attitude. Just recall what was happening to Arab people in US after 11th. ====================================Second message===================== > bastards == "Bin Laden and Al Qeda" > bastards != Dmitry > Ruben expressed himself clearly although using pronouns often leads to > confusion. Nowhere is he saying that "all non-americans should be shot". See above... > That is a complete misreading of what Ruben said. I am not surprised > that he would be offended that anyone could so distort his statement > into such a meaning. OTOH it was perhaps a simple misreading. Was it? Maybe. But as I said, even if he didn't mean to say it, he did. Before I go on any further, I want to make a few notes, just FYI. 1. I'm myself is US citizen, and I became one out of my free will. 2. I'm jewish, and have many friends and relatives in Israel, and probably have less reasons to like Arabs then most of people here. Now, what I (and many others) see in US, is very bad attitude towards non-americans. Probably it doesn't apply to everyone, but it does apply to many enough, to create a stereotype of fat, over-self-confident uneducated bag of money... Sorry, if this didn't sound pleasant, but it is truth, that I experienced myself, when traveling to Europe. > The secret tribunals are supposedly targeted at Bin Laden and Al Qeda. It doesn't make them any more legal or acceptable to me. > Some of us may well fear that the government will overreach and apply > this power in cases like Dmitry's. I hope not, but feel we must be vigilant. Everyone has right to trial. You can't fight evil with evil. > Others may doubt the responsility of Bin Laden and Al Qeda for the events > of Sept 11. Nonetheless, I must say that I won't lose any sleep if they > shoot the "bastards". And here is the problem. You won't loose any sleep for one group of people, somebody else won't loose any sleep for another... Initially I thought this topic is not relevant to freeing Dmitry, but now I see that even on this list general attitude towards lawfullness is an issue. If we accept killing arabs as acceptable policy, even though, it is against human rights, I do not see why we should reject any other violations of lesser laws. > Indeed it would be a much better solution then > secret tribunals which can be used far too easily for other purposes. Just shooting people can be used for other purposes much easier. > I live in California, often work in Mexico, and am more effected by absurdites > of "security" at the border with Mexico then the WTC disaster, but Ruben is > in Brooklyn, close to that scene, and has probably earned a right to some > strong feelings about that subject. There was certainly no trial or due process > available to the victims of the WTC destruction. See that smoke. That is them. If our purpose was to express our regrets about those people, I'd say you did a very good job, but if our purpose is to free dmitry, we should think about adjusting our attitude instead. > I don't see the need to pillory Ruben for expressing those strong feelings. And I don't see how expressing those strong feelings will help to resolve the situation. I have a relative that thinks all islamic countries should be just nuked, and she has very good reasons to *feel* so. Should I just accept that, or should I keep trying to convince her this is not a solution, and that feelings are not substitutte for reasoning? > The USA in alliance with a number of other nations is after all killing people > every day as a direct result of the event on Sept 11. Not all of that killing > is passion free calculation. That's my point. US just keeps killing other people. (OTOH, I have to admit, that reaction is far more reasonable then I expected). > If we condemn Ruben then we must also condemn a very large number of people. I am nowhere condemning anyone. I just want people to try to solve the problem, rather then just waste bandwidth with expression of anger. > Given the circumstances I am willing to ask the > Ruben's of this world to look beyond this evil toward a better outcome > but I am also unwilling to condemn them for their natural human passions. Unfortunately these "Human Passions" grow from same roots, as those that resulted in Sklyarov's imprisonment. Rather then asking these people to look beyond this evil, I'd ask them to look behind their backs, at actions of their government during last century, that lead to 11th. Do you think it is accidental, that target of action was US? Not GB, not France, not Germany? So, please, next time, before you want to let you passions out into this big world, first think in what ways are you better then those you wnat to condemn, and second, think how you can make those people as good as you are. > Bob La Quey Ilya. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjv4jjoACgkQ84S94bALfyV8sQCePpesPPrqrH21wjLokf5A6XNM gfYAoJcmWMIDw3r3bmyKtRDUrxuwEYKq =IzqH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From eaerme at newnorth.net Sun Nov 18 22:20:21 2001 From: eaerme at newnorth.net (ERNEST A. ERICKSON) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Copyrights....DMCA and unfair use. Message-ID: <3BF8A4A5.26240F7C@newnorth.net> All right then! In a few words to incite fire and hate, I have this to say to SONY and ALL who purport "justice" and "legal" issues to protect the world from those nasty "pirates of software"; SCREW YOURSELVES!! I have now spent the very LAST PENNY on ANYTHING Sony has its fingers in, on or thinking of! >From this day forward, I will LOOK and JUDGE what needs to be obtained, rented or purchased. IF that item or items has a name or names even remotely connected to SONY, I am NOT going to buy that item. No more music purchased, no more tapes purchased(blank) or even paying to see a movie...GONE! SONY has LOST my "avenue" to income FOREVER! Since Sony assumes they have some exhalted "right" to spy, abuse and limit MY access to information, let's see if they like losing the moneys from that act as well....can you say BANKRUPTCY?? It all starts one consumer at a time... Oh, and if Sony or IBM, or ANY company THINKS they are going to invade my privacy, THINK AGAIN! If i find any evidence that IBM, Microslop or Sony, or ANY company bent on proving "who's the boss" on or in any property i OWN, I will commence a suit against them in kind. I take MY rights VERY seriously, and will DEFEND my rights with a zeal that has not been seen since 1941. KEEP OUT! DMCA is just one form that WILL die, it just takes a FIGHT to make it, like all corrupt politicians; GO AWAY for good! Dmitry Sklyarov was ILLEGALLY JAILED! DMCA by its very nature is a terrorist to FREEDOM! Who will win the battle of the buck/s? ......WE WILL!! Nothing speaks louder than the withholding of money! After perusing countless sites for information, one thing stands perfectly clear; the BIG corporations are NOT for freedom, they are for DICTATORIAL POWERS they can't be trusted to have, nor use! For the "record"...SALE/S OF ANY PRODUCT AND OR SERVICE TO ME, SUCH PRODUCT AND OR SERVICE RECEIVES NO ROYALTIES, RIGHTS OR OWNERSHIP ONCE A PRICE TAG HAS THUS BEEN AFFIXED! If I sell you anything, then, I too, OWN that item, and you are thus, the licensee...FOREVER! USE PGP to protect your privacy! All replies to my mail server MUST use PGP, or they will be deleted unopened and unread! SPAM sent to my mail server is forbidden, and WILL be assessed U.S $500.00 per message for violations of the federal anti-spam law! Spam me...get a bill.....no money, WE GO TO FED COURT!! I archive every message sent to me...OFF-SITE. Stored on removable media, streaming tape, CD and yes, even the lowly floppy disk! ENCRYPTION means NO BREACH OF PRIVACY by cops, IBM, Microsoft or Sony! INSTALL PGP NOW! (This message is NOT encrypted so non-PGP users can view this). From tom at lemuria.org Sun Nov 18 23:50:05 2001 From: tom at lemuria.org (Tom) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FC: President Bush says military tribunals will try civilian cases (fwd) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011118185816.038fa710@mail.dt1.sdca.home.com>; from robertl1@home.com on Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 07:40:14PM -0800 References: <20011114135058.A10418@zgp.org> <20011114135058.A10418@zgp.org> <20011118013134.A7015@www2.mrbrklyn.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011118185816.038fa710@mail.dt1.sdca.home.com> Message-ID: <20011119085005.B27920@lemuria.org> On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 07:40:14PM -0800, Bob La Quey wrote: > bastards == "Bin Laden and Al Qeda" > bastards != Dmitry > > Ruben expressed himself clearly although using pronouns often leads to > confusion. Nowhere is he saying that "all non-americans should be shot". he was quite clear, but the reply also made a good point - isn't the problem of identifying who *exactly* is a "bastard" the #1 issue of all the recent weeks? and don't forget that all kind of restrictions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the "bastards" or their methods and tools have ridden piggyback into national legislation all over the planet. the RIAAs plans to get a special exception for themselves included failed, but hundreds of others (and I'm not exagerating) made it. at the current rate, half a year from now we'll all be "bastards" ourselves. I know that with a strict reading of recent laws, things I do *every* day will be illegal soon. (the law is already on its way) > Others may doubt the responsility of Bin Laden and Al Qeda for the events > of Sept 11. Nonetheless, I must say that I won't lose any sleep if they > shoot the "bastards". you (i.e. "the americans at large") don't get it, do you? you have lost. shall I spell it? there's no way you can win this "war". you are predictible, clumpsy and have gained nothing