From rms at computerbytesman.com Mon Dec 2 20:17:17 2002 From: rms at computerbytesman.com (Richard M. Smith) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:59 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FW: FatWallet fights back against DMCA claim Message-ID: <004f01c29a82$dddf2550$6901a8c0@rms2> FYI: --- Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:03:22 -0800 From: "Deirdre Mulligan" To: declan@well.com Subject: FatWallet fights back Declan -- I thought this would be of interest to your readers. As you know FatWallet received DMCA takedown notices from several major retail chains requesting that it remove sales prices effective during their Day After Thanksgiving Sales. FatWallet reluctantly removed the posts to avoid liability. Today, Megan Gray and the Samuelson Clinic on behalf of FatWallet sent letters to the retailers contesting their frivolous copyright assertions and demanding payment, under Section 512(f) of the DMCA, for all damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by FatWallet in addressing the knowing and material misrepresentations of copyright protection. In addition, FatWallet has demanded that Wal-Mart withdraw their pending subpoena, under Section 512(h) of the DMCA, for identifying information on the individual who posted Wal-Mart sales information. If Wal-Mart does not withdraw FatWallet will seek to quash it in federal court. Press release here: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/cenpro/samuelson/news/pressrelease.pdf -- Deirdre K. Mulligan Acting Clinical Prof. and Director Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy clinic Boalt Hall University of California 346 North Addition Berkeley, CA 94720-7200 v 510.642.0499 f 510.643.4625 dmulligan@law.berkeley.edu http://www.samuelsonclinic.org From _ath_ at mail.ru Tue Dec 3 04:57:28 2002 From: _ath_ at mail.ru (Ilya V. Vasilyev) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:59 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Pictures of FreeSklyarov protest in Russian press. References: <003201c29564$fddc80f0$6401a8c0@rms2> Message-ID: <001a01c29acb$8b2e4860$0201a8c0@dragon> Hi, All! In the latest weekly (December, N49(448)) magazine "TV-Park" (circ.320,400) I have found two photoes from FreeSklyarov actions: 1. Los-Vegas (DEF CON?) protest with five good signs (FREE DMITRY SKLYAROV with Dmitry photo, DROP THE CHARGE, nice woman with "ARE MIRRORS ILLEGAL TOO?",..) 2. Moscow protest! Three of us, with CD-ROMS and good cyrillic slogan "Mind Freedom = Code Freedom;" There are also photoes from Johnny-Mnemonic, The Net, SwordFish and so on.. Sorry, have no scanner to publish in the Net. :( -- -- -- Ilya V. Vasilyev Civil Hackers' School Moscow Center, +7(095) 963-3916 http://hscool.ugin.ru/ http://spryg.zork.net/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard M. Smith" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 7:00 PM Subject: [free-sklyarov] Straining digital copyright law, junior paper exposes protection flaws in CDs > http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2002/11/21/news/6433.shtml > > Straining digital copyright law, junior paper exposes protection flaws > in CDs > > By JOSHUA TAUBERER > Princetonian Senior Writer > > > Photo by Gabriel Fossati > As senior computer science major Alex Halderman '03 was presenting > his junior paper to a room of scientists Monday, he was thinking about > his future career. Being sued by the music industry was further from his > mind. > > Halderman said he could possibly be sued for violating the Digital > Millennium Copyright Act by presenting his spring JP at the ACM > Conference on Computer & Communication Security in Washington. > > Halderman's paper explains how some companies have protected CDs > from being copied by computers. > > Concern over a DMCA lawsuit until now has been reserved for just > some of the University's faculty, notably computer science professor > Edward Felten. > > But what separates Halderman even from the professors - in the > unlikely event that he is sued - is that the University might provide > him with legal defense, Halderman said. > > "I've been given assurances that the University would help me if I > were sued for breaking the DMCA," he said. This would be an > unprecedented and controversial move for the University if it were to > happen. > > The DMCA prohibits circumvention of copy-protection technologies, > such as encryption and digital watermarking. The copy-protection system > that Halderman examined is an exploit of existing flaws in computer > software. > > Because those technologies constitute a major focus area in computer > science, some say the DMCA prohibits legitimate academic research. > > "That makes the DMCA problematic for universities and other > institutions," Wilson School professor Christopher Eisgruber said in an > email. > > The DMCA is the same law that put peer-to-peer file sharing programs > - such as Napster, Gnutell and Kazaa - on the judicial radar. > > Also as a result of the DMCA, the University's radio station WPRB > will face higher royalties for webcasting. > > Halderman - a 'Prince' associate photo editor - said he would have > written his JP differently if there were no DMCA. > > In the past, to show the weaknesses in a security system, one would > write a program to break it. "That would be a proof," he said. > > But since the DMCA was passed in 1998, creating such a proof can be > illegal. > > Instead, Halderman said he was careful to explain why the CDs' > copy-protection system is inherently weak, without providing a recipe > for circumventing it. > > In 2001 Felten received a letter from the music industry allegedly > threatening a DMCA lawsuit in response to research he and others had > done. > > The threatening letter never became a lawsuit. But following > Felten's troubles, the University faculty voted to establish a committee > on threats to academic freedom by legal intimidation, chair of the > committee and physics professor Edward Groth said in an email. > > Groth said the committee will be finalizing a report to the dean of > the faculty's office next month. > > The University has provided indemnification - legal defense - for > students and faculty in the past, when they were performing a certain > function for the University, such as serving on the Honor Committee, > General Counsel Peter McDonough said. > > Indemnification was originally designed only to protect the highest > officers of the University from suits related to their roles, he said. > > Protecting researchers for the sake of research is more than just > rare, he added. "It is unheard of." > > McDonough's office recommends cases of indemnification to the > president, who holds the authority of granting indemnification. > > "Once you get indemnification and once the University controls your > defense, all of the sudden the decisions . . . are not necessarily the > individuals," he said. > > McDonough added that he would not want to see his office become the > de facto clearinghouse for research papers. > > If his office were to deny a researcher recommendation for > indemnification, McDonough said, then some might see the office as > censoring the student or faculty member. > > Groth said, "Technology has completely changed the landscape." > > The DMCA was created to prevent technology from making copyrights > moot. But the law itself is unusual. > > Halderman's JP adviser, Professor Andrew Appel '81, said the DMCA > gives "a hook on which to hang a reasonably credible threat" - even if > that threat would be unlikely to hold up in court. > > "One has to explicitly be prepared to deal with the possibility of > these threats of lawsuits," he said. > > Without a team of defense lawyers at a researcher's disposal, facing > a threat may not be feasible. Some researchers might be forced to choose > a less risky path by not doing the research at all. > > Halderman called that the "chilling effect" of the DMCA. Though > Halderman said it is unlikely that he would be sued, he said he plans to > continue his research, which could cause more conflict with the act. > > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov From rms at computerbytesman.com Tue Dec 3 06:37:01 2002 From: rms at computerbytesman.com (Richard M. Smith) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:59 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FATWALLET WANTS REFUND ON DMCA COSTS Message-ID: <009401c29ad9$715dd230$6a01a8c0@rms2> FATWALLET WANTS REFUND ON DMCA COSTS FatWallet, the consumer price site that reluctantly removed pricing indicating retailers' after Thanksgiving sales, has sent letters to those same retailers contesting their assertions of copyright over the prices found in their sale circulars. FatWallet is demanding payments for all damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred in addressing the copyright protection claims. Release at http://www.law.berkeley.edu/cenpro/samuelson/news/pressrelease.pdf From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Tue Dec 3 17:39:25 2002 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:59 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] AP Wire | 12/03/2002 | Digital copyright trial begins in Silicon Valley Message-ID: <1831129259.20021203173925@elcomsoft.com> http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/4657589.htm Posted on Tue, Dec. 03, 2002 Digital copyright trial begins in Silicon Valley BOB PORTERFIELD Associated Press SAN JOSE - Federal prosecutors told a jury here Tuesday they would prove a Russian company and one of its young programmers knew they were willfully violating a controversial new American copyright law when they marketed a program permitting users to "crack" software produced by San Jose-based Adobe Systems. "They were selling a burglar tool for software to make a profit," Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott H. Frewing told jurors in his opening remarks, "They did it for money." However, defense attorney Joseph Burton, of San Francisco, said his client never intended its product to be used for illegal purposes and suggested Adobe urged the government to file criminal charges attempt to protect its own revenues from a developing eBook market. "Elcomsoft believed its product to be legal because it was intended to allow some flexibility in use of eBooks by their legitimate owners," Burton said "Adobe believed they were dealing with a pirate company." Burton said Elcomsoft's program would only work for people who had legitimately purchased an eBook. Only five copies were sold in the United States during the 10 days the software was offered for sale and it was never used to make illegal copies, he said. In fact, said Burton, the company has other products it sells to American customers ranging from Fortune 500 companies to law enforcement agencies. One of those products is a password recovery program that is used to extract encrypted passwords. For the government, the case against Elcomsoft Co. Ltd., a Moscow-based software company, is the first criminal prosecution under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law passed with strong support from Silicon Valley companies trying to protect their lucrative software franchises. Elcomsoft, it's CEO Alex Katalov and programmer Dmitry Sklyarov were charged with selling software that allows users to disable security features in the eBook reader software made by Adobe and used to access digital publications like novels and nonfiction works. Adobe's software allows publishers to sell books online in formats that, depending upon "permissions" established by the publisher, prohibit the content from being copied, printed or transferred. The eBook reader is based on Adobe's popular Acrobat software and its unique portable document format - or pdf - files used by thousands of companies and individuals to digitize and transmit documents by e-mail and other means. The Elcomsoft product, called the Advanced eBook Processor Program, is based upon an algorithm developed by Sklyarov that allows the removal of publisher-imposed usage restrictions. Elcomsoft says its program simply lets users make backup copies or transfer content to other devices, something permitted under the "fair use" concept of copyright law. Although such programs are legal in Russia, they were outlawed by the DMCA. When Elcomsoft began selling its product on the Internet, Adobe complained to the FBI. Sklyarov was arrested after speaking at a Los Vegas hacker convention in July 2001. He spent several weeks in jail before being freed on $50,000 bail and eventually allowed to return home. Charges against Sklyarov, who will be a government witness, will be dropped once the case is completed, according to prosecutors. Thomas Diaz, a Boston based senior engineering manager in Adobe's Acrobat engineer group and the prosecution's first witness, testified he became concerned about copyright infringement issues when a colleague told him about the Russian software. "It was an advertised product for purchase," said Diaz, "a security threat we hadn't anticipated. We were concerned because it was being offered as a commercial product with anti-reverse engineering requirements in its licensing agreement. The Elcomsoft product has one narrow function - to remove permissions." Diaz, who founded Glassbook, a company that initially developed the eBook reader and was acquired by Adobe two years ago, said Adobe "started working on countermeasures for the Elcomsoft tool immediately" by changing some of the internal code. Diaz claimed Adobe did not attempt to reverse engineer the Elcomsoft product it purchased because the end-user license prohibited dismantling the software. But, Diaz said Adobe did provide the FBI with a laptop computer on which the company had tested the Elcomsoft program. On cross examination, Diaz said one of Adobe's main fears was the fact that instead of actually cracking encryption that protected various features of the eBook reader, the Elcomsoft product instead would find the electronic "key" to unlock the coded Adobe security features and move that key into its own software in which users could open the eBooks. Although the government is continuing with the case, Adobe has seemingly withdrawn its support of the prosecution. However, Adobe senior corporate counsel Ray Campbell is monitoring the trial for what he