From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Fri Jan 4 05:03:33 2002 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:39 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Judge OKs FBI Keyboard Sniffing Message-ID: <13715986394.20020104160333@elcomsoft.com> Hello, http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,49455,00.html DMCA probably violates First Amendment, and it looks like Fourth Amendment also doesn't work anymore... What happens? Sincerely yours, Vladimir ElcomSoft Co.Ltd. http://www.elcomsoft.com mailto:vkatalov@elcomsoft.com From tompoe at renonevada.net Fri Jan 4 09:49:00 2002 From: tompoe at renonevada.net (tom poe) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:39 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Judge OKs FBI Keyboard Sniffing In-Reply-To: <13715986394.20020104160333@elcomsoft.com> References: <13715986394.20020104160333@elcomsoft.com> Message-ID: <02010409490000.16780@aether> On Friday 04 January 2002 05:03, Vladimir Katalov wrote: > Hello, > > http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,49455,00.html > > DMCA probably violates First Amendment, and it looks like Fourth > Amendment also doesn't work anymore... What happens? > > Sincerely yours, > Vladimir > > ElcomSoft Co.Ltd. > http://www.elcomsoft.com > mailto:vkatalov@elcomsoft.com Hi: Well, we watch, listen, and hope. Our governments around the world are scrambling to see who takes control of the future, and doing so in power struggles that have no interest in individual freedoms, using some kind of perverted rationale that when the smoke clears, the winner[s] will be able to create a "kinder, gentler" society for mankind. Of course, they will acknowledge that folks like us had to suffer, be harmed, but that's the price. Events like those surrounding Asscroft's announcement that inmates and attorneys no longer were permitted to communicate by phone, privately, because, in the name of preserving freedom, the government has to be able to catch terrorists, will continue, so we watch, listen, and hope. If the American Bar Association can step up, and use a model for resolving this one, then maybe we can translate that model to other issues, with some success. If they don't. Well, I guess we watch, listen, and hope. Tom From martinb at kemokid.com Fri Jan 4 10:57:07 2002 From: martinb at kemokid.com (Martin Baker) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:39 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Judge OKs FBI Keyboard Sniffing In-Reply-To: <02010409490000.16780@aether> Message-ID: On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, tom poe wrote: > Hi: Well, we watch, listen, and hope. > ... we watch, listen, and hope. If the > American Bar Association can [do something] .... > If they don't. Well, I guess we watch, listen, and hope. You forget about the part where we *act*. A relatively small number of us helped get Dmitry free, which I was beginning to despair would never happen. Why wait for someone else - politician, American Bar Association, whatever - to intervene for us? Martin From ilya at theIlya.com Fri Jan 4 11:01:32 2002 From: ilya at theIlya.com (Ilya Volynets) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:39 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Judge OKs FBI Keyboard Sniffing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20020104190138.28702.qmail@gateway.total-knowledge.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 04 January 2002 10:57 am, you wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, tom poe wrote: > > Hi: Well, we watch, listen, and hope. > > > > ... we watch, listen, and hope. If the > > American Bar Association can [do something] .... > > > > If they don't. Well, I guess we watch, listen, and hope. > > You forget about the part where we *act*. A relatively small number of us > helped get Dmitry free, which I was beginning to despair would never > happen. Why wait for someone else - politician, American Bar Association, > whatever - to intervene for us? So, what do we do, where do we go, and what do we say :) Oh, yeah, and when? > Martin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjw1/BIACgkQ84S94bALfyWYXQCgmpPCzL4jQLQhhKlYEWQkmEAr /gMAnR3z2UaXr70rTofFwe+fcNUj2es1 =INCa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From martinb at kemokid.com Sun Jan 6 23:50:53 2002 From: martinb at kemokid.com (Martin Baker) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] next Message-ID: Can someone post the addresses of people we should send letters to to a) thank them for the agreement freeing Dmitry and b) tell them we want the charges against Elcomsoft dropped? Thanks, Martin From schoen at loyalty.org Mon Jan 7 00:52:01 2002 From: schoen at loyalty.org (Seth David Schoen) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] next In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20020107085201.GW3898@zork.net> Martin Baker writes: > Can someone post the addresses of