whatsoever even though you have abandoned most of your moral values. current score: 3:0 for your unseen attackers, plus extra style points for still remaining incognito (we all have someone in mind, but we all know that there is no PROOF). the problem is that the hatred, clumpsiness and desperation is already extending far beyond the area of conflict. Dmitry is - or so I hope - far away to not be included just yet, but for example any new interesting DDoS attack on major US websites will certainly be called cyberterrorism. the next script kiddie just may find himself in front of a military tribunal. especially if bad luck happens to make him muslim or his parents immigrants from some arabic country. -- http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html pub 1024D/D88D35A6 2001-11-14 Tom Vogt Key fingerprint = 276B B7BB E4D8 FCCE DB8F F965 310B 811A D88D 35A6 From moeller at scireview.de Tue Nov 20 07:34:22 2001 From: moeller at scireview.de (Erik Moeller) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Next Hearing / Protests? Message-ID: <3BFA860E.27136.3E3D93@localhost> Hi, according to http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Sklyarov/20010904_eff_sklyarov_elcom_p r.html the next hearing in the Sklyarov case will be on Nov 26, i.e. next Monday. Are there any protests planned? The EFF front page does not have any news concerning Dmitry Sklyarov, and the free-sklyarov.org calendar doesn't note any events (it is also quite dated). Regards, Erik -- Scientific Reviewer, Freelancer, Humanist -- Berlin/Germany Phone: +49-30-45491008 - Web: The Origins of Peace and Violence: "If we don't improve our ability to deal collectively with complex things, as the problems grow more urgent, we're in trouble." - Douglas Engelbart From ruben at mrbrklyn.com Tue Nov 20 12:16:16 2001 From: ruben at mrbrklyn.com (ruben@mrbrklyn.com) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Winning the propaganda War In-Reply-To: <3BFA860E.27136.3E3D93@localhost>; from moeller@scireview.de on Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 10:34:22 -0500 References: <3BFA860E.27136.3E3D93@localhost> Message-ID: <20011120151616.A17711@www2.mrbrklyn.com> How do we best fix the position by Standford that unauthorized reproduction of music is illegal under copyright law. This is a flat out wrong statement, and mistates the facts, further perpetuating the lies of copyright despotisms. Ruben See this link: SUNset MP3 and Software Piracy Information Sheet Downloading, trading, and uploading MP3's is a hot issue with today's internet. Stanford University is effected by MP3's in several different ways, and has made the following policies and comments regarding MP3 use and distribution. [*] Are MP3's banned at Stanford? No. MP3 is simply a file format for music. It makes no sense to ban a file format. [*] Is Napster blocked at Stanford? Currently Napster is not blocked at Stanford University. There is an active suit against napster by A&M RECORDS. Currently Stanford's position is to let the US judicial system decide on the fate of Napster. Consult the amicus brief available from the US copyright office for more information on this case. [*] Okay, but what is Stanford's opinion on MP3's and Napster? Stanford University position is simply to obey all applicable laws regarding copyright. [*] Is trading MP3's illegal? Unauthorized reproduction or transmission of copyrighted materials is a violation of US copyright law. MP3's quiet often are digitally copyrighted material, so unless you have legal permission to trade, use, or distribute an MP3 you may be violating the law. [*] How can I tell if an MP3 is copyrighted? When in doubt, assume that the material is copyrighted. You should not distribute nor download any MP3 without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. [*] How can I trade MP3's legally? First, you must obtain the explicit permission of the copyright holder. That permission must be furnished upon demand. Please note that a public statement by a copyright holder may not be sufficent, as often copyrights are held by contract, not just the specific musician. [*] Where can I get information on copyright law? As always, legal issues are best resolved by a lawyer or attorney. If you're just interested in knowing the law, see the US copyright office's web site at http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/ Additionally, you may want to check Stanford's Faire Use Website. [*] How do I report a copyright violation? Stanford maintains a contact point for complaints in compliance with the Digital Millinium Copyright Act (DMCA). See http://www.stanford.edu/group/itss-ccs/security/dmca.html for more information. __________________________ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __________________________ http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.brooklynonline.com - For the love of Brooklyn http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www.nyfairuse.org - The foundation of Democracy http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/annie.mp3 - Armed and Dangerous.... 1-718-382-5752 From kfoss at planetpdf.com Tue Nov 20 13:08:17 2001 From: kfoss at planetpdf.com (Kurt Foss) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:22 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] No Black Hat for ElcomSoft Message-ID: An actual Sklyarov/ElcomSoft news item or two ... No Black Hat as ElcomSoft awaits hearing Despite previously agreeing to resurrect for a European technology conference audience the same presentation on eBooks Security that contributed to colleague Dmitry Sklyarov's arrest by the FBI in July, ElcomSoft CEO Alexander Katalov has decided to pass on the Nov. 22 opportunity in Amsterdam. He and employee Sklyarov face a Nov. 26 pre-trial hearing in California on criminal charges of violating the DMCA. http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=1751 Great DMCA Debate Transcript Dmitry Sklyarov and Alex Katalov of ElcomSoft Ltd. both attended -- but on the advice of their lawyers, were not allowed to participate in -- a public panel discussion titled "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Great Debate" at Seybold San Francisco 2001. However, one of their attorneys had a brief encounter on the issues with a panel member representing publishers, just one of many lively exchanges revealed in this transcript of the lengthy session. http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=1741 rgds ~ Kurt _________________ Kurt Foss - Editor ___________________ Planet PDF - A world of Acrobat/PDF news, tips, tools and forums mailto:kfoss@binarything.com | mailto:kfoss@planetpdf.com http://www.binarything.com/ | http://www.planetpdf.com/ NOW OPEN: The ePublish Store http://www.epublishstore.com/ BinaryThing - The ePublishing Network From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Wed Nov 21 01:58:23 2001 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:23 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] DRM Vendors Are Selling, But Who's Buying? Message-ID: <1826372828.20011121125823@elcomsoft.com> Hello, http://www.seyboldreports.com/Bulletin/subs/vol7/issv7n04.html#insider Nice statistics: > Of 1,332 publishing professionals surveyed, only seven percent were > currently using a DRM solution. Only 18 percent said they had plans > to implement a DRM system within the next 12 to 18 months, and > approximately 75 percent of those polled agreed that the limited > revenue gained from selling digital content does not justify an > investment in a DRM solution. Sincerely yours, Vladimir ElcomSoft Co.Ltd. http://www.elcomsoft.com mailto:vkatalov@elcomsoft.com From tabindak at best.com Wed Nov 21 09:49:47 2001 From: tabindak at best.com (Tabinda N. Khan) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:23 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Next Hearing / Protests? In-Reply-To: <3BFA860E.27136.3E3D93@localhost>; from moeller@scireview.de on Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 04:34:22PM +0100 References: <3BFA860E.27136.3E3D93@localhost> Message-ID: <20011121174947.A92755@tabinda.com> Quoting Erik Moeller: > Hi, > > according to > > http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Sklyarov/20010904_eff_sklyarov_elcom_p > r.html > > the next hearing in the Sklyarov case will be on Nov 26, i.e. next > Monday. Are there any protests planned? The EFF front page does not > have any news concerning Dmitry Sklyarov, and the free-sklyarov.org > calendar doesn't note any events (it is also quite dated). It seems like everything fell by the proverbial wayside after 9/11. As far as I know, the hearing is still on. I don't think there are any protests planned for the SF Bay area, but I do think we need to focus in this area and pack the courtroom if possible. Having people outside handing out flyers would be nice, but filling the courtroom would have more impact on the judge. So if we only have enough people to do that, everyone should go inside. If there are extra people who can't fit into the courtroom, they should hand out flyers. That said, for all geographic locations, there are flyers posted at http://www.tabinda.com/freedmitry/index.html which can be used anytime. Tabinda -- From eaerme at newnorth.net Wed Nov 21 12:13:40 2001 From: eaerme at newnorth.net (ERNEST A. ERICKSON) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:23 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] DMCA and Unfair use.... Message-ID: <3BFC0AF4.926C7981@newnorth.net> Niels: I wonder how anybody can be so well protected by the government so that anything they bring to the "feds" gets instant reaction and forced imprisonment for the accused, even BEFORE he/she was legally found to BE guilty! Too bad you travel to the U.S., your visits