told U. S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte were purposes of protecting his company's trade secrets. From rmarian at linuxmail.org Thu Dec 5 02:03:32 2002 From: rmarian at linuxmail.org (Rares Marian) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:59 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] dmitry speech from fundraiser and protesters in San Fran vid Message-ID: <20021205100332.30043.qmail@linuxmail.org> Hi, Here's a site Marcia Wilbur (DMCA author and formerly DMCASUCKS.org webmaster) is putting together for those users with more "passive" tastes. http://www.public.asu.edu/~mwilbur/494/home1.html It includes pics and video of Dmitry's speech at the FSF/EFF fundraiser in San Fran last year. This site also includes video of Lessig, RMS on ebooks and of the protest march.She claims to have video of RMS and Perens, more Lessig and RMS video and protest video. She also has video of Robin Gross (EFF) discussing DMCA. She's looking for feedback and ideas of what else to include on the site! So feel free to email her at aicra@electroniclaw.org with ideas, feedback. -- ______________________________________________ http://www.linuxmail.org/ Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr Powered by Outblaze From rms at computerbytesman.com Thu Dec 5 06:31:52 2002 From: rms at computerbytesman.com (Richard M. Smith) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:59 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] RANDOM HOUSE AND ROSETTA BOOKS SETTLE EBOOK SUIT Message-ID: <006d01c29c6b$0da42490$6901a8c0@rms2> http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/4665343.ht m Random House has settled a lawsuit against e-book publisher RosettaBooks, which was selling digital versions of Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle" and seven other popular titles. Under the terms of the settlement, RosettaBooks will continue publishing the disputed works and will collaborate with Random House on additional books. The settlement leaves unresolved the issue of whether authors or publishers control e-rights to books when the contract has no specific language about the electronic format. From crawford at goingware.com Thu Dec 5 19:10:09 2002 From: crawford at goingware.com (Michael D. Crawford) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:59 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] "Is This the America I Love?" at Kuro5hin Message-ID: <3DF01511.5060505@goingware.com> Friends, You may be interested to read my essay "Is This the America I Love?" which just got posted to the front page of the community website http://www.kuro5hin.org/ The full article and followup discussion are at: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/12/5/63852/8390 I wrote the essay and posted it to my own website over a year ago, but I submitted it to Kuro5hin early this morning because I felt that more people would have an opportunity to read it there than might ever stumble across it at my own homepage. Kuro5hin also allows for followup discussions, which is something I'm not presently able to do at my own site. Note that my copyright notice on the essay permits verbatim copying and faithful foreign language translations. Please forward this mail to anyone you think might benefit from reading it. Ever Faithful, Michael D. Crawford GoingWare Inc. - Expert Software Development and Consulting http://www.goingware.com/ crawford@goingware.com Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow. From schoen at loyalty.org Thu Dec 5 23:23:13 2002 From: schoen at loyalty.org (Seth David Schoen) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:59 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] U.S. v. Elcomsoft: Prosecution rests Message-ID: <20021206072313.GH16873@zork.net> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=569&ncid=738&e=1&u=/nm/20021206/tc_nm/tech_copyright_dc I haven't made it to the trial in person, unfortunately. I've been too busy commenting to the FCC on the broadcast flag issue. -- Seth David Schoen | Reading is a right, not a feature! http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | -- Kathryn Myronuk http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | From jays at panix.com Thu Dec 5 23:39:44 2002 From: jays at panix.com (Jay Sulzberger) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:59 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] U.S. v. Elcomsoft: Prosecution rests In-Reply-To: <20021206072313.GH16873@zork.net> References: <20021206072313.GH16873@zork.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Seth David Schoen wrote: > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=569&ncid=738&e=1&u=/nm/20021206/tc_nm/tech_copyright_dc > > I haven't made it to the trial in person, unfortunately. I've been > too busy commenting to the FCC on the broadcast flag issue. > > -- > Seth David Schoen | Reading is a right, not a feature! > http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | -- Kathryn Myronuk > http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | Folk of the List! There is still one day to get comments in. The Broadcast Flag Mandate is the most instant threat to free software and the right of private ownership of computers. http://www.lxny.org/announce/2002/FCC.6.December.2002.html oo--JS. From schoen at loyalty.org Thu Dec 5 23:47:41 2002 From: schoen at loyalty.org (Seth David Schoen) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:59 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] U.S. v. Elcomsoft: Prosecution rests In-Reply-To: References: <20021206072313.GH16873@zork.net> Message-ID: <20021206074741.GL16873@zork.net> Jay Sulzberger writes: > Folk of the List! > > There is still one day to get comments in. The Broadcast Flag Mandate is > the most instant threat to free software and the right of private ownership > of computers. > > http://www.lxny.org/announce/2002/FCC.6.December.2002.html Thanks, Jay. We also have some material on this at http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/archives/000234.html#000234 I would encourage people who are not familiar with the issue to base their comments on an existing sample letter (there are now several) or to become familiar by reading several sources. Some fraction of the individual comments are making irrelevant or incorrect statements, and that will undermine the credibility of individual commenters. (If a lot of people say something which is a misconception, MPAA can say in its reply comments that all these consumers have been misled and actually have nothing to worry about.) I have a minor correction to the LXNY article. The filing deadline is 7:00p for paper-filed comments and midnight for electronic comments via ECFS. You can confirm this at http://wireless.fcc.gov/csinfo/comments.html -- Seth David Schoen | Reading is a right, not a feature! http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | -- Kathryn Myronuk http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | From jays at panix.com Fri Dec 6 00:36:56 2002 From: jays at panix.com (Jay Sulzberger) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:59 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] U.S. v. Elcomsoft: Prosecution rests In-Reply-To: <20021206074741.GL16873@zork.net> References: <20021206072313.GH16873@zork.net> <20021206074741.GL16873@zork.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Jay Sulzberger writes: > > > Folk of the List! > > > > There is still one day to get comments in. The Broadcast Flag Mandate is > > the most instant threat to free software and the right of private ownership > > of computers. > > > > http://www.lxny.org/announce/2002/FCC.6.December.2002.html > > Thanks, Jay. > > We also have some material on this at > > http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/archives/000234.html#000234 > > I would encourage people who are not familiar with the issue to base > their comments on an existing sample letter (there are now several) or > to become familiar by reading several sources. Some fraction of the > individual comments are making irrelevant or incorrect statements, and > that will undermine the credibility of individual commenters. (If a > lot of people say something which is a misconception, MPAA can say in > its reply comments that all these consumers have been misled and > actually have nothing to worry about.) > > I have a minor correction to the LXNY article. The filing deadline is > 7:00p for paper-filed comments and midnight for electronic comments > via ECFS. You can confirm this at > > http://wireless.fcc.gov/csinfo/comments.html > > -- > Seth David Schoen | Reading is a right, not a feature! > http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | -- Kathryn Myronuk > http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | Thanks, Seth, and thanks, and thanks again for your work and the work of the EFF! oo--JS. From rms at computerbytesman.com Thu Dec 12 14:33:56 2002 From: rms at computerbytesman.com (Richard M. Smith) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:59 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Elcomsoft case is now in the jury's hands Message-ID: <000f01c2a22e$8e9ca0e0$6401a8c0@rms2> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=528&u=/ap/20021212/ap_o n_hi_te/russian_programmer&printer=1Russian Software Copyright Case Watched By BOB PORTERFIELD, Associated Press Writer SAN JOSE, Calif. - A federal jury began deliberating Thursday on the fate of a Russian software company accused of violating the controversial 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites). In closing arguments, prosecutor Scott H. Frewing said Moscow-based Elcomsoft Co. Ltd. should follow copyright rules just like American corporations. He brought up Enron, WorldCom and other corporate miscreants. The company is charged with marketing software the government contends was designed to crack the security codes of Adobe Systems Inc.'s electronic book publishing software so users could print, copy or distribute books they had downloaded. Such software is legal in Russia, but the 1998 copyright act prohibits the distribution of any product that circumvents security features of digital media. Elcomsoft's software was available in the United States until Adobe complained to federal authorities last year. If convicted, Elcomsoft could be fined more than $2 million. Joseph M. Burton, a San Francisco lawyer representing Elcomsoft and its president, Alex Katalov, characterized the case as a dispute between Elcomsoft and Adobe. He argued there was no intent to violate the copyright act because his clients believed their product was legal. The case became a cause celebre last year when Elcomsoft programmer Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested after attending a Las Vegas hacker convention. Sklyarov spent several weeks in jail before the government agreed to drop charges against him in exchange for his testimony at Elcomsoft's trial. From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Thu Dec 12 15:45:56 2002 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:00 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Mayday Mayday Mayday - NZ DMCA Looms! Message-ID: <3DF91FB4.E49441E4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Forwarded from C-FIT Content Control Outreach list) -------- Original Message -------- Date: 13 Dec 2002 12:13:57 +1300 From: David McNab To: C-FIT_Release_Community@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Hi all, Forgive the alarming subject of this message, but I feel it appropriate under the circumstances. New Zealand is gearing up to enact its own version of the oppressive DMCA, and is now accepting public submissions. Submissions from overseas will have the ability to influence the outcome here, if: * You can demonstrate yourself to be in a qualified position to comment, and * You can demonstrate the adverse and often unintended effects that the DMCA is having in the USA The position paper can be read at: > http://www.med.govt.nz/buslt/int_prop/digital/position/ It's probably a good idea to analyse the similarities and differences from the USA version of the DMCA. I ask that all people with active interest and involvement in protecting users' rights, including fair use, freedom of expression and freedom of innovation, read this paper and make submissions to the New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development. New Zealand's incumbent government prides itself on being highly consultative, so you'll have the ability to tip the scales in favour of the consumer and the private citizen. The more New Zealand can be swayed to a less oppressive position, the more force there'll be towards efforts to repeal/mitigate the DMCA in the USA, because NZ can then be cited as a positive example.. So it's actually in *your* interest, in the USA and other countries, to make a submission. Submissions must be received before Friday, February 21, 2003. Please don't delay unduly - it's easy to blink twice and discover that the date has already passed. Snail Mail is probably best, sent to the following address: Digital Technology and the Copyright Act 1994 Attention: Victoria Pearson Regulatory and Competition Policy Branch Ministry of Economic Development PO Box 1473 WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND Email submissions are also accepted - victoria.perason@med.govt.nz Thanking you in advance for your efforts. Warm regards David C-FIT Content Control Outreach Discussion List List Parent: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org C-FIT Home: http://RealMeasures.dyndns.org/C-FIT To Subscribe/Unsubscribe: ------------------------------------------------------------ Send "[Un]Subscribe C-FIT_Release_Community" To Listserv@RealMeasures.dyndns.org From rms at computerbytesman.com Tue Dec 17 10:47:36 2002 From: rms at computerbytesman.com (Richard M. Smith) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:00 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty Message-ID: <000201c2a5fc$95c2d2f0$6401a8c0@rms2> ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty By Lisa M. Bowman Staff Writer, CNET News.com December 17, 2002, 10:22 AM PT http://news.com.com/2100-1023-978176.html SAN JOSE, Calif.