people we should send letters to to a) > thank them for the agreement freeing Dmitry and b) tell them we want the > charges against Elcomsoft dropped? If you mean the people in the U.S. Attorney's Office, you can reach them at United States Attorney Northern District of California 11th Floor, Federal Building 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102 At the time the case was announced, that office said that The prosecution is the result of an investigation by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Scott Frewing and Joseph Sullivan are the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who are prosecuting the case with the assistance of Lauri Gomez. The office is led by U.S. Attorney David Shapiro (at the time the charges were announced, it was nominally led by Robert Mueller, now Director of the FBI). Mr. Shapiro isn't necessarily working on the case, although I don't doubt that he's heard about it -- perhaps even from some of our megaphones. :-) I don't know for sure whether Frewing, Sullivan, and Gomez are still working on the case. You could probably find out by calling the U.S. Attorney's Office at (415)436-7200; I remind everyone not to harass or threaten the U.S. Attorney or his staff. If you write to them, you'll probably get a form letter in reply explaining what the DMCA is. On the other hand, I haven't heard anyone say that public attention hurts. A quick reminder for those who are new to this list: a "U.S. Attorney" is a lawyer who works for the U.S. government as its chief prosecutor for a particular Federal judicial district -- like the Northern District of California, where Dmitry Sklyarov and Elcomsoft were charged (mainly because Adobe is located here). The "Assistant U.S. Attorneys" are lawyers who are members of a U.S. Attorney's staff and who represent the U.S. government in cases. As the chief prosecutor for a district, the U.S. Attorney is the Federal equivalent of a District Attorney (but doesn't have that title). You can also theoretically write to the Attorney General of the United States (the boss of all the U.S. Attorneys), but Mr. Ashcroft is a bit busy at the moment... :-) Some companies and trade associations are continuing to praise the prosecution of Elcomsoft, even if they finally endorse the decision to send Dmitry home -- you could write to them to express disapproval of their position. (The opinions of trade associations can be extremely influential.) People in the U.S. can write to their Senators and Representative. Some Members of Congress, or their staffs, are paying attention to this issue; others aren't (yet). http://www.congress.org/ -- Seth David Schoen | Reading is a right, not a feature! http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | -- Kathryn Myronuk http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | From mlc67 at columbia.edu Mon Jan 7 01:42:32 2002 From: mlc67 at columbia.edu (mike castleman) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] next In-Reply-To: <20020107085201.GW3898@zork.net> References: <20020107085201.GW3898@zork.net> Message-ID: <20020107094232.GP25321@pinetree.dhs.org> On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:52:01AM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > At the time the case was announced, that office said that > > The prosecution is the result of an investigation by agents of the > Federal Bureau of Investigation. Scott Frewing and Joseph Sullivan are > the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who are prosecuting the case with the > assistance of Lauri Gomez. > > I don't know for sure whether Frewing, Sullivan, and Gomez are still > working on the case. You could probably find out by calling the U.S. > Attorney's Office at (415)436-7200; I remind everyone not to harass or > threaten the U.S. Attorney or his staff. Does anyone know or recall which Assistant US Attorney(s) have actually showed up to the various hearings or whatever? Probably someone who works out of the San Jose office the N. California US Attorney's office. The address of that office is probably on the web somewhere, but it seems the old website isn't working at all, and I don't recall offhand the address of the new one. mike -- mike castleman / mlc67@columbia.edu / http://mlcastle.net / (646) 382-7220 current location: sharon, ma, us students for an orwellian society: http://www.studentsfororwell.org/ because 2001 is 17 years too late. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20020107/f391bfaa/attachment.pgp From Robloch at aol.com Mon Jan 7 01:54:11 2002 From: Robloch at aol.com (Robloch@aol.com) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Congressman's Boucher letter to Rosen Message-ID: <24.1ee4ef49.296aca43@aol.com> Letter from Congressman Rick Boucher to Hilary Rosen in reference to the legality of CD and DVD security. He supported Dmitry if my memory serves me correctly. Dear Hilary and Jay: According to many published reports, record labels have begun releasing compact discs into the market which apparently have been designed to limit the ability of consumers to play the discs or record on personal computers and perhaps on other popular consumer products, such as DVD players, video game consoles, and even some CD players, for traditional fair-use purposes such as space shifting. I am particularly concerned that some of these technologies may prevent or inhibit consumer home recording using recorders and media covered by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA). more- http://www.dotcomscoop.com/article.php?sid=80 From ruben at mrbrklyn.com Mon Jan 7 07:37:31 2002 From: ruben at mrbrklyn.com (Ruben Safir) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Congressman's Boucher letter to Rosen In-Reply-To: <24.1ee4ef49.296aca43@aol.com>; from Robloch@aol.com on Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 04:54:11 -0500 References: <24.1ee4ef49.296aca43@aol.com> Message-ID: <20020107103731.E12008@www2.mrbrklyn.com> This is good, It needs to go to Weiner and Schumer as well On 2002.01.07 04:54:11 -0500 Robloch@aol.com wrote: >>Letter from Congressman Rick Boucher to Hilary Rosen in reference to the >>legality of CD and DVD security. He supported Dmitry if my memory serves me >>correctly. >> >> >>Dear Hilary and Jay: >> >>According to many published reports, record labels have begun releasing >>compact discs into the market which apparently have been designed to limit >>the ability of consumers to play the discs or record on personal computers >>and perhaps on other popular consumer products, such as DVD players, video >>game consoles, and even some CD players, for traditional fair-use purposes >>such as space shifting. I am particularly concerned that some of these >>technologies may prevent or inhibit consumer home recording using recorders >>and media covered by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA). >> >>more- >> >>http://www.dotcomscoop.com/article.php?sid=80 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>free-sklyarov mailing list >>free-sklyarov@zork.net >>http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov >> -- __________________________ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __________________________ http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.brooklynonline.com - For the love of Brooklyn http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www.nyfairuse.org - The foundation of Democracy http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/hooked.mp3 - Spring is coming.... http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn.... 1-718-382-5752 From sacraver at EE.Princeton.EDU Mon Jan 7 12:14:16 2002 From: sacraver at EE.Princeton.EDU (Xcott Craver) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Congressman's Boucher letter to Rosen In-Reply-To: <24.1ee4ef49.296aca43@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 Robloch@aol.com wrote: > > http://www.dotcomscoop.com/article.php?sid=80 > I particularly like question #5. BTW, regarding the Librarian of Congress's exemption of the DMCA for copy protection systems which are malfunctioning: how does that jive with DRM systems that are made out of errors? E.g., deliberate errors in blocks, CD TOCs, etc? From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Mon Jan 7 12:27:54 2002 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Congressman's Boucher letter to Rosen References: <24.1ee4ef49.296aca43@aol.com> <20020107103731.E12008@www2.mrbrklyn.com> Message-ID: <3C3A04CA.DB176593@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> -- and John Conyers, right? Seth Johnson Ruben Safir wrote: > > This is good, > > It needs to go to Weiner and Schumer as well > > On 2002.01.07 04:54:11 -0500 Robloch@aol.com wrote: > >>Letter from Congressman Rick Boucher to Hilary Rosen in reference to the > >>legality of CD and DVD security. He supported Dmitry if my memory serves me > >>correctly. > >> > >> > >>Dear Hilary and Jay: From dackroyd at ea.com Mon Jan 7 13:53:28 2002 From: dackroyd at ea.com (Ackroyd, Dan) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] U.S. Rep. positions against copy controls Message-ID: WASHINGTON--A U.S. congressman said Monday that he intended to change a controversial copyright law to allow consumers to override technologies that prevent them from making digital copies of music, movies and software. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., said he plans to introduce a bill that would eliminate the "anti-circumvention" clause of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 law that updated copyright laws for the digital era. Intended to discourage piracy, the clause has come under increasing fire over the past year by people who say it imposes severe limits on the rights of consumers to make personal backup copies or otherwise control music they have purchased. The clause has inspired high-profile court battles and made a minor celebrity out of Dmitry Sklyarov, the Russian programmer jailed for writing a program that defeated a copy-protection measure in Adobe Systems' eBook software. Boucher told an audience of musicians, lawyers and music industry executives at the Future of Music policy summit that his bill would modify section 1201 of the DMCA to allow consumers to defeat copy-protection measures for legitimate personal uses, but it would still outlaw circumvention efforts for piracy. "I'm very concerned about the DMCA," Boucher said. "There's an increasing number of instances in which unjust results are reached." .... On Monday, Boucher pointed out that Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group will soon release its new CDs in copy-protected form, making them impossible to play on personal computers and some CD systems as well. Consumers should be able to use computer programs to defeat that copy protection, he said. ------------------------------------------- The full text can be found at: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8396905.html?tag=mn_hd ------------------------------------------- If you want to send message of support to Rick Boucher, you can contact him through his web page at http://www.house.gov/boucher/ Other interesting opinions of Rick Boucher can be on his website at: "PAY-PER-USE" SOCIETY ONE STEP CLOSER www.house.gov/boucher/docs/payperuse.htm STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN RICK BOUCHER ON INDICTMENT OF DMITRY SKLYAROV AND ELCOM LTD http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/sklyarov.htm As we say in the UK, sounds like an alright geezer! cheers dan ackroyd For and on the behalf of Dan Ackroyd. Any views included are the senders own and not those of either Intelligent Games or Electronic Arts. Unauthorised review or use of any confidential information in this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete it from any computer. yada yada yada. From ruben at mrbrklyn.com Mon Jan 7 13:57:41 2002 From: ruben at mrbrklyn.com (Ruben Safir) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Congressman's Boucher letter to Rosen In-Reply-To: <3C3A04CA.DB176593@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>; from seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org on Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 15:27:54 -0500 References: <24.1ee4ef49.296aca43@aol.com> <20020107103731.E12008@www2.mrbrklyn.com> <3C3A04CA.DB176593@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20020107165741.W16664@www2.mrbrklyn.com> Yeah John Conyers is very concerned about anti-trust issues concerning these topics. But he's in Mi. Ruben On 2002.01.07 15:27:54 -0500 Seth Johnson wrote: >> >>-- and John Conyers, right? >> >>Seth Johnson >> >>Ruben Safir wrote: >>> >>> This is good, >>> >>> It needs to go to Weiner and Schumer as well >>> >>> On 2002.01.07 04:54:11 -0500 Robloch@aol.com wrote: >>> >>Letter from Congressman Rick Boucher to Hilary Rosen in reference to the >>> >>legality of CD and DVD security. He supported Dmitry if my memory serves me >>> >>correctly. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>Dear Hilary and Jay: >> -- __________________________ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __________________________ http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.brooklynonline.com - For the love of Brooklyn http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www.nyfairuse.org - The foundation of Democracy http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/hooked.mp3 - Spring is coming.... http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn.... 1-718-382-5752 From dackroyd at ea.com Tue Jan 8 11:08:52 2002 From: dackroyd at ea.com (Ackroyd, Dan) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] U.S. Rep. positions against copy controls Message-ID: (sent again - original message did not get through) WASHINGTON--A U.S. congressman said Monday that he intended to change a controversial copyright law to allow consumers to override technologies that prevent them from making digital copies of music, movies and software. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., said he plans to introduce a bill that would eliminate the "anti-circumvention" clause of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 law that updated copyright laws for the digital era. Intended to discourage piracy, the clause has come under increasing fire over the past year by people who say it imposes severe limits on the rights of consumers to make personal backup copies or otherwise control music they have purchased. The clause has inspired high-profile court battles and made a minor celebrity out of Dmitry Sklyarov, the Russian programmer jailed for writing a program that defeated a copy-protection measure in Adobe Systems' eBook software. Boucher told an audience of musicians, lawyers and music industry executives at the Future of Music policy summit that his bill would modify section 1201 of the DMCA to allow consumers to