would impact harder if all involved in "security" and cryptography that lived in other nations, but traveled to the U.S. COULD make a huge impact IF those affected people took the matter to court and SUED for relief under an ILLEGAL law designed solely to protect and enrich the companies that fought for silly laws like the DMCA. How about a frontal assault by a million armed and angry programmers and "geeks" against the law enfarcement that goes after innocent people just doing what is a RIGHT to do! How long would crazy, archaic laws last if they were DEMANDED to be deleted by FORCE, like the arrogant U.S. army does to "other" people in many regions of the world? What can be done?....PLENTY, and in force if everybody makes a stand and fights for the right to do what is fair, legal and RIGHT to do. This protectionist act the government forces on people for the sheer benefit and profit of corporations such as Adobe criminal bookmaker, Adope-e and this law MUST DIE! What better way to make Adobe vanish...DON'T BUY ANYTHING sold by them...EVER! Don't buy stock in that company..but SELL off the stocks A.S.A.P. Force change with money...the ONLY thing the government and big business takes notice of! Sorry, but I hate protectionist measures enacted by government for the sole advancement of business, while screwing the people of the nation en-masse. The U.S. government violates international law/s daily, and "it" takes action against anybody it deems to "necessary to punish" if and when it decides, no matter where they reside. If armed resistance is necessary to force change..I'M THERE! American "justice" is a "softer" form of NAZI TERROR cloaked under a veil of law! Just because the government says so, does NOT mean it must be followed or even adhered to in the slightest...REVOLT PEOPLE!!! When i see thousands of people READY to do REAL BATTLE, then I too, will join in and offer my "assistance" to stomp on those(pardon this)EVIL-DOERS... The time is NOW...let's DO IT, not talk about it! When the nazis smash your door in, do they arrive one at a time...NOPE, they come in force to make YOUR life miserable, kill and torture you under the "guise" of the "law"! DMCA is a farce and MUST be defeated and ignored at every possibility. When the "law" violates our rights and the "law", it has NO right to enforce their will against us! They immediately LOSE any legal authority and BECOME the CRIMINAL themselves! Arrest them, you can, it's called a CITIZEN'S ARREST, and carries the SAME WEIGHT as ANY "police" arrest! Oh, and while you are doing this...wear protection(bullet "proof" vest)...you KNOW police love to shoot first(ask Amadou Diallo)! My deepest sympathies and respect for the entire Diallo family and ALL families who were the victims of POLICE TERRORISM in this nation! An ARMED citizen is a SAFE and ALIVE citizen! *This letter is protected by viscious guard dogs with teeth, and if you copy this, they will bite you and hold you down while the chihuahua tickles you with a feather duster! You have been warned....LOOK OUT! "E" From crism at maden.org Thu Nov 22 11:34:29 2001 From: crism at maden.org (Christopher R. Maden) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:23 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Dmitry's hearing Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011122113126.00a67ce0@mail.maden.org> says that Judge Ronald M. White will be hearing US v. Elcom Ltd. and Dmitrii [sic] Sklyarov at 9 am in Courtroom 6, at the federal building in San Jos?. ~crism P.S. I'll be giving an encryption seminar in San Francisco the evening of Tuesday 4 December. This is intended for laymen who want to use or understand tools like PGP and GnuPG. Contact me for more details. P.P.S. If you want to see a Sklyarov activist on the ballot next year, contact me for how you can help. -- Libertarian candidate, California State Assembly, District 13 Free Sklyarov: Freelance text nerd: PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011122/3ada0a8d/attachment.pgp From kmself at ix.netcom.com Fri Nov 23 14:49:21 2001 From: kmself at ix.netcom.com (Karsten M. Self) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:23 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Dmitry siting in Menlo Park Message-ID: <20011123144920.G18492@navel.introspect> Looking through the Fall 2001 "Menlo Park Info" newsletter distributed a few weeks back, I found the following item on the inside page: The Junk Sign Ordinance -- City Code 8.44.030 This code prohibits th posting or attaching of signs, posters, banners, placards, or handbills on public property. Public property includes highways, streets, roadways, crosswalks, curbs, curbstones, sidewalks, utility poles or boxes, hydrants, streetlights, buildings, and landscape. ...well, that pretty well covers it . The photo above clearly shows a "Free Dmitry" flyer. The utility pole in question appears to be a mere block away from my apartment, by strange coincidence. Pity there isn't a "junk law" ordinance that prevents trampling of individual's Constitutional rights. I suppose the City of Menlo Park will also be tracking down and citing those pesky lawbreakers who've been posting American Flags on highway overpasses and other public places. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011123/fc34552e/attachment.pgp From crism at maden.org Fri Nov 23 16:06:48 2001 From: crism at maden.org (Christopher R. Maden) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:23 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Dmitry siting in Menlo Park In-Reply-To: <20011123144920.G18492@navel.introspect> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011123160601.00a9c5e0@mail.maden.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 14:49 23-11-2001, Karsten M. Self wrote: >Pity there isn't a "junk law" ordinance that prevents trampling of >individual's Constitutional rights. There is - it's just not very well enforced. Enforcement is apparently left as an exercise to the reader. So, who'll be at the hearing on Monday? ~crism - -- Libertarian candidate, California State Assembly, District 13 Free Sklyarov: Freelance text nerd: PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8 iQA/AwUBO/7kmKxS+CWv7FjaEQK11ACdG+Dgx/p5E48+oRcMaI/3D8KFPQgAoMIq 0mb1im0BhoqktnJjEF7rXwE7 =X8d8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ville at oksanen.net Fri Nov 23 17:13:33 2001 From: ville at oksanen.net (Ville Oksanen) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:23 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Dmitry siting in Menlo Park References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011123160601.00a9c5e0@mail.maden.org> Message-ID: <001a01c17485$405f14d0$efe22080@Microsoft> > So, who'll be at the hearing on Monday? > > ~crism I'd like to come, are there any car-pools planned from Berkeley..? Ville _____________________________________________ Ville Oksanen, researcher (LL.M.) Helsinki Institute for Information Technology Ville.Oksanen@hiit.fi http://www.hiit.fi/de/mobileipr/ Tel: (510) 642-4302 Fax: (510) 642-5814 Mobile: (415) 572-0349 Address: SIMS, 102 South Hall, Berkeley 94720 From akatalov at elcomsoft.com Fri Nov 23 21:18:54 2001 From: akatalov at elcomsoft.com (Alex Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:23 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Dmitry siting in Menlo Park In-Reply-To: <001a01c17485$405f14d0$efe22080@Microsoft> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011123160601.00a9c5e0@mail.maden.org> <001a01c17485$405f14d0$efe22080@Microsoft> Message-ID: <160204092219.20011123211854@elcomsoft.com> Hi all!! It will be great possibility for me to see and thank our supporters this Monday - both me and Dmitry read this list every day, we know a lot of peoples by names, but never see many of you (really - I saw some of you during actions in San Francisco in July, whenever Dmitry only see some during his bail hearings)!!! -- Alex Katalov >> So, who'll be at the hearing on Monday? >> >> ~crism VO> I'd like to come, are there any car-pools planned from Berkeley..? VO> Ville VO> _____________________________________________ VO> Ville Oksanen, researcher (LL.M.) VO> Helsinki Institute for Information Technology VO> Ville.Oksanen@hiit.fi VO> http://www.hiit.fi/de/mobileipr/ VO> Tel: (510) 642-4302 VO> Fax: (510) 642-5814 VO> Mobile: (415) 572-0349 VO> Address: SIMS, 102 South Hall, Berkeley 94720 VO> _______________________________________________ VO> free-sklyarov mailing list VO> free-sklyarov@zork.net VO> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov -- Best regards, Alex mailto:akatalov@elcomsoft.com From martinb at kemokid.com Fri Nov 23 23:17:30 2001 From: martinb at kemokid.com (Martin Baker) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:23 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Dmitry siting in Menlo Park In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011123160601.00a9c5e0@mail.maden.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Christopher R. Maden wrote: > So, who'll be at the hearing on Monday? Can anyone provide directions, or a link to directions, especially involving public transit? I'm coming from SF, and if I can get the day off I'll try to drag myself out of bed in time. Good luck, Dmitry. Thanks, Martin From crism at maden.org Fri Nov 23 23:31:35 2001 From: crism at maden.org (Christopher R. Maden) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:23 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Dmitry siting in Menlo Park In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011123160601.00a9c5e0@mail.maden.