--A jury on Tuesday found a Russian software company not guilty of criminal copyright charges for producing a program that can crack antipiracy protections on electronic books. The case against ElcomSoft is considered a crucial test of the criminal provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a controversial law designed to extend copyright protections into the digital age. The company faced four charges related to directly designing and marketing software that could be used to crack eBook copyright protections, plus an additional charge related to conspiring to do so. The case was launched in July 2001, when ElcomSoft employee Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested during the Las Vegas Defcon hackers conference after giving a speech about his company's software, which is designed to crack protections on Adobe Systems' eBooks. Prosecutors, working with Adobe, said ElcomSoft's Advanced eBook Processor violated the DMCA. But after protests from programmers, Adobe backed away from its support of the case against Sklyarov, and prosecutors set aside charges against Sklyarov in exchange for his testimony in the case against his employers. During the trial, which lasted two weeks, the government said ElcomSoft created a tool for burglars and characterized the company as an affiliate of hacker networks that was determined to sell the Advanced eBook Processor despite its questionable legality. U.S. Assistant Attorney Scott Frewing charged that company representatives knew all along that they were violating the DMCA by designing and offering the software to the public. The defense, in turn, argued that ElcomSoft acted responsibly, removing the software from the Web just days after learning of Adobe's concerns. Both Sklyarov and ElcomSoft president Alexander Katalov testified that they did not think their software was illicit and did not intend for it to be used on books that had not been legally purchased. Under cross- examination by the defense, an Adobe engineer acknowledged that his company did not find any illegal eBooks even after hiring two firms to search the Web for unauthorized copies. Because both the defense and prosecution agreed that ElcomSoft sold software designed to crack copyright protections, the case essentially turned on ElcomSoft's state of mind during the period it was offering the software. After much wrangling among attorneys over the definition of the word "willful," the judge told jurors that in order to find the company guilty, they must agree that company representatives knew their actions were illegal and intended to violate the law. Merely offering a product that could violate copyrights was not enough to warrant a conviction, the jury instructions said. From krburger at burger-family.org Tue Dec 17 11:04:00 2002 From: krburger at burger-family.org (Kenneth Burger) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:00 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty References: <000201c2a5fc$95c2d2f0$6401a8c0@rms2> Message-ID: <000701c2a5ff$0f3e9b80$1d00a8c0@ids1205011> I don't know whether to be overjoyed or disappointed. This means that the case cannot go further up the chain and the law cannot be overturned. On the other hand, it's good to see that for once, in the US, justice was done, even if it was slowly, and cost a foreign programmer his freedom for some time. I think the feds should be forced to pay him reparations for wrongful imprisonment, but that's one way our justice system sucks I guess. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard M. Smith" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:47 PM Subject: [free-sklyarov] ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty > ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty > By Lisa M. Bowman > Staff Writer, CNET News.com > December 17, 2002, 10:22 AM PT > > http://news.com.com/2100-1023-978176.html > > SAN JOSE, Calif.--A jury on Tuesday found a Russian software company not > guilty of criminal copyright charges for producing a program that can > crack antipiracy protections on electronic books. > > The case against ElcomSoft is considered a crucial test of the criminal > provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a > controversial law designed to extend copyright protections into the > digital age. > > The company faced four charges related to directly designing and > marketing software that could be used to crack eBook copyright > protections, plus an additional charge related to conspiring to do so. > > The case was launched in July 2001, when ElcomSoft employee Dmitry > Sklyarov was arrested during the Las Vegas Defcon hackers conference > after giving a speech about his company's software, which is designed to > crack protections on Adobe Systems' eBooks. Prosecutors, working with > Adobe, said ElcomSoft's Advanced eBook Processor violated the DMCA. > > But after protests from programmers, Adobe backed away from its support > of the case against Sklyarov, and prosecutors set aside charges against > Sklyarov in exchange for his testimony in the case against his > employers. > > During the trial, which lasted two weeks, the government said ElcomSoft > created a tool for burglars and characterized the company as an > affiliate of hacker networks that was determined to sell the Advanced > eBook Processor despite its questionable legality. U.S. Assistant > Attorney Scott Frewing charged that company representatives knew all > along that they were violating the DMCA by designing and offering the > software to the public. > > The defense, in turn, argued that ElcomSoft acted responsibly, removing > the software from the Web just days after learning of Adobe's concerns. > Both Sklyarov and ElcomSoft president Alexander Katalov testified that > they did not think their software was illicit and did not intend for it > to be used on books that had not been legally purchased. Under cross- > examination by the defense, an Adobe engineer acknowledged that his > company did not find any illegal eBooks even after hiring two firms to > search the Web for unauthorized copies. > > Because both the defense and prosecution agreed that ElcomSoft sold > software designed to crack copyright protections, the case essentially > turned on ElcomSoft's state of mind during the period it was offering > the software. > > After much wrangling among attorneys over the definition of the word > "willful," the judge told jurors that in order to find the company > guilty, they must agree that company representatives knew their actions > were illegal and intended to violate the law. Merely offering a product > that could violate copyrights was not enough to warrant a conviction, > the jury instructions said. > > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > From rms at computerbytesman.com Tue Dec 17 11:15:20 2002 From: rms at computerbytesman.com (Richard M. Smith) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:00 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty In-Reply-To: <000701c2a5ff$0f3e9b80$1d00a8c0@ids1205011> Message-ID: <001201c2a600$a42da1e0$6401a8c0@rms2> I think we got the best possible outcoming in this trial. Overturning the DMCA will have to wait for another day. There might be the possibility of a civil lawsuit against Adobe. I've already asked Adobe if they plan to apologize to Dmitry and his family for his time in jail. It's never too late for Adobe to do the right thing here. Richard -----Original Message----- From: free-sklyarov-admin@zork.net [mailto:free-sklyarov-admin@zork.net] On Behalf Of Kenneth Burger Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 2:04 PM To: free-sklyarov@zork.net Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty I don't know whether to be overjoyed or disappointed. This means that the case cannot go further up the chain and the law cannot be overturned. On the other hand, it's good to see that for once, in the US, justice was done, even if it was slowly, and cost a foreign programmer his freedom for some time. I think the feds should be forced to pay him reparations for wrongful imprisonment, but that's one way our justice system sucks I guess. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard M. Smith" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:47 PM Subject: [free-sklyarov] ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty > ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty > By Lisa M. Bowman > Staff Writer, CNET News.com > December 17, 2002, 10:22 AM PT > > http://news.com.com/2100-1023-978176.html > > SAN JOSE, Calif.--A jury on Tuesday found a Russian software company not > guilty of criminal copyright charges for producing a program that can > crack antipiracy protections on electronic books. > > The case against ElcomSoft is considered a crucial test of the criminal > provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a > controversial law designed to extend copyright protections into the > digital age. > > The company faced four charges related to directly designing and > marketing software that could be used to crack eBook copyright > protections, plus an additional charge related to conspiring to do so. > > The case was launched in July 2001, when ElcomSoft employee Dmitry > Sklyarov was arrested during the Las Vegas Defcon hackers conference > after giving a speech about his company's software, which is designed to > crack protections on Adobe Systems' eBooks. Prosecutors, working with > Adobe, said ElcomSoft's Advanced eBook Processor violated the DMCA. > > But after protests from programmers, Adobe backed away from its support > of the case against Sklyarov, and prosecutors set aside charges against > Sklyarov in exchange for his testimony in the case against his > employers. > > During the trial, which lasted two weeks, the government said ElcomSoft > created a tool for burglars and characterized the company as an > affiliate of hacker networks that was determined to sell the Advanced > eBook Processor despite its questionable legality. U.S. Assistant > Attorney Scott Frewing charged that company representatives knew all > along that they were violating the DMCA by designing and offering the > software to the public. > > The defense, in turn, argued that ElcomSoft acted responsibly, removing > the software from the Web just days after learning of Adobe's concerns. > Both Sklyarov and ElcomSoft president Alexander Katalov testified that > they did not think their software was illicit and did not intend for it > to be used on books that had not been legally purchased. Under cross- > examination by the defense, an Adobe engineer acknowledged that his > company did not find any illegal eBooks even after hiring two firms to > search the Web for unauthorized copies. > > Because both the defense and prosecution agreed that ElcomSoft sold > software designed to crack copyright protections, the case essentially > turned on ElcomSoft's state of mind during the period it was offering > the software. > > After much wrangling among attorneys over the definition of the word > "willful," the judge told jurors that in order to find the company > guilty, they must agree that company representatives knew their actions > were illegal and intended to violate the law. Merely offering a product > that could violate copyrights was not enough to warrant a conviction, > the jury instructions said. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 chandler at yomogi.or.jp Tue Dec 17 11:30:35 2002 From: chandler at yomogi.or.jp (chandler) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:00 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty In-Reply-To: <000201c2a5fc$95c2d2f0$6401a8c0@rms2> References: <000201c2a5fc$95c2d2f0$6401a8c0@rms2> Message-ID: <3DFF7B5BC8.1069CHANDLER@mail.yomogi.or.jp> Yes, this is an odd business. The judgement seems to be just woolliness (I suppose that's Legal Mind for you) [snip] > U.S. Assistant > Attorney Scott Frewing charged that company representatives knew all > along that they were violating the DMCA by designing and offering the > software to the public. Interesting thought: the programmers and management in a Russian company in Russia are assumed to spend their time thinking about US law. Whatever the US government might think, I don't believe any other government has ever acknowledged this supposed pan-galactic jurisdiction for one particular country. Or is it assumed that in the same way, American programmers spend lots of their time boning up on Egyptian, Venezuelan, and Japanese law? > ... turned on ElcomSoft's state of mind during the period it was offering > the software. I should think anyone who is thinking constantly about all the laws of the hundred whateveritis countries that belong to the United Nations would have a pretty complicated state of mind, actually. Brian Chandler ---------------- geo://Sano.Japan.Planet_3 Jigsaw puzzles from Japan at: http://imaginatorium.org/shop/ From schoen at loyalty.org Tue Dec 17 11:28:11 2002 From: schoen at loyalty.org (Seth David Schoen) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:00 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty In-Reply-To: <000701c2a5ff$0f3e9b80$1d00a8c0@ids1205011> References: <000201c2a5fc$95c2d2f0$6401a8c0@rms2> <000701c2a5ff$0f3e9b80$1d00a8c0@ids1205011> Message-ID: <20021217192811.GZ22676@zork.net> If I remember correctly, it's 17 months to the day after Dmitry was originally arrested. -- Seth David Schoen | Reading is a right, not a feature! http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | -- Kathryn Myronuk http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | From rms at computerbytesman.com Tue Dec 17 12:01:08 2002 From: rms at computerbytesman.com (Richard M. Smith) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:00 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] More extensive AP story Message-ID: <003b01c2a607$0a89f370$6401a8c0@rms2> Nice sound bite from the jury foreman: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=520&u=/ap/20021217/ap_w o_en_bu/na_fin_com_us_russian_programmer_2&printer=1 Russian software firm found innocent in closely watched copyright trial; use of e-books at issue 22 minutes ago By BOB PORTERFIELD, Associated Press Writer SAN JOSE, California - A federal jury Tuesday acquitted a Russian software firm that was charged with digital copyright violation for creating a program that cracks the security features of Adobe Systems' electronic book software. The case against Elcomsoft Ltd. was the