defeat copy-protection measures for legitimate personal uses, but it would still outlaw circumvention efforts for piracy. "I'm very concerned about the DMCA," Boucher said. "There's an increasing number of instances in which unjust results are reached." .... On Monday, Boucher pointed out that Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group will soon release its new CDs in copy-protected form, making them impossible to play on personal computers and some CD systems as well. Consumers should be able to use computer programs to defeat that copy protection, he said. ------------------------------------------- The full text can be found at: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8396905.html?tag=mn_hd ------------------------------------------- Other interesting opinions of Rick Boucher can be on his website at: "PAY-PER-USE" SOCIETY ONE STEP CLOSER www.house.gov/boucher/docs/payperuse.htm STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN RICK BOUCHER ON INDICTMENT OF DMITRY SKLYAROV AND ELCOM LTD http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/sklyarov.htm As we say in the UK, sounds like an alright geezer! If you want to send message of support to Rick Boucher, you can contact him through his web page at http://www.house.gov/boucher/ cheers dan ackroyd For and on the behalf of Dan Ackroyd. Any views included are the senders own and not those of either Intelligent Games or Electronic Arts. Unauthorised review or use of any confidential information in this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete it from any computer. yada yada yada. From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Tue Jan 8 04:35:28 2002 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Fwd: Your Amazon.com Inquiry Message-ID: <5818901320.20020108153528@elcomsoft.com> Hello all, Sorry for offtopic, but I cannot understand what's going on. See below (quoted) my message posted to this mailing list. But for some reason, it has been posted to some address at amazon.com as well -- here is their auto-reply. I've double-checked my "sent" folder; free-sklyarov@zork.net was the only address in TO field, and CC/BCC fields were empty. Any idea what could be wrong? I doubt that I have some trojan in my system that sends copies of all mails (or just ones that have 'FBI' somewhere in subject? ;) to Amazon, but anyway, that looks really strange... /Vladimir This is a forwarded message From: info@amazon.com To: vkatalov@elcomsoft.com Subject: Your Amazon.com Inquiry ===8<==============Original message text=============== Thank you for writing to us at Amazon.com. I'm very sorry, but I was unable to determine what type of assistance you need from the content of your e-mail message. Please note that you can find the answers to most of your questions in our online Help Department: http://www.amazon.com/help/ To view or modify your Amazon.com account and orders online, please visit Your Account: http://www.amazon.com/your-account/ I hope this information is helpful. If you still require assistance after consulting our online resources, please write back to us with more specific details, and we will be happy to assist you. We look forward to hearing from you, and thank you for shopping at Amazon.com. Best regards, Joseph Gorman http://www.amazon.com Need a gift in a hurry? Send a gift certificate via e-mail or with an ecard! http://www.amazon.com/giftcertificates ============================== Check your order and more: http://www.amazon.com/your-account Questions? We have your answers! http://www.amazon.com/help We would appreciate your feedback on our customer service. Follow the link below if you would like to let us know how we are doing - your input is invaluable! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cs-experience-survey/-/tbeznaw >Date: Fri Jan 04 05:13:05 PST 2002 >Subject: [free-sklyarov] Judge OKs FBI Keyboard Sniffing >To: free-sklyarov@zork.net >From: vkatalov@elcomsoft.com >Hello, > >http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,49455,00.html > >DMCA probably violates First Amendment, and it looks like Fourth >Amendment also doesn't work anymore... What happens? > >Sincerely yours, > Vladimir > >ElcomSoft Co.Ltd. >http://www.elcomsoft.com >mailto:vkatalov@elcomsoft.com > > >_______________________________________________ >free-sklyarov mailing list >free-sklyarov@zork.net >http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov ===8<===========End of original message text=========== Best regards, Vladimir mailto:vkatalov@elcomsoft.com From Robloch at aol.com Wed Jan 9 18:33:38 2002 From: Robloch at aol.com (Robloch@aol.com) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Interview with Edward Felten Message-ID: <76.157bed5a.296e5782@aol.com> Good interview discussing issues around copyright 'violation.' http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2002/nf2002019_7170.htm --- Q: Which brings us to the DMCA, a law you believe hurts the public without