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011123231546.00a56010@mail.maden.org> At 23:17 23-11-2001, Martin Baker wrote: >Can anyone provide directions, or a link to directions, especially >involving public transit? I'm coming from SF, and if I can get the day off >I'll try to drag myself out of bed in time. Take CalTrain to San Jos? Diridon. The San Jos? Federal Building is at 280 South First Street; see . You can either ride the free DASH (Downtown Area Shuttle, ) from the station to San Fernando and 1st and walk the remaining five long-ish blocks, or walk the whole way (1.5 miles), or you could take the 66 or 68 buses ($1.25). I usually just walk. ~crism -- Libertarian candidate, California State Assembly, District 13 Free Sklyarov: Freelance text nerd: PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011123/1df4c6ae/attachment.pgp From ed at hintz.org Sat Nov 24 00:18:23 2001 From: ed at hintz.org (Edmund A. Hintz) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:23 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Dmitry siting in Menlo Park Message-ID: <200111240818.fAO8IIJ31671@phil.hintz.org> On 11/23/01 4:06 PM, crism@maden.org thus spake: >So, who'll be at the hearing on Monday? 'Fraid I'm out for this one... I'm in San Diego on vacation. I've got the trunk of my car loaded with about half the bay area Free Dimitry signs, I hope the other half which reside in Berkeley can get there... Peace, Edmund A. Hintz **|** "You may say I'm a dreamer, Mac Techie, Unix Geek, * | * But I'm not the only one... Mac/Unix Consultant * /|\ * I hope someday you'll join us, */ | \* And the world will live as one. '78 Westy ***** Imagine." http://www.hintz.org From loserarmy at yahoo.com Sat Nov 24 17:46:36 2001 From: loserarmy at yahoo.com (Nick Ng) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:23 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] how to unsubscribe? Message-ID: <20011125014636.39415.qmail@web12807.mail.yahoo.com> I wish to unsubscribe this mailing list, please. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 From a.chterenlikht at sheffield.ac.uk Sun Nov 25 11:28:23 2001 From: a.chterenlikht at sheffield.ac.uk (Anton Chterenlikht) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:23 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] analysis of indictment References: <20011125014636.39415.qmail@web12807.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3C014657.12534C71@sheffield.ac.uk> Hi, Here is my analysis of Dmitry's indictment http://uk.eurorights.org/issues/sklyarov/innocent.shtml anton From eaerme at newnorth.net Mon Nov 26 05:16:37 2001 From: eaerme at newnorth.net (Ernest A. Erickson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:23 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Indictment/s..... Message-ID: <3C0240B5.26602918@newnorth.net> Folks: HERE is a chance to prove how much law enforcement LIES to the people! A fast scan over the indictments proves the FBI, and others will say ANYTHING to get ANY conviction. We ALL must take a stand and ENSURE that REAL justice is taking place; not this dog-and-pony show! Right wins over might is fine in the literary world, but when dealing with LYING POLICE, one MUST take a stronger proactive stand AGAINST the corruption and DECEIT propagated by the very ILLEGAL DMCA "law". Send letters of NO CONFIDENCE and as many people should FILE A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST all law enforcement agents, agencies and departments for CONSPIRACY to commit FRAUD upon Dmitry and Elcomsoft, Et Al... "The squeaky wheel gets the oil" So....SQUEAK LOUDLY FOLKS! From crism at maden.org Mon Nov 26 07:15:56 2001 From: crism at maden.org (Christopher R. Maden) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Feh. Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011126071445.00a92490@mail.maden.org> So *because* I was up all night, I didn't get going in time to catch the 7:25 or 7:30 trains to San Jos?. Got caught up in fixing a trivial Web site configuration problem, rather than jumping out of bed to an alarm... Please post details of the hearing, anyone who does make it. ~crism -- Libertarian candidate, California State Assembly, District 13 Free Sklyarov: Freelance text nerd: PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011126/ac913845/attachment.pgp From kfoss at planetpdf.com Mon Nov 26 14:43:54 2001 From: kfoss at planetpdf.com (Kurt Foss) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Sklyarov lawyers will challenge DMCA, jurisdiction Message-ID: From Planet PDF ... Attorneys for Dmitry Sklyarov and ElcomSoft Ltd. of Moscow, Russia apparently plan to challenge aspects of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), as well as whether the U.S. government has jurisdiction in the criminal case initiated by Adobe Systems over allegedly illegal eBook security decryption. Pretrial hearings are set for March 4. http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=1758 ____________________ Kurt Foss - Editor _______________________ Planet PDF - A world of Acrobat/PDF news, tips, tools and forums mailto:kfoss@binarything.com | mailto:kfoss@planetpdf.com http://www.binarything.com/ | http://www.planetpdf.com/ NOW OPEN: The ePublish Store http://www.epublishstore.com/ BinaryThing.com - The ePublishing Network From owlswan at eff.org Mon Nov 26 14:58:31 2001 From: owlswan at eff.org (Henry Schwan) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Dmiry hearing Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011126144611.00ac10d8@mail.eff.org> To the list, This is an update from the status conference for Dmitry and Elcomsoft today. As expected, the only issue discussed was the setting of dates for pre-trial motions. The issues were divided into two categories: DMCA (possible claims are unconstitutionality including vagueness, First Amendment and lack of constitutional authority), and: non-DMCA issues (possible issues are jurisdiction, a bill of particulars, and the conspiracy charge). The non-DMCA dates are: Jan. 14, 2002 - the opening brief is due, Feb. 11 - the opposition (govt.) brief is due, Feb. 25 - the Dmitry reply brief is due, with the March 4, 2002 - hearing. The DMCA dates are: Jan. 28, 2002 - the opening briefs and amici are due, March 4 - the opposition (govt.) brief is due, March 18 - the reply brief is due April 1 - hearing Assuming the case is not dismissed because of the motions, there will be a hearing to set a trial date on April 15. If this needs to be forwarded to Dmitry-plan, would someone do that? Respectfully, Henry Schwan Paralegal Electronic Frontier Foundation owlswan@eff.org (415)436-9333 x114 (415)436-9993 (fax) "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison -- Founding Father, US President From swive at getnet.com Mon Nov 26 18:30:34 2001 From: swive at getnet.com (Eric) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Sklyarov lawyers will challenge DMCA, jurisdiction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Attorneys for Dmitry Sklyarov and ElcomSoft Ltd. of Moscow, Russia > apparently plan to challenge aspects of the Digital Millennium > Copyright Act (DMCA), as well as whether the U.S. government has > jurisdiction in the criminal case initiated by Adobe Systems over To be pedantic, the case is not about jurisdiction, and should not be phrased that way: whether a court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over a case or controversy depends on whether there are any nonfrivolous claims under 28 U.S.C. ? 1331. The case is about extraterritoriality: that is, whether a law (i.e., the DMCA) applies outside U.S. territory. This question is resolvable to whether "Congress [has] asserted regulatory power over the challenged conduct." See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 813 (1993), (Scalia, J., dissenting). > From david.haworth at altavista.net Mon Nov 26 23:46:56 2001 From: david.haworth at altavista.net (David Haworth) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Sklyarov lawyers will challenge DMCA, jurisdiction In-Reply-To: ; from kfoss@planetpdf.com on Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 04:43:54PM -0600 References: Message-ID: <20011127084656.B9326@3soft.de> On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 04:43:54PM -0600, Kurt Foss wrote: > Pretrial hearings are set for March 4. Is Dmitry still being held in that prison cell that calls itself the US, or is he allowed to return home now? I'd like to know - I think some more letter-writing is called for if he isn't allowed home. Dave -- David Haworth Baiersdorf, Germany david.haworth@altavista.