most high-profile under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites), which many in the technology industry consider unduly restrictive. If it had been convicted, Elcomsoft could have been fined $2 million, with additional penalties if intent was determined. The young Elcomsoft programmer who developed the software, Dmitry Sklyarov, became a lightning rod for hacker rights after his arrest last year after attending a hacker convention in Las Vegas. Sklyarov, an assistant professor at Moscow Technical University, spent several weeks in jail before the government agreed to drop charges against him in exchange for his testimony at Elcomsoft's trial. Prosecutors had tried to prove that the Elcomsoft software was illegal because it permitted owners to print, copy or otherwise distribute copyright material, encouraging piracy. Prosecutor Scott H. Frewing told jurors that the Russians "were selling a burglar tool for software to make a profit." He quickly left the courtroom after the verdict and had no immediate comment. The defense argued that the program merely enabled owners of Adobe eBook Reader software to make copies of e-books for personal use. If an owner makes a backup copy of an e-book or transfers it to another device he owns, they argued, that is permitted under the "fair use" concept of copyright law. Jury foreman Dennis Strader said the argument made a big impact on the jurors, who asked U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte to clarify the "fair use" definition shortly after deliberations began. "Under the eBook formats, you have no rights at all, and the jury had trouble with that concept," said Strader. The copyright act under which Elcomsoft was tried prohibits the production and distribution of any product that circumvents security features of digital media. Defense attorney Joe Burton said the government failed to prove Elcomsoft intended to violate the law, but predicted more prosecutions. "I don't see it as throwing a blanket on DMCA," Burton said, referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. "It will take another case to test that." Elcomsoft president Alex Katalov said the program is no longer being sold in Russia or anywhere else. From danny at spesh.com Tue Dec 17 12:42:38 2002 From: danny at spesh.com (Danny O'Brien) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:00 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty In-Reply-To: <3DFF7B5BC8.1069CHANDLER@mail.yomogi.or.jp> References: <000201c2a5fc$95c2d2f0$6401a8c0@rms2> <3DFF7B5BC8.1069CHANDLER@mail.yomogi.or.jp> Message-ID: <20021217204238.GI21996@spesh.com> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 04:30:35AM +0900, chandler wrote: > Yes, this is an odd business. The judgement seems to be just woolliness > (I suppose that's Legal Mind for you) > > > [snip] > > U.S. Assistant > > Attorney Scott Frewing charged that company representatives knew all > > along that they were violating the DMCA by designing and offering the > > software to the public. > > Interesting thought: the programmers and management in a Russian company > in Russia are assumed to spend their time thinking about US law. > Whatever the US government might think, I don't believe any other > government has ever acknowledged this supposed pan-galactic jurisdiction > for one particular country. Or is it assumed that in the same way, > American programmers spend lots of their time boning up on Egyptian, > Venezuelan, and Japanese law? > Well, to be fair, most countries assume this kind of omnipotence, at least theoretically, if they deem part of the "crime" to occur within their jurisdiction. So, for instance, I can sue you for libel in the UK if I'm you're seen to be defaming me in Britain - no matter where I published my comment, or where you live. It's not just a US thing. > > > ... turned on ElcomSoft's state of mind during the period it was offering > > the software. > > I should think anyone who is thinking constantly about all the laws of > the hundred whateveritis countries that belong to the United Nations > would have a pretty complicated state of mind, actually. > Don't worry, they're streamlining this. The Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements, in particular, is an ongoing process to make all country's laws applicable everywhere. Oh yes, be very afraid. http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/whatyoushouldknow.html d. > Brian Chandler > ---------------- > geo://Sano.Japan.Planet_3 > Jigsaw puzzles from Japan at: > http://imaginatorium.org/shop/ > > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > From proclus at gnu-darwin.org Tue Dec 17 14:22:18 2002 From: proclus at gnu-darwin.org (proclus@gnu-darwin.org) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:01 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty Message-ID: <20021217221205.3A4D1192B7@gnu-darwin.org> The Slashdot coverage is terrible. Here is a better link, thanks Richard!. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=520&u=/ap/20021217/ap_wo_en_bu/na_fin_com_us_russian_programmer_2&printer=1 It should be noted that the government is saying that they failed to show intent, a self-serving smokescreen argument at best, which is unfortunately spreading via the media (I already heard it on NPR). The reality appears to be that the jury supported fair use for ebook users against the DMCA. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 229 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20021217/c9692413/attachment.pgp From rms at computerbytesman.com Tue Dec 17 14:48:50 2002 From: rms at computerbytesman.com (Richard M. Smith) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:02 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] IDG: Verdict Delivers Blow to the DMCA Message-ID: <000c01c2a61e$78183fc0$6401a8c0@rms2> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1093&u=/pcworld/2002121 7/tc_pcworld/108040&printer=1 Verdict Delivers Blow to the DMCA 1 hour, 47 minutes ago Matt Berger, IDG News Service A jury has delivered a verdict of not guilty in the closely watched trial against a Russian software company charged with violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites). ElcomSoft was absolved on all counts on Tuesday. The firm faced four charges of violating the DMCA by selling a product it developed called Adobe EBook Processor. That software allowed users to disable security settings on Adobe Systems' e-book files so they could be printed, shared, and viewed on various computing devices. It was also cleared of a fifth charge for conspiring to sell the product. The case is seen as a pivotal one in the battle between content producers and the technology industry, as it was the first to test the DMCA in a criminal court. That legislation was enacted by Congress in 1998, and was designed to prevent the distribution of technology that can by used to hack copyrighted materials. Significant Setback? The jury decision will likely have an effect on future cases involving the DMCA, according to Evan Cox, a partner in the law firm of Covington & Burling, in San Francisco. "I think this is a pretty significant setback for criminal enforcement of the DMCA," Cox said. "[Congress] thought they were creating penalties for people who do exactly what ElcomSoft did--deliberately make products that circumvent copyright protections. "At a minimum it's going to be a headache for other prosecutors [of the DMCA],"he said. One determining factor in the jury's decision, according to Cox, was the jury instructions set by U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte, who presided over the case. He instructed the jury to find ElcomSoft guilty if it agreed that the company developed and sold its product with knowledge and intent of violating the DMCA. As Cox explained it, the government would have had a better shot at a guilty verdict if it had to prove only that ElcomSoft's intent was to defeat the copyright protection technology. "In this case I think you have to assume that a big factor in the acquittal was the instruction that the judge gave on willfulness,"Cox said."It's hard to imagine how a prosecutor wins on that point without a signed confession by the defendant." Throughout the case, ElcomSoft executives and its employee Dmitry Sklyarov argued that they did not build the product with the intent of breaking the law. Rather, it provided legitimate EBook owners"fair use"of their digital content. Additionally, Sklyarov said that his development of the technology was part of research into the security of Adobe's copyright protection technology. In Russia, the software is not illegal, but it came under the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts when ElcomSoft began selling its product in June 2001. Mixed Precedent The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California was arguing the case for the government. It had attempted to convince the jury that ElcomSoft officials willfully knew they were breaking the law. "When you are bringing good cases under new statutes sometimes you are going to lose, and that's what happened here,"U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan said in a statement after the verdict."We accept the jury's verdict. While disappointed, we are also pleased that the judge upheld the constitutionality of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the jurisdiction of the United States to bring these cases." Fred von Lohmann, senior intellectual property attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which advocated in favor of ElcomSoft, lauded the decision. He did, however, agree that technology companies should not view the jury decision as a shield from future prosecution. "It doesn't create a direct legal precedent because juries aren't required to write down the reasons for their decisions, but I think it sends a very important message to prosecutors,"he said."Juries aren't eager to throw software companies and software engineers in jail." The government brought its case against ElcomSoft and Sklyarov in July 2001 following a presentation by Sklyarov on the software at the Def Con hacker conference in Las Vegas. Criminal charges against Sklyarov were dropped in exchange for his testimony during the trial. ElcomSoft faced as much as $2.5 million in fines if convicted. From schoen at loyalty.org Tue Dec 17 16:35:35 2002 From: schoen at loyalty.org (Seth David Schoen) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:02 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] BSA statement Message-ID: <20021218003535.GF22676@zork.net> http://www.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases//2002-12-17.1398.phtml -- Seth David Schoen | Reading is a right, not a feature! http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | -- Kathryn Myronuk http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | From kfoss at planetpdf.com Tue Dec 17 21:39:30 2002 From: kfoss at planetpdf.com (Kurt Foss) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:02 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] BBC article on ElcomSoft verdict links to porn site Message-ID: On the BBC's coverage of the ElcomSoft verdict: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2585661.stm the site has an external link allegedly to the U.S. Attorney's Office Web site ... but it currently actually goes to a porn site! -- ____________________ Kurt Foss - Editor _______________________ Planet PDF - A world of Acrobat/PDF news, tips, tools and forums | mailto:kfoss@planetpdf.com | http://www.planetpdf.com | | http://www.pdfstore.com | http://forum.planetpdf.com | From crawford at goingware.com Wed Dec 18 01:14:15 2002 From: crawford at goingware.com (Michael D. Crawford) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:02 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] BBC article on Elcomsoft verdict links to porn site Message-ID: <3E003C67.4010503@goingware.com> I thought this was pretty funny so I mentioned first in my diary at http://www.kuro5hin.org/ and then got the nerve to submit a "Mindless Link Propagation" story about it to Kuro5hin. My story has to survive K5's moderation process before it can be openly published. It's not doing too well so far. Here's how you can help: If you're a logged-in Kuro5hin member, click the following link to vote on my submission: http://www.kuro5hin.org/displaystory/2002/12/18/32034/225 There is a voting popup menu at the end of the story. You can choose to vote to put it on the front page, just display it in its section, or vote against publishing the article at all. The above link won't work unless you're logged in as a Kuro5hin member, at least not until the article is approved by the moderators. If you're not a logged in K5 member, you can join at http://www.kuro5hin.org/ There is a registration link next to the fields where you normall enter your username and password. Humourously yours, Michael D. Crawford GoingWare Inc. - Expert Software Development and Consulting http://www.goingware.com/ crawford@goingware.com Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow. From sethf at sethf.com Wed Dec 18 01:32:28 2002 From: sethf at sethf.com (Seth Finkelstein) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:03 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] BBC article on ElcomSoft verdict links to porn site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20021218093228.GB30928@sethf.com> On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 11:39:30PM -0600, Kurt Foss wrote: > On the BBC's coverage of the ElcomSoft verdict: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2585661.stm > > the site has an external link allegedly to the U.S. Attorney's Office > Web site ... > > but it currently actually goes to a porn site! A quick Google search shows usaondca.com USED TO BE a U.S. Attorney's Office Web site. It's been, umm, "repurposed" (Sigh ... it's not the first such domain example I've seen ...) -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com http://sethf.com Anticensorware Investigations - http://sethf.com/anticensorware/ Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ List sub/unsub: http://sethf.