preventing illegal copying. What's your objection? A: It's the anticircumvention parts of the law that concern me the most. It goes beyond protecting copyrights. It goes beyond prohibiting copyright infringement -- which of course was already illegal before we had the DMCA -- by outlawing certain technologies and certain kinds of discussions. For someone like me -- I do computer-security research -- I now have this complicated, vague law in my head all the time. Whenever I'm going to open my mouth to talk about technology, I have to think if it's safe, or do I have to call my lawyer. At the very least, it scares people away from topics that most need to be discussed. I think we all benefit from knowing how well copy-protection technologies work, when they work, when they don't, and what kind of approaches to building them make sense. Whether you are a customer, an investor, or a songwriter who has been told this is a safe way to release music, it's important to talk about this technology and know whether it's going to do what it says it will. The real danger in the DMCA is a chill of that discussion. From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Thu Jan 10 00:59:35 2002 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Fwd: 8wire Newsletter Message-ID: <16374004077.20020110115935@elcomsoft.com> This is a forwarded message From: 8wire <8wire@8wire.com> To: vkatalov@elcomsoft.com Subject: 8wire Newsletter ===8<==============Original message text=============== ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The 8wire Newsletter http://www.8wire.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Latest news from the DCMA front: Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Internet and Intellectual Property seeks to amend the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to protect the right of consumers to copy digital files for personal use (Los Angeles Times, 1/9/02). DCMA criminalizes tools that can be used to make copies of digital content - such as software able to break encryption on music CDs or DVD movies - regardless of whether the copies are legal, potentially making law-breakers of the owners and developers of such technology. Boucher believes the law should come down on those using the tools to make illegal copies, not the tools themselves. Boucher also suggested, in a letter to the Recording Industry Association of America, that copy-protected CDs and DVDs may constitute a violation of the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act, which protects users' rights to record copyrighted content for personal use only and "taxes" consumers several pennies for each blank recordable CD purchased to compensate the entertainment industry for any losses caused by copying. Why do I care about the DCMA? Admittedly, my interest was initially piqued by a battle that seemed to pit consumers against big business in the battle to control technology use and development. Then I thought of all those CDs sitting in our CD jukebox that I've also copied onto my laptop so I can listen to them while at work or on the road, and all the tapes I've made from our CDs for commuting and road trips. Tell people they're breaking the law because they want to be able to listen their music in their cars, offices, and hotel rooms without buying three copies of a $17.99 CD, and they'll most likely get ticked off enough to either agitate to change the law or just subvert it. In completely unrelated news, Microsoft announced today that they've sold 17 million copies of Windows XP (retail upgrade, full-product, and license sales) since its release two months ago. In addition to increased support for multimedia and wireless computing, XP features product activation technology that, the company hopes, will decrease software piracy. -Anne alear@8wire.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Copyright 2001, 8wire, Inc. Original recipient of this email is vkatalov@elcomsoft.com. ===8<===========End of original message text=========== Best regards, Vladimir mailto:vkatalov@elcomsoft.com From jei at cc.hut.fi Thu Jan 10 12:40:46 2002 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:40 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Statement of principles? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Bill Godfrey wrote: > Points for discussion. Are we for or against... > > o The traditional principle of copyright? (absolish copyright entirely?) > o Regional restrictions? (Like DVD regions, not PAL/NTSC.) > o Right to sell media second hand. If companies want their intellectual property to have the same protections afforded to their physical goods, then so should the consumers have equal rights with software products as they have with the physical goods they purchase. I think the comparison of software to a car is a very valid one and should be applied whenever possible. It is totally ridiculous that software companies should be treated any differently in their relationship to consumers