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011127/b457b787/attachment.pgp From kfoss at planetpdf.com Tue Nov 27 05:10:46 2001 From: kfoss at planetpdf.com (Kurt Foss) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Sklyarov lawyers will challenge DMCA, jurisdiction In-Reply-To: <20011127084656.B9326@3soft.de> References: <20011127084656.B9326@3soft.de> Message-ID: According to yesterday's AP coverage, he must remain in the US. rgds ~ Kurt At 8:46 AM +0100 11/27/01, David Haworth wrote: >On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 04:43:54PM -0600, Kurt Foss wrote: >> Pretrial hearings are set for March 4. > >Is Dmitry still being held in that prison cell that calls itself >the US, or is he allowed to return home now? I'd like to know - >I think some more letter-writing is called for if he isn't allowed >home. -- From eaerme at newnorth.net Tue Nov 27 06:05:50 2001 From: eaerme at newnorth.net (Ernest A. Erickson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] After Adobe dumps... Message-ID: <3C039DBE.FE73FDE5@newnorth.net> -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use qANQR1DBwU4DGTG0/Qo7gbQQCADY5jK6m3dFvHSlSMOijj7ETNxVit0OAzXQgGL0 6W8VGDif+f927KXQ9JzEOqAjPAlxjQGHbIAXQfCEAcs9HlsWFnMbbEvTpdp62smq kLC/Ybs15wCqUF7uQPwG+KZJ7XT+BfPC2jFQmS5ugb9dtmYb+Bf8DwO25sN+GUPe YwkgR/j//osN1hP4cbjM4mo/yw1Y3LtSFqSnp3iQp2doyNUnS2ksoLtHbcvZafAx 7CB+HomS40ITFK0YeIJmm+UuqHo3kamc9ChV4ASS3FR5rcWNUUuFh2puBFqexxxb pq7j+pp56HMdZ6yui0rwFCNKw2gat6fXixlcSyoXQ1WAfbhVCAC0mPZjB/40WkrX 0jvQQHwosq3lrLz9DZg/CMGP0q8Jl2M/Cz2hsjyG7jJkxCEOvj/0HxNvuDGlR88U TtBgL0Ve771C3M5bUC3KTnAEciZVboKBGauU2rZe5NYAjHMn6507XH//eVNZd6Fg AA8whMcuDlo5X3dLnDG/RneqUi7CccXtFRGH3dz7W+ivTmJt5JGUU9+eG22+aaPm W8nUOihusoZKepIGus0LkHVUjFgGwbLSfeWCA+g5IVAgZI2pFsX+koCoYjMtWTwF njmIg+bT9yzqtXmVxujcMtAwQG+Q+948Bv3tb/6qRqLxKumdUZIWLggEvL96bt3h p+VVfsF1ycY8q2l34Hks8hLbda8Bsvfb3xDt24qvljqlGCuIqWMQr5L5ut5JcPhe t+rzg4e7h+ZdT7MCrjr2pdbkKN7DCg0/3WhygZWelbWUqy6heFX+1PY/vzPrT3P/ r4La1q+tzJhBpj48MQt0LahdZ40T1q5m7qNbi9dOiEOt4+bfmj1anZOLzpA+BFN4 VjY9VkWf5CHYPUEJQCslvuGLXb4le2PgaHwMURZO6j4gxkaMUohcmhpYv3+Wmi89 WLiinTJFkww4WTO1I0Wl9HN7HTO0YoYDxo67qUbIBrjY+LJtc5AbgN0shERGZYJm LA1zTVwqq4jMv7G71wynWnU2csB1S0Wiw13ckj1RTW1Xhj490asg0EkCwn9vd4At XbpaOa6JPf4+k0WXVmF8zbut0XSnp7PHjInh1zYvmuLL8Dl+YerBf+eoX2YyHYam ft6UTBBjIllEByqZI8T0lpK/OjNf+M47Ky2GIr/Gd4gf0T48fN1etRI26NuV+LiI 6NcuH/uSa8fizc/tnLNEkDBL4w/SjENl5TCaxN1Epzy6oLiW9u0Grakn8wqV/IC7 CjAnF//2Xrtej+tn8jEB/ws5Ot1O8voFHFwb4N4L9+ew17EIpGQDptlTSoaTBMlu XChDSKqRQPYTDtySSuXe/aB7AZW99ZyLHQcKpeV98PFt/6W8pL33YM1itGrk5BZe +R3SuZ53GNHIyLUV6CewiyEuZuSlFNcnsarC9tNEiJ0tHKEY9KqrRXS1Ep4URfvS l/ENHU9OBy7XhxXP1qSooU69gLwOy/e8k6sfoe7/rsHGhRRUgrsZfgG97sqgiSL4 1+7RVveOMecTDR7HiISSiv4y9dt1pNt2xlBWvzgrkEulsYsW0AOq5+sFOG8wzpeM qbbwMQlgwvBxPBetO7RK+lHJGHKcScpGrzQRYScXsLO8cZhBzlNCRyjaFkzivtaB vt5mEdupiqfHIv3ri1tT6/WxoewJKim9z8iSrgLLyaDe54JBZ6OfTE8PAJHL7CEp geLaotooMTg9H3OuM871oFTTAbnmD1d8hAXJHu7iNMTm2WrCL2vHPOy/ifZwu0lq VZYDj2hq/iDjDKUMEFfEHnJnz2F5nPoCVr9FKUURhtJ8q4LgFfcgm8WsaZhsyObr dpV5mosgByXnI99cptC7yLPct1nkSB38GqWj1udER9wTFucgN94GORfWuMpyDZ78 OsDprMmcBxWRhexWm1aEtMKEsFCw2l5V4ZXUBHW8TuhKUnbn95GjWlfXapV1223D V6dX3D8giHfcBXQcH5HcxyIzfk47oN1w0jqjKEPHo01tjWRCULCj6/NhQ0x1KRdv Gr+VC2ge2lmDc8T0htPjfQSApY3x7LJZ1GZuP9Gws2C4LrMhxQQMs+CFLRUt88gM b7zDBo0QGjT05az9W6Bka2muRGlWOqqTM+qKiBuWCyo6JJk/v1T8EQaRxNfQaU8i 8/f9xNoOvVfNuDjpnyx3KlnnOgwjKZ4MOa3GFv1oCLGORgAfsvKkW0Q27secO7nO uyGYFmAFwC9okZ2tn8agXSZth8sUxaRtislVvVu+9Eu4oZPIWtVklhWWHZDeC4cb X3RsPU4sHMHrSe3eTgxP0rTVBSPRKP0sog1C0QOOCbmB7nuumF5fU1tPY9zUUP+G B+aUhUd+m6OlS6Vh0eprf1s3Es0zRfUoOOTbA3WJYBoqFa+YaZIxN1ISDC5Eswl/ +vqy68Afl6xVxdk7e2wtFAe6+w23J0452Y6IpprFIJIeL91JjDut3R5g+YSd28Wf C/zyQpdNCyiEZEYM4+tM0kQlQy+wBsKH+z8Mgz5xieqaXyNnaoL1ehoHK0Zs4QoP eWatATB7L+eDEW/0Ipg/y6NmZC84XK7lZPsgN/tOSXqQoBs336yv0ztYSo4JkZB5 lvqqShQ1cMdFHZjdC0cdjn8fqXa23e45y0MYIc03pKlct0feOqyfdY7LvUYN8g4s WbO3nUHUzfIlAKwn+Zc8VsjrQbUO7//5rMr4xjevfEj+yHb629pUpTuSMqD6MPI9 fhbUK0uxuBTbIkgRk38yXy/KkflrsUK8E0HQPMe/ZoWyKxXCn1eMm7McOBP/wtYg uqaiW/L1Aeer+aaZ94OIMWRtOMrmwRGb1xWnBN/GryuuhiyxOdUGks4C3S/zAr3q 6r5P1v1uNillplqzNs+J49glu1fOOQHBFApPwj1dMMnLO+TcUeZzO6+233ycL5NA 54+KC8BkfgPcptDnOAAwyKUDBgBXky3+KuJ9jxALfEPcvz44MdLrNLrw74LZYRDj 0lLoK6nnSwbsWMe8klxIgRHRUF4ECeCJ6Q0plvbnK3kaOl0GCdKOYodrtOmIdSuo jnrOvSu/eT1ZgLKSTGwW0zjOBRl2 =HLS3 -----END PGP MESSAGE----- From jei at cc.hut.fi Tue Nov 27 06:32:41 2001 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Senator Hollings wants to make Linux illegal Message-ID: Another tragic effort to define laws of nature by laws of man. *Information is free*, and no amount of legislation can change that fact. Copyrights and patents are artificial attempts to limit the use, knowledge and application of innovations, and as such they HARM the humanity as a whole. More laws will only result in attempts to hinder the natural evolution and progess of humanity and the information society. The United States will only harm itself with such laws. For the benefit of a few companies, the people of the United States will suffer as a whole and pay the price as stagnation of innovation and evolution, higher prices and limited choices. The dinosaurs will stagnate to death. Companies can and should adopt to the fact that information is free. They should exploit it to their advantage. Only those who provide the best, most valuable and effective information channels and services will win. Google is one great example of this. Maybe people need to pick up the book and start preaching to the unconverted dinosaurs? It doesn't do much good to the cause to just repeat the same old facts to the same old audiences. Paint the town red with dino-blood!! > Here's a new one, quite tragic to know anyone would actually > do something this stupid: > > http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/10/19/1546246&mode=thread > > Senator Hollings is off his rocker. From wiljan at pobox.com Tue Nov 27 10:16:01 2001 From: wiljan at pobox.com (Will Janoschka) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE:Sklyarov lawyers will challenge DMCA, jurisdiction Message-ID: <200111271849.MAA000.34@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:30:34 "Eric" said > To be pedantic, the case is not about jurisdiction, and should not be > phrased that way: whether a court has federal subject matter jurisdiction > over a case or controversy depends on whether there are any nonfrivolous > claims under 28 U.S.C. ? 1331. I don't think the issue is over the "court" having jurisdiction, but if the US government (or any part of it) has jurisdiction over what a foreign national does in his own country, without a treaty covering the issue. BTW, 28 U.S.C. 1331 covers civil cases only, this is a criminal case. 18 U.S.C. 3042 covers only US nationals in foreign countries. > The case is about extraterritoriality: that is, whether a law (i.e., the > DMCA) applies outside U.S. territory. That is correct. "Extraterritorial" is a matter of jurisdiction however. IANAL -will- ------Meddle not in affairs of dragons, Thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. From swive at getnet.com Tue Nov 27 17:08:54 2001 From: swive at getnet.com (Eric) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE:Sklyarov lawyers will challenge DMCA, jurisdiction In-Reply-To: <200111271849.MAA000.34@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> Message-ID: > I don't think the issue is over the "court" having jurisdiction, > but if the > US government (or any part of it) has jurisdiction Jurisdiction is the authority to render judgment. The "government" is not rendering judgement here, but the court is. Hence, courts have jurisdiction in this context, not governments. What governments sometimes do, however, is apply their laws extraterritorially, and that is possibly what this case is about ("possibly" because this case is fact-dependent). > > BTW, 28 U.S.C. 1331 covers civil cases only, this is a criminal > case. > 18 U.S.C. 3042 covers only US nationals in foreign countries. > > > The case is about extraterritoriality: that is, whether a law (i.e., the > > DMCA) applies outside U.S. territory. If extraterritoriality is conceptually distinct from jurisdiction, then is it relevant whether a criminal or civil statute is cited for that point? > That is correct. "Extraterritorial" is a matter of jurisdiction however. Did you even read the case I cited before you shot off an e-mail? Who's right as to the conceptual point; you are Justice Scalia? From wiljan at pobox.com Tue Nov 27 16:40:52 2001 From: wiljan at pobox.com (Will Janoschka) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE:Sklyarov lawyers will challenge DMCA, jurisdiction Message-ID: <200111280141.TAA000.37@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:08:54 Eric swive@getnet.com said: > Jurisdiction is the authority to render judgment. I beg to disagree, throw away Blacks law dictionary, pick up Websters. Jurisdiction n, 1, the right of making and enforcing laws. 2, the domain over which a given authority extends. The poster was reporting news, not giving a legal opinion. > Did you even read the case I cited before you shot off an e-mail? Who's > right as to the conceptual point; you are Justice Scalia? I did not, it is not relevant in reporting news. The issue is, did the Doj/FBI have any right to arrest Dmitry. Could be one good lawsuit against the US government. Really, I am not trying to inflame, just a difference in opinion. I wish, that on this list, one could tell the difference between an opinion, a learned legal opinion, and a rant. -will- From tompoe at renonevada.net Tue Nov 27 19:43:36 2001 From: tompoe at renonevada.net (tom poe) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RE:Sklyarov lawyers will challenge DMCA, jurisdiction In-Reply-To: <200111280141.TAA000.37@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> References: <200111280141.TAA000.37@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> Message-ID: <01112719433600.10807@aether> On Tuesday 27 November 2001 16:40, Will Janoschka wrote: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:08:54 Eric swive@getnet.com said: > Really, I am not trying to inflame, just a difference in opinion. > I wish, that on this list, one could tell the difference between > an opinion, a learned legal opinion, and a rant. > -will- Hi: Afraid the line is too thin. :) This from someone who has watched attorneys stand at attention while the judge engages in opinions, learned legal opinions, and rants all in the same breath. So, Will, you're just going to have to be patient while the judges-to-be's practice! Just a thought, tom From eaerme at newnorth.net Tue Nov 27 20:00:32 2001 From: eaerme at newnorth.net (Ernest A. Erickson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Text version of message sent in PGP. Message-ID: <3C046160.1D18FBCF@newnorth.net> Sorry folks for my screwup! Here's the MEAT and Taters of what was supposed to arrive.... -------------- next part -------------- It appears that after the initial charges brought about by Adobe in this matter, and subsequently DROPPED by same; how can the government go ahead and hold/charge/indict Dimitry and "company" when the "parent" troublemaker