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/infothought From jstyre at jstyre.com Wed Dec 18 05:56:49 2002 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:03 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] BBC article on ElcomSoft verdict links to porn site In-Reply-To: <20021218093228.GB30928@sethf.com> References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021218055516.00b2b0c8@earthlink.net> Sadly, the link now has been fixed. At 04:32 AM 12/18/2002 -0500, Seth Finkelstein wrote: >On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 11:39:30PM -0600, Kurt Foss wrote: > > On the BBC's coverage of the ElcomSoft verdict: > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2585661.stm > > > > the site has an external link allegedly to the U.S. Attorney's Office > > Web site ... > > > > but it currently actually goes to a porn site! > > A quick Google search shows usaondca.com USED TO BE a >U.S. Attorney's Office Web site. It's been, umm, "repurposed" >(Sigh ... it's not the first such domain example I've seen ...) -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net From rms at computerbytesman.com Wed Dec 18 17:05:36 2002 From: rms at computerbytesman.com (Richard M. Smith) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:03 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Daily transcripts from the Elcomsoft trial Message-ID: <001c01c2a6fa$bd392970$6801a8c0@rms2> http://cryptome.org/usa-v-elcom-dt.htm From schoen at loyalty.org Thu Dec 19 08:35:25 2002 From: schoen at loyalty.org (Seth David Schoen) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:03 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] party? Message-ID: <20021219163525.GD16956@zork.net> I'm exploring the possibility of having a party to celebrate the Elcomsoft verdict in San Franisco on Saturday. Can I get a sense of how many people would be interested in coming? -- Seth David Schoen | Reading is a right, not a feature! http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | -- Kathryn Myronuk http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | From andrea at gravitt.org Thu Dec 19 09:01:25 2002 From: andrea at gravitt.org (Feorlen) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:04 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] party? In-Reply-To: <20021219163525.GD16956@zork.net> Message-ID: <822AA31A-1373-11D7-AE90-00039396E3E8@gravitt.org> It would depend on what time. I'm helping someone move during the day. Andrea New and Improved! Now in California! From dmarti at zgp.org Thu Dec 19 09:02:25 2002 From: dmarti at zgp.org (Don Marti) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:04 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] party? In-Reply-To: <20021219163525.GD16956@zork.net> References: <20021219163525.GD16956@zork.net> Message-ID: <20021219170225.GB22203@zgp.org> begin Seth David Schoen quotation of Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 08:35:25AM -0800: > I'm exploring the possibility of having a party to celebrate the > Elcomsoft verdict in San Franisco on Saturday. Can I get a sense of > how many people would be interested in coming? This party is our solemn duty as part of the "declare victory" strategy and to kick off the next round of DMCA reform. If it happens, and I'm not there, you can assume I'm dead. The Elcomsoft verdict is much better than DMCA-mongers are trying to make it sound. This verdict clearly represents a giant glowing neon Jury Nullification of the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA. A blanket anticircumvention law, no matter how logical it may seem to Bruce Lehman, is so unjust that if you pick 12 random citizens and present it to them, they'll reject it. We The People say to the copyright cartels: this goes too far. Yes, it's not technically a "jury nullification" because the jury had that whole "willful" thing to hang its verdict on. But what does it say about a law when it's so counterintuitive and unjust that it's reasonable not to believe in it? Not convinced? This should convince you: my hopeful interpretation -- that the jury rejected the DMCA -- is exactly the opposite of what DMCA proponents want you to think. They're desperately, frantically spinning it to say that the acquital is merely the result of fine lawyering by Joseph Burton, and an ever-so-exciting spat over the meaning of "willful", but fair use was never an issue. And innovators had better watch out because future DMCA prosecutions can come at any time. They're wrong. The acquital is something we can take to Congress. "Look, people don't think laws against circumvention should apply to non-infringers. Please reform the DMCA to reflect this." Even if the next round of the Lofgren and/or Boucher reform bill fails, it gets the "DMCA suppresses free speech and fair use" meme in front of the next group of potential jurors. Anti-DMCA advocacy makes a difference. Making "the DMCA" into "the controversial DMCA" was worth the sunburn and sore throats. We can't stop now. We must party. Seth, I'm with you. -- Don Marti http://zgp.org/~dmarti dmarti@zgp.org KG6INA From rmeagher at brightmail.com Thu Dec 19 09:26:48 2002 From: rmeagher at brightmail.com (Rich Meagher) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:04 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] party? Message-ID: <76FEC1B69C6DD511B64900B0D079BA7D04C78FE8@msexchange.brightmail.com> Depending on the time and place, I'd be interested. -----Original Message----- From: Seth David Schoen [mailto:schoen@loyalty.org] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 8:35 AM To: free-sklyarov@zork.net Subject: [free-sklyarov] party? I'm exploring the possibility of having a party to celebrate the Elcomsoft verdict in San Franisco on Saturday. Can I get a sense of how many people would be interested in coming? -- Seth David Schoen | Reading is a right, not a feature! http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | -- Kathryn Myronuk http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | _______________________________________________ free-sklyarov mailing list free-sklyarov@zork.net http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov From ilya at theIlya.com Thu Dec 19 09:41:11 2002 From: ilya at theIlya.com (ilya@theIlya.com) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:05 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] party? In-Reply-To: <76FEC1B69C6DD511B64900B0D079BA7D04C78FE8@msexchange.brightmail.com> References: <76FEC1B69C6DD511B64900B0D079BA7D04C78FE8@msexchange.brightmail.com> Message-ID: <20021219174111.GF26579@gateway.total-knowledge.com> Me too (possibly) Ilya. On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 09:26:48AM -0800, Rich Meagher wrote: > Depending on the time and place, I'd be interested. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Seth David Schoen [mailto:schoen@loyalty.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 8:35 AM > To: free-sklyarov@zork.net > Subject: [free-sklyarov] party? > > > I'm exploring the possibility of having a party to celebrate the > Elcomsoft verdict in San Franisco on Saturday. Can I get a sense of > how many people would be interested in coming? > > -- > Seth David Schoen | Reading is a right, not a feature! > http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | -- Kathryn Myronuk > http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20021219/a69b8220/attachment.pgp From dmarti at zgp.org Thu Dec 19 10:51:01 2002 From: dmarti at zgp.org (Don Marti) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:05 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] party? In-Reply-To: <20021219174111.GF26579@gateway.total-knowledge.com> References: <76FEC1B69C6DD511B64900B0D079BA7D04C78FE8@msexchange.brightmail.com> <20021219174111.GF26579@gateway.total-knowledge.com> Message-ID: <20021219185101.GO22203@zgp.org> Jury Rejects DMCA. Freedom Lovers Party. On Saturday, December 21, 2002, freedom-loving people will have a party in San Francisco to celebrate a total acquital in the first criminal prosecution under the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The "not guilty" verdict in the trial of Russian software company Elcomsoft clearly shows that Americans do not accept attacks on legitimate fair use in the name of copyright. Elcomsoft made no illegal copies of anything. Their software simply provided for converting proprietary, restricted "e-books" to open formats. To quote the jury foreman, Dennis Strader, "Under the eBook formats, you have no rights at all, and the jury had trouble with that concept." We The People have spoken: It's time to bring moderation and sanity back to copyright law. Who: Freedom-loving people (that's you) What: Party to celebrate the Elcomsoft verdict Where: Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA When: Saturday, December 21, 2002, 8:00 PM Why: DMCA reform isn't just about computer programmers any more. 12 randomly chosen American people say the DMCA has gone too far. Contact: Don Marti 650-967-1840 From krburger at burger-family.org Thu Dec 19 11:05:03 2002 From: krburger at burger-family.org (Kenneth Burger) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:05 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] party? References: <76FEC1B69C6DD511B64900B0D079BA7D04C78FE8@msexchange.brightmail.com> <20021219174111.GF26579@gateway.total-knowledge.com> <20021219185101.GO22203@zgp.org> Message-ID: <001401c2a791$8929a6e0$1d00a8c0@ids1205011> Sorry, I won't be able to make it, my plane is currently down for maintenance and there's no way I'm booking a commercial flight on last-minute notice and paying $450. Then again, fuel costs for flying a Cessna from Michigan to Florida and back might actually not be that much less. Still, I wish you all well and hope everyone has a good time. Sincerely, Kenneth Burger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Marti" To: Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] party? > Jury Rejects DMCA. Freedom Lovers Party. > > On Saturday, December 21, 2002, freedom-loving > people will have a party in San Francisco to > celebrate a total acquital in the first criminal > prosecution under the controversial Digital > Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). > > The "not guilty" verdict in the trial of Russian > software company Elcomsoft clearly shows that > Americans do not accept attacks on legitimate fair > use in the name of copyright. Elcomsoft made no > illegal copies of anything. Their software simply > provided for converting proprietary, restricted > "e-books" to open formats. > > To quote the jury foreman, Dennis Strader, "Under > the eBook formats, you have no rights at all, > and the jury had trouble with that concept." > > We The People have spoken: It's time to bring > moderation and sanity back to copyright law. > > Who: Freedom-loving people (that's you) > > What: Party to celebrate the Elcomsoft verdict > > Where: Electronic Frontier Foundation > 454 Shotwell Street > San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA > > When: Saturday, December 21, 2002, 8:00 PM > > Why: DMCA reform isn't just about computer > programmers any more. 12 randomly chosen > American people say the DMCA has gone > too far. > > Contact: Don Marti > 650-967-1840 > > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > From ed at hintz.org Thu Dec 19 11:05:49 2002 From: ed at hintz.org (Edmund A. Hintz) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:05 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] party? In-Reply-To: <20021219163525.GD16956@zork.net> References: <20021219163525.GD16956@zork.net> Message-ID: <20021219190549.17212@127.0.0.1:2525> On 12/19/02, schoen@loyalty.org thus spake: >I'm exploring the possibility of having a party to celebrate the >Elcomsoft verdict in San Franisco on Saturday. Can I get a sense of >how many people would be interested in coming? Put me down as another time/place/circumstances vacillator... Regards, Ed Hintz ed@hintz.org From proclus at gnu-darwin.org Thu Dec 19 11:17:58 2002 From: proclus at gnu-darwin.org (proclus@gnu-darwin.org) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:06 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] party? In-Reply-To: <20021219170225.GB22203@zgp.org> Message-ID: <20021219190735.B8A1D19AC4@gnu-darwin.org> Wish I could be there. Have fun. Celebrate! Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ On 19 Dec, Don Marti wrote: > begin Seth David Schoen quotation of Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 08:35:25AM -0800: > >> I'm exploring the possibility of having a party to celebrate the >> Elcomsoft verdict in San Franisco on Saturday. Can I get a sense of >> how many people would be interested in coming? > > This party is our solemn duty as part of the "declare victory" > strategy and to kick off the next round of DMCA reform. If it > happens, and I'm not there, you can assume I'm dead. > > The Elcomsoft verdict is much better than DMCA-mongers are trying to > make it sound. > > This verdict clearly represents a giant glowing neon Jury > Nullification of the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA. A > blanket anticircumvention law, no matter how logical it may seem > to Bruce Lehman, is so unjust that if you pick 12 random citizens > and present it to them, they'll reject it. > > We The People say to the copyright cartels: this goes too far. > Yes, it's not technically a "jury nullification" because the jury > had that whole "willful" thing to hang its verdict on. But what > does it say about a law when it's so counterintuitive and unjust > that it's reasonable not to believe in it? > > Not convinced? This should convince you: my hopeful interpretation -- > that the jury rejected the DMCA -- is exactly the opposite of what > DMCA proponents want you to think. They're desperately, frantically > spinning it to say that the acquital is merely the result of fine > lawyering by Joseph Burton, and an ever-so-exciting spat over > the meaning of "willful", but fair use was never an issue. And > innovators had better watch out because future DMCA prosecutions > can come at any time. > > They're wrong. > > The acquital is something we can take to Congress. "Look, people don't > think laws against circumvention should apply to non-infringers. Please > reform the DMCA to reflect this." > > Even if the next round of the Lofgren and/or Boucher reform bill > fails, it gets the "DMCA suppresses free speech and fair use" > meme in front of the next group of potential jurors. > > Anti-DMCA