or be afforded liberties that other companies do not have with their products they sell. Or consider, should we perhaps extend the same ridiculous liberties to car manufacturers? We are now headed for IPO tyranny, sponsored by Microsoft, MPAA, RIAA, etc, which without a clue, is happily enforced by the FBI. A government of the people should work for the good of the people, not just the corporations. From jei at cc.hut.fi Thu Jan 10 12:46:27 2002 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:41 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Slashdot - Jon Johansen Indicted by Norwegian Authorities (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:13:14 -0500 From: Seth Finkelstein Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications To: CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Slashdot - Jon Johansen Indicted by Norwegian Authorities [Yet another programmer facing criminal charges! And Jon Johansen didn't even do the DeCSS decryption himself, he's being charged with "participating"] http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=256006 http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/10/1433237 http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=25975&cid=2816391 From norwegian newspaper Dagbladet (Score:5, Informative) by bob@dB.org on Thursday January 10, @10:17AM (#2816391) (User #89920 Info | http://www.havoq.com/) My translation of the Dagbladet (norwegian newspaper) article. Spelling and gramatical errors are mine, factual errors are those of Dagbladet and the norwegian Police. The 18 year only Jon Lech Johansen has been indicted for breaking the "computer trespasing" paragraph of the norwegian criminal code. Thursday January 10, 2002 14:02, updated 14:53. This is confirmed to NTB by attorney Inger Marie Sunde. Johansen has since January 2000 been charged by the norwegian financial crimes unit (Xkokrim) after being reported by the american movie- and entertainment organization Movie Picture Association (MPA). The background is that Johansen in 1999 participated in creating a program, DeCSS, that make it possible to play back DVD movie under the Linux operating system, and made it available on the internet. The program can also be used to decrypt the content of DVD-disks and makes it possible to copy the movie. Johansen is indicted for participating in breaking the protection system Content Scrambling System (CSS), that protects the content of DVD-disks from copying. Johansen is indicted based on the criminal code paragraph 145, parts two and tree Sunde informs the NTB. >From the inditement: "- For by breaking a protection scheme, of by similar activities unjustly having gained access to data stored of transmitted by electronic or other technical means and by having caused damage by gaining or using such unjustly obtained knowledge." The charged offense carries a maximum sentence of 6 months in prison. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com http://sethf.com http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php BESS vs Google: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@listserv.aol.com ********************************************************************** From owlswan at eagle.eff.org Thu Jan 10 16:17:15 2002 From: owlswan at eagle.eff.org (Henry Schwan) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:41 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] [E-S] EFF: Norwegians Indict Teen Who Published Code Liberating DVDs (fwd) Message-ID: For anyone who hasn't heard. -- Regards, Henry Schwan Paralegal Electronic Frontier Foundation (415)436-9333 x114 (415)436-9993 (fax) owlswan@eff.org "No government is respectable which is not just. Without unspotted purity of public faith, without sacred public principle, fidelity, and honor, no machinery of laws, can give dignity to political society." -- Daniel Webster ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:04:07 -0800 From: Will Doherty To: presslist@eff.org Subject: [E-S] EFF: Norwegians Indict Teen Who Published Code Liberating DVDs Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release For Immediate Release: January 10, 2002 Contact: Robin Gross Intellectual Property Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation robin@eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x112 (office), +1 415 637-5310 (cell) Cindy Cohn Legal Director Electronic Frontier Foundation cindy@eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x108 Norwegians Indict Teen Who Published Code Liberating DVDs U.S. Entertainment Industry Pressured Norwegian Prosecutors Oslo, Norway - Acting years after pressure from the U.S. entertainment industry, the Norwegian government yesterday indicted teenager Jon Johansen for his role in creating software that permits DVD owners to view DVDs on players that are not approved by the entertainment industry. On January 9, 2002, the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit (?KOKRIM) charged Jon Johansen for