decided(and rightfully so) to drop charges against him? Me thinks me smells a foul odor of power hungry NAZI-types here. I also think that because the DMCA has not had the "chance" to be brought into real "play" to date, the government has taken this opportunity to see just how far this "law" can evade/erode/deny a person's rights without "offending" the ACLU and other "human" rights organizations and still allow injustices to be "performed" upon the people with almost no backlash in criticism. DMCA, if fought correctly, can and will be defeated on simple constitutional grounds alone because the very "law" that created it, does supremely violate the first, and fourth amendment of the "now-almost-moot" constitutional "rights" of the people. Let's face it, the government does NOT like to lose.......! Doing so against the people makes "them" out to be wimps, and you KNOW how wimpy those government terrorist's tanks and machine guns are....right?? Simply ask Randy Weaver, his wife or son, PLUS the Branch Davidians and THEIR children; all left smoldering in the Texas sun! Indict everybody, jail everybody and think nothing of PROTECTING those SWORN to BE PROTECTED....baby butchers all!! Let's VOTE OUT those bastards! How about a RAID on the feds homes huh? Would THEY like to see hundreds of weapons pointed at them for SOCIAL TERRORISM to the citizens? I'll bet not; nor is that ever going to happen in this PACIFIST society of today! Hell, many are even afraid to even speak out against this treasonous act of opression for fear they too, might be held accountable for doing NADA, just speaking their mind/s. Anobody who knows me, KNOWS i take no B.S. from any cop, fed or not....I don't have to either! I have every right to question what, where, when and how they "do" things! It's time to make the DMCA go away and stop bothering us! Let's begin a NATIONWIDE COMPLAINT FORM for this and tell them, no, DEMAND that the DMCA MUST be erradicated for good, but never fail to mention about being a VOTER to them also; they DO want to stay in office longer I'd be willing to bet! Every politician's motto: Money first, votes second; Hey, I'm a senator again*S*). Pass the paperwork to me, and I'll be happy to sign it, as well as my family, friends and anybody i can make see the reality of this! Also, join the NRA as well, since they FIGHT to retain OUR second amendment rights from the ever-intrusive dictatorial, oft usurped powers of a patently OVER ZEALOUS federal government "regime". While we're on the subject; let's go after Carnivore, and Echelon too!!! Sorry for the previous PGP posting, it was my error, and unintended as well. This IS what was contained in the original posting. From crism at maden.org Tue Nov 27 23:47:34 2001 From: crism at maden.org (Christopher R. Maden) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Text version of message sent in PGP. In-Reply-To: <3C046160.1D18FBCF@newnorth.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011127234209.00abd2e0@mail.maden.org> At 20:00 27-11-2001, Ernest A. Erickson wrote: >Sorry folks for my screwup! >Here's the MEAT and Taters of what was supposed to arrive....It appears >that after the initial charges brought about by Adobe in this matter, and >subsequently DROPPED by same; how can the government go ahead and >hold/charge/indict Dimitry and "company" when the "parent" troublemaker >decided(and rightfully so) to drop charges against him? >Me thinks me smells a foul odor of power hungry NAZI-types here. That's how criminal cases work. This will be US v. Sklyarov and Elcom Ltd., not Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Sklyarov and Elcom Ltd. A complaint can be a cause for arrest and prosecution, but it is neither the only possible cause nor is the prosecutor obligated to drop the case because the original complaint is dropped. If the law is broken, the prosecutor is charged with prosecuting it; if a family-less, friend-less person is murdered - and everyone hated him and wanted him dead, and no one is willing to press a complaint - the prosecutor is still obliged to prosecute if evidence can be found for the killer. Now it is entirely arguable that Dmitry didn't actually break the law, and it also seems evident that the law in question is a bad law. But the USDAONDOCA (or whatever) is entirely within bounds to prosecute. The protest at the Federal Building in SF, in co?peration with the EFF meeting inside, was targeted at getting the US Attorney to drop the case after Adobe dropped the complaint, but that was unsuccessful. Moreover, Adobe may have dropped the complaint, but is still co?perating with the prosecution to see the case through AIUI. ~crism -- Libertarian candidate, California State Assembly, District 13 Free Sklyarov: Freelance text nerd: PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011127/87880362/attachment.pgp From branden+serrfxylnebi at deadbeast.net Wed Nov 28 08:09:28 2001 From: branden+serrfxylnebi at deadbeast.net (Branden Robinson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Text version of message sent in PGP. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011127234209.00abd2e0@mail.maden.org> References: <3C046160.1D18FBCF@newnorth.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20011127234209.00abd2e0@mail.maden.org> Message-ID: <20011128110928.D18147@deadbeast.net> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 11:47:34PM -0800, Christopher R. Maden wrote: > Moreover, Adobe may have dropped the complaint, but is still > co?perating with the prosecution to see the case through AIUI. Which is why the boycott should never have been dropped. -- G. Branden Robinson | Kissing girls is a goodness. It is Debian GNU/Linux | a growing closer. It beats the branden@deadbeast.net | hell out of card games. http://www.deadbeast.net/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011128/9ffd538e/attachment.pgp From esper at sherohman.org Wed Nov 28 08:41:36 2001 From: esper at sherohman.org (Dave Sherohman) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Senator Hollings wants to make Linux illegal In-Reply-To: ; from jei@cc.hut.fi on Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:32:41PM +0200 References: Message-ID: <20011128104136.A19508@sherohman.org> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:32:41PM +0200, Jei wrote: > Another tragic effort to define laws of nature by laws of man. Oh, please... Yes, the SSSCA is even worse than DMCA. However, your subject line is baseless sensationalism. The (eventually) referenced article even states: And while Disney interests may be completely aware of the subtleties behind the SSSCA, Hollings may be unaware of the chain of effects this could set off. "Although I cannot comment on the technical acuity of Senator Hollings," says Pat Stakem... "there have been problems in the past with oversight and unintended consequences when a highly technical issue is legislated." There is no evidence whatsoever that banning Linux or Open Source/Free Software is Hollings's intent. Yes, it may be what happens if SSSCA passes, but I have seen no evidence that he is even aware of the possibility. -- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Tom Swiss From mlc67 at columbia.edu Wed Nov 28 21:55:59 2001 From: mlc67 at columbia.edu (mike castleman) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] dmca is taking over Message-ID: <20011129055559.GA399@pinetree.dhs.org> Not strictly Sklyarov-related, but please forgive... Both _2600 Magazine_ and Princeton Professor Edward Felten lost their DMCA-related lawsuits today. 2600 lost its appeal, and Felten's case was thrown out. See http://www.2600.com/news/display.shtml?id=852 for more info. mike -- mike castleman, mlc67@columbia.edu, ph: +1 (646) 382-7220 current location: columbia university, new york, ny, us students for an orwellian society: http://www.studentsfororwell.org/ because 2001 is 17 years too late. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011129/39a4a948/attachment.pgp From jei at cc.hut.fi Thu Nov 29 02:45:13 2001 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] US courts kowtow to entertainment industry (fwd) Message-ID: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/23084.html US courts kowtow to entertainment industry By Thomas C Greene in Washington Posted: 29/11/2001 at 08:24 GMT Wednesday was a bad day for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a watchdog group involved in several suits challenging the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) on behalf of consumers, researchers and publishers. First up, 2600 publisher Eric Corely aka Emmanuel Goldstein, who was barred from posting or linking to the DeCSS DVD descrambling utility last summer by a US district court, has lost his appeal. EFF, which represented Corely, received word Wednesday that the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, but has not yet received a copy of the decision. EFF says it will publish it as soon as it can, probably within a few days' time. Second, Princeton Computer Science Professor Edward Felten, who brought suit with EFF representation seeking a declaratory judgment which would guarantee his freedom to present and publish findings from the HackSDMI public challenge of last September, has seen his case dismissed. The controversy began last year, when the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sent him a nastygram hinting that he could be sued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for making public his research showing that the SDMI watermarking technologies were weak. Felten later presented his findings at the tenth annual Usenix Security Conference in Washington, DC this past August, but continued to press for the declaratory judgment against the RIAA. EFF says they will