advocacy makes a difference. Making "the DMCA" into "the > controversial DMCA" was worth the sunburn and sore throats. We can't > stop now. > > We must party. > > Seth, I'm with you. > -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 229 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20021219/30c8538d/attachment.pgp From rms at computerbytesman.com Fri Dec 20 06:54:14 2002 From: rms at computerbytesman.com (Richard M. Smith) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:06 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Studios Sue Maker of DVD Copy Software Message-ID: <000501c2a837$a9d28910$6501a8c0@rms2> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=528&u=/ap/20021220/ap_o n_hi_te/dvd_suit&printer=1 Studios Sue Maker of DVD Copy Software Fri Dec 20,12:01 AM ET Add Technology - AP to My Yahoo! By RON HARRIS, Associated Press Writer SAN FRANCISCO - Hollywood fought back against a maker of DVD movie copying software, countersuing the company for allegedly trafficking the tools of digital theft. Seven major motion picture studios filed a counterclaim Thursday in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California against 321 Studios, makers of DVD Copy Plus and DVD X Copy. The software sold at stores nationwide allows the user to make a copy of a DVD to a blank CD or DVD by defeating the copy protections encoded onto the original movie disc. The studios contend that is an illegal activity. The movie studios say the software contains the power of digital piracy, and asked the court to enjoin 321 Studios from selling it or distributing it. The studios also seek damages from any proceeds derived from the company's software sales. "It's like somebody selling a digital crowbar. It's like breaking into the castle if you will," said Patricia Benson, an attorney for the studios. When 321 Studios' first product - DVD Copy Plus - came out and the company sought a declaration that it did not violate federal law, Hollywood shrugged and the studios simply sought to have the case dismissed, stating there was no "case or controversy." DVD Copy Plus copies DVD movies to blank CDs, though in a compressed video format. But with the advent of 321 Studios latest offering - DVD X Copy - the stakes are a little higher. The software allows the user to burn an exact copy of the original DVD to a blank DVD, without any diminished quality or compression. "When the second product came out and 321 Studios started marketing it very aggressively, the landscape kind of changed," Benson said. The studios still hold that both 321 Studios products violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites), which makes illegal the distribution of any technology or device that allows the user to circumvent copy protections put in place by the content owner. Elizabeth Sedlock, a spokeswoman for 321 Studios, says the company has sold about 150,000 copies of both software titles combined. The software is not illegal, she said. 321 Studios is based in Chesterfield, Mo. The studios that filed the joint counterclaim are Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., Tri-Star Pictures, Inc., Time Warner Entertainment Company LP, Universal City Studios, Inc., and The Saul Zaentz Company. http://www.mpaa.org htpp://www.321studios.com From rms at computerbytesman.com Fri Dec 20 06:55:27 2002 From: rms at computerbytesman.com (Richard M. Smith) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:06 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Sklyarov reflects on DMCA travails Message-ID: <000601c2a837$d5487b40$6501a8c0@rms2> http://news.com.com/2100-1023-978497.html?tag=fd_lede1_hed Sklyarov reflects on DMCA travails By Lisa M. Bowman Staff Writer, CNET News.com December 20, 2002, 4:00 AM PT SAN MATEO, Calif.--Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov thinks it was unfair of prosecutors to play his videotaped deposition at the ElcomSoft trial rather than calling him to the stand. But after a legal saga that's included a surprise arrest outside his Las Vegas hotel room, three weeks in jail, and visa tangles that almost prevented him from coming back to the United States for trial, Sklyarov has decided not to worry about situations over which he has no control. "During my life I'm trying not to spend too much time trying to find what means for me things I cannot change," Sklyarov, 27, said in his first interview since testifying in the criminal copyright case of ElcomSoft, his employer. ...... From sacraver at EE.Princeton.EDU Fri Dec 20 09:28:28 2002 From: sacraver at EE.Princeton.EDU (Xcott Craver) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:06 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Studios Sue Maker of DVD Copy Software In-Reply-To: <000501c2a837$a9d28910$6501a8c0@rms2> Message-ID: On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Richard M. Smith wrote: > When 321 Studios' first product - DVD Copy Plus - came out and the > company sought a declaration that it did not violate federal law, > Hollywood shrugged and the studios simply sought to have the case > dismissed, stating there was no "case or controversy." Heh, heard that one before. And honestly, what's with the crowbar analogies? The software should be outlawed because it's "like a digital crowbar." Yeah, imagine what the world would be like if you could just walk into a store and buy a crowbar. Do these people have their own planet? -X From krburger at burger-family.org Fri Dec 20 11:43:28 2002 From: krburger at burger-family.org (Kenneth Burger) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:07 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Studios Sue Maker of DVD Copy Software References: Message-ID: <000701c2a860$11db32a0$1d00a8c0@ids1205011> I can just see the defense attorney saying the exact same thing. Then a month later Senator Hollings mysteriously introduces a bill into congress that requires all new purchasers of crowbars to give their name, address, telephone number, social security number, and sexual preference to the store they're buying it from, and all the current owners of crowbars to register theirs with the local law enforcement agency. We already know that the RIAA and MPAA have Hollings in their pockets anyways. I wonder what far reaching effects this could have on existing CD copying software. After all, it's all because of them that there is so much pirated software out there isn't it? I can just see all the lawsuits flying at Roxio and Ahead now for inflated losses of revenue. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Xcott Craver" To: Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Studios Sue Maker of DVD Copy Software > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Richard M. Smith wrote: > > > When 321 Studios' first product - DVD Copy Plus - came out and the > > company sought a declaration that it did not violate federal law, > > Hollywood shrugged and the studios simply sought to have the case > > dismissed, stating there was no "case or controversy." > > Heh, heard that one before. > > And honestly, what's with the crowbar analogies? > The software should be outlawed because it's "like a digital > crowbar." Yeah, imagine what the world would be like if you could > just walk into a store and buy a crowbar. > > Do these people have their own planet? > -X > > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov > From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Dec 20 15:43:48 2002 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:07 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Andy Oram: What Do "Intellectual Property" "Owners" Want? Message-ID: <3E03AB34.977996D9@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Forwarded from Interesting People list. Article text pasted below. -- Seth) -------- Original Message -------- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:41:54 -0500 From: Dave Farber To: ip ------ Forwarded Message From: Andy Oram Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:14:29 -0500 (EST) To: dave@farber.net Subject: What Do Intellectual Property Owners Want? (I don't usually bug you with two pieces in one day, but this happened to be prepared for publication, and it's relevant to current events.) > http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/ar/ip_owners.html ... Why copyright? Why did this obscure branch of "intellectual property," this private concern of entertainment and software firms, become the most pressing public policy area of the computer field? [The Sklyarov and Jonansen cases] make us suspect that the multiple tentacles of the "intellectual property" leviathan bears barbed hooks on each end--and that some of the critical issues in modern democracy and discourse may be snagged by them. ... (This article is also currently in print at The American Reporter, http://american-reporter.com/) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Oram O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. email: andyo@oreilly.com Editor 90 Sherman Street voice: 617-499-7479 Cambridge, MA 02140-3233 fax: 617-661-1116 USA http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/ Stories at Web site: The Bug in the Seven Modules Code the Obscure The Disconnected ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org To unsubscribe or update your address, click http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ---- > http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/ar/ip_owners.html WHAT DO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OWNERS WANT? by Andy Oram American Reporter Correspondent CAMBRIDGE, MASS.?Researchers around the world were stunned. A promising young graduate student, Dmitri Sklyarov, came to the United States to deliver his insights about weaknesses in a commercial product to a well-known computing conference. A few hours after his presentation, he was in jail. I don?t want to belabor this case because it has already been aired in the press a great deal, particularly since last Tuesday?s startling ruling in favor of the Sklyarov?s employer, ElcomSoft, by a jury that was clearly repulsed by the idea of punishing people who make software with legitimate uses. But Sklyarov and ElcomSoft start off this article because his arrest marked a milestone in modern life?a fulfillment of the old prediction that computer hackers used to utter as a joke: "Write a program, go to jail." It?s still scandalous that Sklyarov spent time in jail for his non-crime. Sklyarov suffered all this for working on a software product that was perfectly legal in his own country, Russia, but was called a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the United States. This software allowed people using the popular Adobe eBook software?so long as they had a legitimate license to the software?to make copies of documents. The Russian software had many legitimate applications under the "fair use" doctrine, but could also be used to make unauthorized copies?and that brought down the vindictive hand of the U.S. Justice Department, which insisted on bringing the case to trial even after Adobe dropped their charges. Nor was Sklyarov alone. A fifteen-year-old Norwegian, Jon Johansen, was briefly arrested on flimsy charges related to his supposed role in creating DeCSS software, a program that retrieves movies from their encrypted format on DVD. Johansen?s case was in court last week, but I have not heard any news of the outcome. Many others have been sued for similar causes, although they have not faced criminal proceedings. Civil libertarians and analysts in the computer field have long expected legal tensions about computer and Internet use to come to a head, but they expected it to happen over something overtly political: transmission of censored content, or software that could compromise computer security, or something related to cryptography. (Computer cryptography expert Phil Zimmermann was under investigation by the FBI for a while, but he was never indicted.) Why copyright? Why did this obscure branch of "intellectual property," this private concern of entertainment and software firms, become the most pressing public policy area of the computer field? These incidents make us suspect that the multiple tentacles of the "intellectual property" leviathan bears barbed hooks on each end?and that some of the critical issues in modern democracy and discourse may be snagged by them. Consider an expose of some powerful institution such as the Church of Scientology. Try to cite their religious training materials?and they?ll get you for copyright infringement. Reveal hidden flaws in a product?s design? You?ve illegally circulated trade secrets. Put up a web site to criticize a company? Trademark violation. The past few years have seen uses of all these stratagems to suppress debate and dissent, as well as other cases stretching intellectual property laws to protect the powerful. Indeed, any meaningful self-expression can be construed as trespassing on some right of an intellectual property owner. And that is the new censorship. The ruling class doesn?t care what scummy secrets you want to write about your sex life. But the moment you touch on anything concerning their power, they?ll find a way to put a stop to it. The first imperative of the new censorship is place limits on information; to let out just enough to serve the interests of its disseminators and no further. This is the premise of the computer field called Digital Rights Management (DRM). But the hardest thing in computing (hard enough to be considered formally insoluble) is to display something for the limited edification or entertainment of one person without allowing him to do more. If you want to digitally give a person a movie for just a day, or keep him from transferring it to a different playback device, or keep him friends from watching it after she does?you have one hell of a tough technical challenge. This pursuit has led large copyright holders, their hired hands in technology industries, and their minions in government on a wild goose chase. Here is the logical chain that DRM twists tighter and tighter: - Because you might copy content for some unauthorized purpose, the content must be cryptographically scrambled. And because cryptographic systems eventually get cracked, laws must be passed to prevent the sale and dissemination of software that can do the cracking. (This was the germ of the Sklyarov case, and the motivation behind the Johansen case even though the actual crime he was charge with was barely related). - Because the scrambled content is to be unscrambled only by those given authorization, each user must be given a digital identity?and thus comes to an end one?s right to read, listen, or watch in privacy. - Because you might disguise your identity to obtain unauthorized access, identity must be built right into the computer hardware?every piece of computer hardware ever sold. By this point, it should be obvious to any reasonable reader that the search for perfect copyright control will flounder. But powerful forces are still at it! A fine saga of their quest can be found in an article titled "Hollywood?s Legislative Agenda" by technology commentator Cory Doctorow. (You can find a number of other fascinating articles on related topics in the same online journal.) Is the goal of perfect control so sinister? Aren?t the copyright owners fighting for their very existence against the scourge of rampant commercial piracy, particularly in underdeveloped nations? No, the goal of DRM is precisely to hamper the individual user. One can no longer doubt that after a Disney representative says, "There is no right to fair use." (Quoted in Wired News.) And when the industry underlines the statement by using DRM to remove that right, along with the right of first sale and other hitherto unregulated uses. This means: - You will not make a back-up copy of a work, to preserve it in case the distributor will eventually go out of business and your current copy will wear out or be damaged. - You will not excerpt a bit of the work for review or educational purposes. - You will not play a work that pleases or disturbs you for your friends in order to get their reaction. For the social implications of this new regime, see my article "Never again to validate one?s experience" (http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/1022). Unlicensed copying on a commercial scale has been taking place since the spread of the printing press, and can be tracked down through conventional means. The people that the big copyright holders have in their sites now are you and me. But in this I am an optimist. First, the goal of perfect control cannot be achieved. People are used to their rights and will continue to find ways to do the everyday, reasonable things they?ve done. Large-scale outfits will break DRM systems and will provide alternative sources. There?s something funny about encryption and access control systems. Beneficent ones tend to work and malicious ones tend to fail. You see, these systems are so complex, so subtle, so fragilly based on multiple levels of mathematics understood by only a handful of people, that they must be developed through open review processes. All successful encryption systems?the ones we use to encrypt files, to order goods over the Web, to tunnel into corporate offices?have been developed that way. Open development does not guarantee correctness, of course. Some real clunkers have emerged from open processes; a recent well-known example is the system used to protect wireless LANs. But without exception, all closed systems are clunkers. The cracking effort at the basis of DeCSS, which allows every DVD in the world to be cracked, was almost trivial to figure out. The developers of the CSS, which was supposed to protect the DVDs, didn?t even try hard. Their design was amateurish and sloppy. The job of cracking CSS was even easier because one of the movie companies left its secret key on a DVD in plain text?the kind of bone-headed user error that is often the bane of access control systems. Why don?t DRM developers use open review to create their systems? One reason is that the process takes a long time; another is probably the urge to seek a competitive advantage through trade secrets. But the main reason, in my opinion, is that the security community wouldn?t cooperate. The people who best understand security and access control have an inborn aversion to the use of those systems to impede people?s rights. So perfect control will fail. That?s the first grounds for optimism. The second is that people will get bored of controlled content and will turn to open systems that are intrinsically more exciting and engrossing; see my article "Stop the Copying and Start a Media Revolution" (http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2002/03/08/media.html) The third is that the public fights back. The ElcomSoft case shows that the public can understand the issues and stand up for its rights when given a voice. Among the first cracks were a modest bill introduced by Representatives Rick Boucher and John Doolittle last October to force companies to label CDs encumbered with DRM controls. Civil liberties have always come up against the standard practices of entrenched forces as well as against the current law. The attempt of these forces to paint the battle as one of simple revenue streams and author?s rights must be rejected. The fight is a moral one, and the moral imperative lies with those who wish to examine, discuss, and criticize freely. Member, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Editor, O?Reilly & Associates From proclus at gnu-darwin.org Fri Dec 20 16:03:40 2002 From: proclus at gnu-darwin.org (proclus@gnu-darwin.org) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:07 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Andy Oram: What Do "Intellectual Property" "Own ers" Want? In-Reply-To: <3E03AB34.977996D9@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20021220235314.59E341A315@gnu-darwin.org> This looks great, except the title. How about what do _so-called_ intellectual property owners want. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ On 20 Dec, Seth Johnson wrote: > > (Forwarded from Interesting People list. Article text > pasted below. -- Seth) > > -------- Original Message -------- > Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:41:54 -0500 > From: Dave Farber > To: ip > > > ------ Forwarded Message > From: Andy Oram > Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:14:29 -0500 (EST) > To: dave@farber.net > Subject: What Do Intellectual Property Owners Want? > > (I don't usually bug you with two pieces in one day, but > this happened to be prepared for publication, and it's > relevant to current events.) > >> http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/ar/ip_owners.html > > ... > > Why copyright? Why did this obscure branch of "intellectual > property," this private concern of entertainment and > software firms, become the most pressing public policy area > of the computer field? > > [The Sklyarov and Jonansen cases] make us suspect that the > multiple tentacles of the "intellectual property" leviathan > bears barbed hooks on each end--and that some of the > critical issues in modern democracy and discourse may be > snagged by them. > > ... > > (This article is also currently in print at The American > Reporter, http://american-reporter.com/) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Andy Oram O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. email: > andyo@oreilly.com > Editor 90 Sherman Street voice: > 617-499-7479 > Cambridge, MA 02140-3233 fax: > 617-661-1116 > USA > http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/ > Stories at Web site: > The Bug in the Seven Modules Code the Obscure The > Disconnected > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > > ------------------------------------- > You are subscribed as seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org > To unsubscribe or update your address, click > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip > > Archives at: > http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ > > ---- > > >> http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/ar/ip_owners.html > > WHAT DO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OWNERS WANT? > > by Andy Oram > American Reporter Correspondent > > CAMBRIDGE, MASS.?Researchers around the world were > stunned. A promising young graduate student, Dmitri > Sklyarov, came to the United States to deliver his insights > about weaknesses in a commercial product to a well-known > computing conference. A few hours after his presentation, he > was in jail. > > I don?t want to belabor this case because it has already > been aired in the press a great deal, particularly since > last Tuesday?s startling ruling in favor of the Sklyarov?s > employer, ElcomSoft, by a jury that was clearly repulsed by > the idea of punishing people who make software with > legitimate uses. > > But Sklyarov and ElcomSoft start off this article because > his arrest marked a milestone in modern life?a fulfillment > of the old prediction that computer hackers used to utter as > a joke: "Write a program, go to jail." It?s still scandalous > that Sklyarov spent time in jail for his non-crime. > > Sklyarov suffered all this for working on a software > product that was perfectly legal in his own country, Russia, > but was called a violation of the Digital Millennium > Copyright Act in the United States. This software allowed > people using the popular Adobe eBook software?so long as > they had a legitimate license to the software?to make copies > of documents. The Russian software had many legitimate > applications under the "fair use" doctrine, but could also > be used to make unauthorized copies?and that brought down > the vindictive hand of the U.S. Justice Department, which > insisted on bringing the case to trial even after Adobe > dropped their charges. > > Nor was Sklyarov alone. A fifteen-year-old Norwegian, Jon > Johansen, was briefly arrested on flimsy charges related to > his supposed role in creating DeCSS software, a program that > retrieves movies from their encrypted format on DVD. > Johansen?s case was in court last week, but I have not heard > any news of the outcome. Many others have been sued for > similar causes, although they have not faced criminal > proceedings. > > Civil libertarians and analysts in the computer field have > long expected legal tensions about computer and Internet use > to come to a head, but they expected it to happen over > something overtly political: transmission of censored > content, or software that could compromise computer > security, or something related to cryptography. (Computer > cryptography expert Phil Zimmermann was under investigation > by the FBI for a while, but he was never indicted.) > > Why copyright? Why did this obscure branch of > "intellectual property," this private concern of > entertainment and software firms, become the most pressing > public policy area of the computer field? > > These incidents make us suspect that the multiple > tentacles of the "intellectual property" leviathan bears > barbed hooks on each end?and that some of the critical > issues in modern democracy and discourse may be snagged by > them. > > Consider an expose of some powerful institution such as > the Church of Scientology. Try to cite their religious > training materials?and they?ll get you for copyright > infringement. > > Reveal hidden flaws in a product?s design? You?ve > illegally circulated trade secrets. Put up a web site to > criticize a company? Trademark violation. > > The past few years have seen uses of all these stratagems > to suppress debate and dissent, as well as other cases > stretching intellectual property laws to protect the > powerful. Indeed, any meaningful self-expression can be > construed as trespassing on some right of an intellectual > property owner. > > And that is the new censorship. The ruling class doesn?t > care what scummy secrets you want to write about your sex > life. But the moment you touch on anything concerning their > power, they?ll find a way to put a stop to it. > > The first imperative of the new censorship is place limits > on information; to let out just enough to serve the > interests of its disseminators and no further. This is the > premise of the computer field called Digital Rights > Management (DRM). > > But the hardest thing in computing (hard enough to be > considered formally insoluble) is to display something for > the limited edification or entertainment of one person > without allowing him to do more. If you want to digitally > give a person a movie for just a day, or keep him from > transferring it to a different playback device, or keep him > friends from watching it after she does?you have one hell of > a tough technical challenge. > > This pursuit has led large copyright holders, their hired > hands in technology industries, and their minions in > government on a wild goose chase. Here is the logical chain > that DRM twists tighter and tighter: > > - Because you might copy content for some unauthorized > purpose, the content must be cryptographically scrambled. > And because cryptographic systems eventually get cracked, > laws must be passed to prevent the sale and dissemination of > software that can do the cracking. (This was the germ of the > Sklyarov case, and the motivation behind the Johansen case > even though the actual crime he was charge with was barely > related). > > - Because the scrambled content is to be unscrambled only > by those given authorization, each user must be given a > digital identity?and thus comes to an end one?s right to > read, listen, or watch in privacy. > > - Because you might disguise your identity to obtain > unauthorized access, identity must be built right into the > computer hardware?every piece of computer hardware ever > sold. > > By this point, it should be obvious to any reasonable > reader that the search for perfect copyright control will > flounder. But powerful forces are still at it! A fine saga > of their quest can be found in an article titled > "Hollywood?s Legislative Agenda" by technology commentator > Cory Doctorow. (You can find a number of other fascinating > articles on related topics in the same online journal.) > > Is the goal of perfect control so sinister? Aren?t the > copyright owners fighting for their very existence against > the scourge of rampant commercial piracy, particularly in > underdeveloped nations? > > No, the goal of DRM is precisely to hamper the individual > user. One can no longer doubt that after a Disney > representative says, "There is no right to fair use." > (Quoted in