appeal the judge's decision to drop the suit. Incidentally, EFF is working on behalf of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov, though not representing him. Sklyarov is facing stiff criminal charges under the DMCA for his part in developing the Advanced eBook Processor which cracks the access controls on Adobe's eBook Reader. From jei at cc.hut.fi Thu Nov 29 04:41:50 2001 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] US court ruling nixes software EULA sales restrictions Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:24:02 -0500 From: Richard Forno Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications To: CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: US court ruling nixes software EULA sales restrictions http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23073.html (includes link to the ruling) US court ruling nixes software EULA sales restrictions By Andrew Orlowski Posted: 28/11/2001 at 13:39 GMT The judge, in the case Adobe vs Softman heard in the Central District of California, has ruled that consumers can resell bundled software, no matter what the EULA, or End User License Agreement, stipulates. Specifically, the ruling decrees that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, consumers should have the same rights they'd enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book. They can't make copies, but they can resell what they own. In the case SoftMan was reselling Adobe software it received in bundles or "collections". Adobe claimed this was a breach of its trademark. Judge Pregerson wasn't convinced, and decided that existing copyright law should apply: "... the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the 'license.' The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license." http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23073.html ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@listserv.aol.com ********************************************************************** From eaerme at newnorth.net Thu Nov 29 06:03:04 2001 From: eaerme at newnorth.net (Ernest A. Erickson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Freedom and terrorist law.... Message-ID: <3C064018.2356ECBD@newnorth.net> Hello again: I see that Senator Hollings needs to take a "refresher" course in ANY computer class, so that he can make some worthwhile contributions, but, like all politicians; he chooses ignorance and propagating ignorance with the passage of bills and/or laws he neither understands, nor has any idea of the consequences of its/their passage. I can clearly see the direction privacy rights are going, and since the courts have tossed out common sense and replaced it with butt head "judges", we'll have a future of incompetent privacy bashing bastards handing down prejudiced and biased regulation/laws based SOLELY for the financial enhancement of corporate america. Since 2600 lost its appeal, as did Mr. Felton; I am most confident that Mr. Sklyarov's case will certainly be lost due to the lack of ANY understanding of the REAL message Dmitry was attempting to convey! The government has proven, time and again that it CAN NOT be trusted to look out for the best interests of THE PEOPLE, but instead, chooses to safeguard the financial and egotistical permutations that is/are corporate america(the ones that truly benefit loopholes in laws). Well folks, the time has ARRIVED to CRUSH these judges by forcing them to leave office, one way or another! It appears that since one can research the laws, and i can bet one would find several items that point to MISCONDUCT and TERMINATION of judges for VIOLATING the PUBLIC'S TRUST and safety. Any judge that out rightly consents to protecting a large corporation and IGNORES the remainder of the population, should, in my humble opinion; be FIRED IMMEDIATELY and JAILED on top of it! Since our judges sit in comfortable chairs, handing out sentences to people they neither know or care little about, it's time to FORCE these judges to hand out LAWFUL SENTENCES, NOT just what "they" want to hand out. Let's put EVERY CASE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE; look, dig, research and compare histories of these people and see how many crimes THEY committed and got away with, ones that "we" get stuck paying. Hey judge ole' buddy, how about you voiding this speeding ticket i got, and I'll make sure you get funding from my department for your "pet" projects...GRAFT makes COURTS "TICK"! "The wheels of justice trample the innocent, while advancing the corrupt and greedy"(copyright, 2001 by E.A.E and the vicious dog society.) When will the "right" time come to fight this insurmountable oppression, when each of our homes are invaded by nazi storm troopers? do we once again take a back seat and ALLOW these up-front abuses to OUR LIBERTIES go UNCHECKED? Let's begin putting a HALT to INVASION OF PRIVACY. Start here: www.privacyrights.org, OPT-OUT of banks and financial institutions making money with YOUR PRIVATE INFORMATION! 1. American Express: P.O.Box 7800, Monticello, MN. 55462-7800 ALSO: P.O.Box 299836, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 33329-9836; 800.297.8378 www.americanexpress.com/cust_serv/privacy/emailprivacy.asp 2. Capital-One:P.O.Box 85617, Richmond, VA. 23285-5617 Capital-One Services: P.O.Box 60000, Seattle WA. 98190-6000 888.817.2970, 800.206.7986(Hearing impaired) 800.903.3637 (Customer relations) www.capitalone.com 3. CalFed Bank: OPT-OUT Request P.O.Box 348480, Sacramento, CA. 95834-8480, 800.THEBANK(800.843.2265) www.calfed.com More to come if you wish to have the information listed, or use THIS URL to access the info on your own: http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs24a-OptOutAddresses.htm _________________FLAME EXTINGUISHED!____________________ From mw at themail.com Thu Nov 29 14:11:14 2001 From: mw at themail.com (mw@themail.com) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:24 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] dmca is taking over Message-ID: <200111291710763.SM00629@mail.TheMail.com> At this point, I consider I can do either of three things. Run! which is the most logical solution. or Hide! which seems like a good idea or Fight! for our rights - which is a more noble and adventurous thing to do. trust noone. look at everyone's possible alterior motive -aicra __________________________________________________________________ TheMail.com - Full featured premium email you can count on. Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com/ From eaerme at newnorth.net Thu Nov 29 14:29:16 2001 From: eaerme at newnorth.net (Ernest A. Erickson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:25 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Speech.... Message-ID: <3C06B6BC.FE598339@newnorth.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Okay people; WHERE does the constitution make ANY allowance/s for the government to decide on "what" is speech? Where did THIS power come from now? DeCSS is just as VALID as the "scheme" used to encrypt those DVDs! What's different here, or is one more "righteous" than the other by WHO wrote what program? If the government is allowed to "regulate" speech; what else will the take under their control and regulate...LIFE perhaps? That judges decision on government "interest" is BOGUS BULL SHIT! The government has NO interest in ANY private, commercial or even public work or works NOT designed of, by for or with government assistance or funding! Since when does the government have any interest at all in the work/s of another...taxation perhaps? If so, even THAT would preclude the government intervention due to the item being taxed is NOT government property, and must never be allowed to become government property! I never read ANY line item, inclusion or "amendment" in the bill of rights and the declaration of independence that gives the government ANY right to decide on what is and is not "speech", or for that matter; what MAY be protected speech! What needs to be addressed as well, is just "how" the encryption "code" can be protected as speech AND "intellectual property" while the decryption "code" is worthy of NONE of those very same protective measures? To manufacture, offer for sale, distribute and give away, make readily available; BOY, they sure do beat the shit out of the first amendment, don't they? If a person, company, corporation can and DOES partake in the very same act or actions, does that now mean that "they" are the ONLY people who can make money by depriving the rest of society of these very same ideals? If the "code" used to "secure" DVD video is held as a "valid" form of "speech", then the "code" used to DECRYPT that very same "code" MUST also be just as VALID and protected in kind, bar none! i am still reviewing the case, so I have read a small excerpt from the hearing at this moment, but it appears that the judge is doing his best to TRASH the FIRST AMENDMENT and give RIGHTS to the motion picture corporation ABOVE the RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE in EVERY CASE! What right does the motion picture industry have to limit and DENY rights of others? What legal or valid complaint can be filed for the "alleged" use, importation or spreading of a program that has yet been PROVEN to have been used, or IS being used on ANY property of the motion picture association, or ANY DVD device currently on the market? PROOF is essential to a case, and without "intent" being known, and not perceived, CAN theft or illegal action or actions be proven? Can any harm, either financial, intellectual property or loss of income be shown and PROVEN because DeCSS merely "exists" in the computer "world"? With the outwardly liberal authority of any judge to deny anybody's rights would, to me, be ABSOLUTE USURPATION of rights NOT retained by the government, and thus are hereby ILLEGAL and UNENFORCEABLE in even the remotest sense and terminology! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAa2CvhzBr6oFznzEQJCUACfVV839TvNIyehNSFaGjYQsmVhVT4AoM5v AypZY/Eg8W3L96x5z2JsTl7i =P/Yl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From eaerme at newnorth.net Thu Nov 29 18:38:59 2001 From: eaerme at newnorth.net (Ernest A. Erickson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:25 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Treasury cops "manual"...storage "devices". Message-ID: <3C06F143.F30EFD1F@newnorth.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Here's a URL that EVERYBODY should visit and save to hard copy! Protect yourselves against snoops! http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/index.htm?electronic_evidence.htm&1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAbxNvhzBr6oFznzEQLMrwCgpMHoxaznVoWdf7uANeAsNMtnNjQAoIjz Z2jc/g2piRi6ROQke3rZ6Mt7 =rHG/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From anmacarena at hanmail.net Thu Nov 29 21:31:47 2001 From: anmacarena at hanmail.net (=?EUC-KR?B?vsi89rnO?=) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:25 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] some questions about wedding... Message-ID: <20011130143147.HM.B0000000002n9zE@www12.hanmail.net> Hi!! Nice to meet you and happy to join your group. I'm a korean girl and go to university. and I got a project of which topic is world wedding culture. so i need your help!! could you answer my questions if you know them? (you don't have to anwser all of questions i'll be very happy even though you anwser only one or two :-) -these are what i want to know. 1. what is the most popular wedding present in your culture? 2. How much money do you need to prepare wedding ceremony(also, which item do you spend money most for) ? 3. do you have a unique expression for proposal? (for example, in korea, a man says "i'll love you until my black hair turns into white like snow" to his lover) 4. what is the most popular place for honeymoon in your culture? 5. where and when is wedding ceremony usually held? please help me!!! thank you for reading my mail :-) =================================================================== ?? ???, Daum http://www.daum.net ??, 1/n??, ????! ??? ???? ???? ? ???? http://mailbank.daum.net/ From eaerme at newnorth.net Thu Nov 29 23:11:47 2001 From: eaerme at newnorth.net (Ernest A. Erickson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:25 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FBI flyer....FRAUD really! Message-ID: <3C073133.8B8C7306@newnorth.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In regards to the FBI handing out flyers that "identify" "terrorists" as anybody that speaks out over the justified concerns of an over-zealous government's usurpation of powers NOT delegated to them, but to the people; I find ludicrous, stupid, inflammatory and highly questionable as to the "intrinsic" merits of such moronic waste of MY tax dollars! Just WHO gave the FBI the right to decide "who" is legitimate or not? The FBI should be sued by everybody until the Fed's doors close for being so damned oppressive in nature and attitude! As a citizen of this nation, I too, DO OWN THE GOVERNMENT! I PAY for it in taxes and VOTES, therefore, not only is it my RIGHT to redress the government for grievances, it is also my duty to quell such outwardly directed hate such as this. I suppose the constitution protects this brand of HATE CRIME but not the voters, right? Law enfarcement can do what it pleases to anybody, with no possibility of legal reprisals against the law enforcement "industry". I make a stand here right now and proclaim that if the government can get away with this crap, then they CAN'T arrest anybody else for doing this very same thing! But; seeing that the government is now becoming a GOD, how dare we speak out against this NAZI tactic? Look at every law that is current, but take a much CLOSER look at these laws that were enacted after 9-11-01, and see for yourself just how far the government has eroded and restricted and denied YOUR rights! If it would not be considered a crime to murder, you can bet, every automatic rifle in police inventory would be carried openly and hundreds, if not thousands would be shot dead for daring to be "disobedient" to the police and the "law"! I wonder, IS Mrs. diallo getting HER son back after being BRUTALLY MURDERED by the N.Y.P.D NAZIS??? How about WACO, Ruby Ridge, or better still; The Branch Davidians and the 90+ people burned to death by the feds? Where and WHEN does the TERRORISM by THIS GOVERNMENT END? 41 rounds of police ammunition were "needed" to stop Mr. Diallo from pulling out his "assault wallet"...yeah, right, just another cop shooting that was whitewashed and the CRIMINALS got away with...again, and again. Trust law enforcement?... I think NOT! The constitution CLEARLY STATES: The government governs with CONSENT of the governed....NOT with the consent of the government! The constitution also stated: The government has ENUMERATED POWERS, meaning LIMITED authority to impose its will upon the people, not a right as they so often do....USURPATION of authority is NOT a right, it is CRIMINAL and TREASONOUS in its act as it is AGAINST the people of the United States of America! WE THE PEOPLE, not we the government. The above comments are all mine and are made under the 4th amendment RIGHTS of the constitution of this nation, and are PROTECTED RIGHTS as GUARANTEED by same. Hell, even the courts are attempting to usurp THAT right as well; by making and passing laws that "decide" what is and what is not "protected speech"....Hmmm, where is THAT clause located in the bill of rights i wonder??? CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...PERIOD! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAcwzfhzBr6oFznzEQJUsgCgjrgL8Ltr3KnjIkCx2J4tlfjLslUAoOCv 23llwBq/p53rBFT3i5uq61FQ =JGg7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Thu Nov 29 23:51:49 2001 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:25 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] The root of the problem: Bad software Message-ID: <1764554859.20011130105149@elcomsoft.com> Hello, From kmself at ix.netcom.com Fri Nov 30 16:18:48 2001 From: kmself at ix.netcom.com (Karsten M. Self) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:25 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Text version of message sent in PGP. In-Reply-To: <20011128110928.D18147@deadbeast.net>; from branden+serrfxylnebi@deadbeast.net on Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 11:09:28AM -0500 References: <3C046160.1D18FBCF@newnorth.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20011127234209.00abd2e0@mail.maden.org> <20011128110928.D18147@deadbeast.net> Message-ID: <20011130161848.H12539@navel.introspect> on Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 11:09:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson (branden+serrfxylnebi@deadbeast.net) wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 11:47:34PM -0800, Christopher R. Maden wrote: > > Moreover, Adobe may have dropped the complaint, but is still > > co?perating with the prosecution to see the case through AIUI. > > Which is why the boycott should never have been dropped. Strong agreement. It's why I've never dropped my call for same. In a straight Google search for "Adobe" you'll find that you turn up a Dmitry reference...in about four pages (this was two pages earlier in October). Google *is* the interface to the Web. If we keep the pressure up, Adobe finds that they are closely associated with this case by anyone performing a websearch on the topic. This requires PR spin from them. I say twist the screws. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20011130/95464236/attachment.pgp From sean at thefreevoice.org Fri Nov 30 22:14:09 2001 From: sean at thefreevoice.org (sean) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:25 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Interesting site: The Free Voice Message-ID: <200112010614.fB16E9917444@host17.the-web-host.com> Hello free-sklyarov list: Your friend sean considered our site The Free Voice interesting and wanted to send it to you. Site name: The Free Voice Welcome to The Free Voice Site URL: http://thefreevoice.orgyoursite.com From wiljan at pobox.com Fri Nov 30 19:58:37 2001 From: wiljan at pobox.com (Will Janoschka) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:25 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Adobe mud Message-ID: <200112010659.AAA000.36@cressida.nereid.ar-digit.net> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:18:48 Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com said: > If we keep the pressure up, Adobe finds that they are closely associated > with this case by anyone performing a websearch on the topic. This > requires PR spin from them. I say twist the screws. Here Here, but which screws to twist? Consider that by now that the Dmitry case has the ears of adults at the Doj. Adobe imported AEBPR, without a FBI sting warrarnt, (else we would have heard of it), then demonstrated, in front of federal law enforcement officers, that it would "circumvent". This is a criminal violation of the DMCA. The federal law enforcement officers did not arrest the officers or employes of Adobe as was their duty, but instead arrested Dmitry, over whom they had no authority. This really has to be most embarrassing to the adults at the Doj who hope that the persons on this list do not notice. Guess what. "twist the screws" indeed "time to get out the impact wrenches" -will- ------Meddle not in affairs of dragons, Thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.