Wired News.) And when the industry underlines the > statement by using DRM to remove that right, along with the > right of first sale and other hitherto unregulated uses. > This means: > > - You will not make a back-up copy of a work, to preserve > it in case the distributor will eventually go out of > business and your current copy will wear out or be damaged. > > - You will not excerpt a bit of the work for review or > educational purposes. > > - You will not play a work that pleases or disturbs you > for your friends in order to get their reaction. > > For the social implications of this new regime, see my > article "Never again to validate one?s experience" > (http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/1022). > > Unlicensed copying on a commercial scale has been taking > place since the spread of the printing press, and can be > tracked down through conventional means. The people that the > big copyright holders have in their sites now are you and > me. > > But in this I am an optimist. First, the goal of perfect > control cannot be achieved. People are used to their rights > and will continue to find ways to do the everyday, > reasonable things they?ve done. Large-scale outfits will > break DRM systems and will provide alternative sources. > > There?s something funny about encryption and access > control systems. Beneficent ones tend to work and malicious > ones tend to fail. > > You see, these systems are so complex, so subtle, so > fragilly based on multiple levels of mathematics understood > by only a handful of people, that they must be developed > through open review processes. All successful encryption > systems?the ones we use to encrypt files, to order goods > over the Web, to tunnel into corporate offices?have been > developed that way. > > Open development does not guarantee correctness, of > course. Some real clunkers have emerged from open processes; > a recent well-known example is the system used to protect > wireless LANs. But without exception, all closed systems are > clunkers. > > The cracking effort at the basis of DeCSS, which allows > every DVD in the world to be cracked, was almost trivial to > figure out. The developers of the CSS, which was supposed to > protect the DVDs, didn?t even try hard. Their design was > amateurish and sloppy. The job of cracking CSS was even > easier because one of the movie companies left its secret > key on a DVD in plain text?the kind of bone-headed user > error that is often the bane of access control systems. > > Why don?t DRM developers use open review to create their > systems? One reason is that the process takes a long time; > another is probably the urge to seek a competitive advantage > through trade secrets. But the main reason, in my opinion, > is that the security community wouldn?t cooperate. The > people who best understand security and access control have > an inborn aversion to the use of those systems to impede > people?s rights. > > So perfect control will fail. That?s the first grounds for > optimism. > > The second is that people will get bored of controlled > content and will turn to open systems that are intrinsically > more exciting and engrossing; see my article "Stop the > Copying and Start a Media Revolution" > (http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2002/03/08/media.html) > > The third is that the public fights back. The ElcomSoft > case shows that the public can understand the issues and > stand up for its rights when given a voice. Among the first > cracks were a modest bill introduced by Representatives Rick > Boucher and John Doolittle last October to force companies > to label CDs encumbered with DRM controls. > > Civil liberties have always come up against the standard > practices of entrenched forces as well as against the > current law. The attempt of these forces to paint the battle > as one of simple revenue streams and author?s rights must be > rejected. The fight is a moral one, and the moral imperative > lies with those who wish to examine, discuss, and criticize > freely. > > > > Member, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility > Editor, O?Reilly & Associates > > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 229 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20021220/c2af81b7/attachment.pgp From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Sat Dec 21 21:53:20 2002 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:07 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] DMCA Comments to Library of Congress Message-ID: <3E055350.E98D178F@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Forwarded from DMCA Discussion list) -------- Original Message -------- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 20:26:22 -0800 From: "Jon O." To: dmca_discuss@lists.microshaft.org > http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/comments/index.html Comments on Rulemaking on Exemptions on Anticirumvention This page contains comments submitted as a part of a rulemaking on exemptions from prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works (read more details). Comments submitted between Nov. 19 and Dec. 18, 2002, are listed below. ... Critics Weigh In on Copyright Act http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,56963,00.html By Joanna Glasner | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 1 02:00 AM Dec. 21, 2002 PT A federal agency's request for commentary on a controversial digital copyright law drew a boatload of criticism from respondents who asked for new limitations on the far-reaching statute. The responses, published Friday by the U.S. Copyright Office, are the result of a month-long inquiry concerning sections of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. As part of a mandate to review sections of the statute every three years, the agency is looking into provisions that prohibit the use of tools that undo encryption protections on digital materials. ... _______________________________________________ ------------------------ http://www.anti-dmca.org ------------------------ DMCA_Discuss mailing list DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss From martinb at kemokid.com Mon Dec 23 08:41:31 2002 From: martinb at kemokid.com (Martin Baker) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:07 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Thing.net evicted from Internet (fwd) Message-ID: <20021223083748.P4662-100000@www.kemokid.com> The DMCA is now being used against parody; the charge here would seem to be trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. I'm very glad Sklyarov is now totally free, and Elcomsoft off the hook, but the baddies keep coming.... Martin --- RTMark Press wrote: > Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 01:14:57 -0500 > From: RTMark Press > Subject: THING.NET EVICTED FROM INTERNET > > December 23, 2002 > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > > Thing.net assistance page: https://secure.thing.net/backbone/ > Contact: mailto:thing-group@rtmark.com > > ACTIVIST NETWORK IN NY EVICTED FROM INTERNET BY DOW, VERIO > > Bowing to pressure from the Dow Chemical Corporation, the internet > company Verio has booted the activist-oriented Thing.net from the > Web. > > Internet service provider Thing.net has been the primary service > provider for activist and artist organizations in the New York area > for 10 years. > > On December 3, activists used a server housed by Thing.net to post > a > parody Dow press release on the eighteenth anniversary of the > disaster > in which 20,000 people died as a result of an accident at a Union > Carbide plant in Bhopal, India. (Union Carbide is now owned by > Dow.) > The deadpan statement, which many people took as real, explained > that > Dow could not accept responsibility for the disaster due to its > primary allegiance to its shareholders and to its bottom line. > > Dow was not amused, and sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act > (DMCA) > complaint to Verio, which immediately cut Thing.net off the > internet > for fifteen hours. A few days later, Verio announced that Thing.net > had 60 days to move to another provider before being shut down > permanently, unilaterally terminating Thing.net's 7-year-old > contract. > > Affected organizations include PS1/MOMA, Artforum, Nettime, > Tenant.net > (which assists renters facing eviction), and hundreds more. > > "Verio's actions are nothing short of outrageous," said Wolfgang > Staehle, Thing.net Executive Director. "They could have resolved > the > matter with the Dow parodists directly; instead they chose to shut > down our entire network. This self-appointed enforcement of the > DMCA > could have a serious chilling effect on free speech, and has > already > damaged our business." > > > RTMark, which publicizes corporate abuses of democracy, is housed > on > Thing.net. Please visit https://secure.thing.net/backbone/ to help > Thing.net survive Dow's and Verio's actions, and to develop a plan > to > avoid such problems in the future. > > # 30 # From dave at fen-net.de Tue Dec 24 12:12:53 2002 From: dave at fen-net.de (David Haworth) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:07 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Thing.net evicted from Internet (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20021223083748.P4662-100000@www.kemokid.com>; from martinb@kemokid.com on Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 08:41:31AM -0800 References: <20021223083748.P4662-100000@www.kemokid.com> Message-ID: <20021224211253.A869@fen-net.de> On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 08:41:31AM -0800, Martin Baker wrote: > The DMCA is now being used against parody; the charge here would seem to > be trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. Usual NAL disclaimer applies, but it seems to me that use of the DMCA takedown procedure requires a breach of copyright, or some related infringement (or alleged infringment). Trademark infringement doesn't count. Opinions, anyone? Dave PS Merry Christmas, Yuletide Greetings, or Happy Whatever-It-Is- That-You-Celebrate-At-This-Time-Of-Year. ;-) -- David Haworth dave@fen-net.de Baiersdorf, Germany. http://home.graffiti.net/pogue/ From rms at computerbytesman.com Tue Dec 24 13:09:52 2002 From: rms at computerbytesman.com (Richard M. Smith) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:12 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Elcomsoft poll results at InternetNews.com Message-ID: <003d01c2ab90$cd021020$6501a8c0@rms2> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 4696 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20021224/4f70d1d5/attachment.jpe From sethf at sethf.com Tue Dec 24 14:27:30 2002 From: sethf at sethf.com (Seth Finkelstein) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:12 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Thing.net evicted from Internet (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20021224211253.A869@fen-net.de> References: <20021223083748.P4662-100000@www.kemokid.com> <20021224211253.A869@fen-net.de> Message-ID: <20021224222730.GA8626@sethf.com> On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 09:12:53PM +0100, David Haworth wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 08:41:31AM -0800, Martin Baker wrote: > > The DMCA is now being used against parody; the charge here would seem to > > be trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. > > Usual NAL disclaimer applies, but it seems to me that use of the > DMCA takedown procedure requires a breach of copyright, or some > related infringement (or alleged infringment). > > Trademark infringement doesn't count. > > Opinions, anyone? I'm not a lawyer either, but http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2275a3c5.0212151422.1c172462%40posting.google.com "The site mimicked Dow's real site closely in design and content, but ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ contained some uncharacteristic honesty about such things as sustainable development and the Bhopal disaster, which departed from Dow's normal spin." There's the basis for the DMCA copyright claim. Site is now at: http://dow-chemical.va.com.au Parody can be a *defense* against copyright infringement. But a take-down notice is in practice, act first, defense later. > PS Merry Christmas, Yuletide Greetings, or Happy Whatever-It-Is- > That-You-Celebrate-At-This-Time-Of-Year. ;-) Same. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com http://sethf.com Anticensorware Investigations - http://sethf.com/anticensorware/ Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ List sub/unsub: http://sethf.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/infothought From rms at computerbytesman.com Tue Dec 31 07:50:24 2002 From: rms at computerbytesman.com (Richard M. Smith) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:10:12 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] DMCA: Dow What It Wants to Do Message-ID: <007f01c2b0e4$54e597c0$6501a8c0@rms2> http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,57011,00.html Digital Millennium Copyright Act charges may force an independent Internet service provider and its controversial clients offline next month. The Thing has provided Internet connectivity, technical support and Web design services to New York City artists and political activists for over a decade. But at the beginning of December, Wolfgang Staehle, owner and director of The Thing, was notified by his service provider, Verio, that The Thing's Internet connection would be severed on Feb. 28, 2003. Staehle said Verio is pulling the plug on The Thing due to charges that one of its clients violated the DMCA by posting a parody website mocking Dow Chemical company. Posted on Dec. 3, the parody site quickly came to the attention of Dow's lawyers, who contacted (PDF) Verio. Verio responded by shutting down The Thing's entire network, an action that affected hundreds of The Thing's clients, until the parody site was removed on Dec. 4. Shortly afterward, Staehle says Verio's lawyers informed him that his service would be permanently suspended at the end of next month. "I still can't believe it," Staehle said. "I love this city and this country, but I am terrified at the direction we seem to be headed in." Verio representatives were not immediately available for comment. ...