creating software called DeCSS in 1999 when he was 15 years old. "Johansen shouldn't be prosecuted for breaking into his own property," said Robin Gross, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "Jon simply wanted to view his own DVDs on his Linux machine." "Although prosecutors in Norway failed to defend the rights of their citizens against Hollywood?s unprecedented demands, we are confident that neither the Norwegian people nor their justice system will allow this charge to stand," added EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "The movie studios have used intellectual property rights to silence scientists, and censor journalists. Now, they are declaring war on their customers." Johansen's indictment comes more than two years after the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) initally contacted ?KOKRIM prosecutors to request a criminal investigation of the Norwegian teen and his father, Per Johansen, who owned the equipment on which the DeCSS software was posted. Johansen originally published DeCSS as part of the open source development project LiVID (Linux Video) in building a DVD player for the Linux operating system. The MPAA CSS licensing entity, named DVD-CCA, refuses to license CSS to projects such as LiVID, which is an open source project collaborating on the Web to build interoperable software tools. LiVID's independently created DVD player software would compete with the movie studio monopoly on DVD players while offering more consumer friendly features. DeCSS also enables people to exercise their fair use rights with DVD movies, like fast-forwarding through commercials or copying for educational purposes. In January 2000, Johansen won the prestigious "Karoline Prize" for his DeCSS software innovation. This national prize is awarded yearly to a Norwegian high school student with excellent grades who makes a significant contribution to society outside of school. ?KOKRIM Chief Prosecutor Inger Marie Sunde indicted Johansen, who recently turned 18, for violating Norwegian Criminal Code section 145(2), which outlaws breaking into another person?s locked property to gain access to data that one is not entitled to access. Johansen's prosecution marks the first time the Norwegian government has attempted to punish individuals for accessing their own property. Previously, the government used this law only to prosecute those who violated someone else's secure system, like a bank or telephone company system, in order to obtain another person's records. Norwegian prosecutors did not indict Per Johansen, but his son Jon Johansen could face two years in prison if convicted. MPAA also requested ?KOKRIM charge Johansen with contributory copyright infringement; however prosecutors declined. Johansen?s trial could start before summer 2002. On November 1, 2001, the California Court of Appeal for the 6th District unanimously overturned a lower court's injunction that banned the publication of DeCSS on trade secret grounds, citing the First Amendment rights of individuals to independently obtain or derive information claimed to be a trade secret by DVD-CCA. In another legal case to outlaw DeCSS, brought under U.S. federal law, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York recently upheld a lower court's ruling that ordered 2600 Magazine to remove DeCSS from its online publication, including hyperlinks. Jon Johansen provided testimony in the 2600 Magazine case. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will continue to handle both of these U.S. DeCSS cases and is determining its role in the Johansen case. Additional information on Johansen case: http://www.eff.org/IP/DeCSS_prosecutions/Johansen_DeCSS_case/ Jon Johansen?s testimony at the 2600 Magazine trial in New York under the DMCA (July 20, 2000): http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20000720_ny_trial_transcript.html Declaration of Jon Bing, Norwegian legal expert on lack of legal precedent in Norway to support ?KOKRIM?s indictment (filed in California DeCSS trade secrets case): http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20000118_bing_norway_law_decl.html Additional information on DVD CCA cases: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/ About EFF: The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil liberties organization working to protect rights in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to support free expression, privacy, and openness in the information society. EFF is a member-supported organization and maintains one of the most-linked-to websites in the world at http://www.eff.org/ -end- From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Thu Jan 10 16:54:51 2002 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:41 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Re: EFF: Norwegians Indict Teen Who Published Code Liberating DVDs References: Message-ID: <3C3E37DB.A609A936@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Okay. Then: *Free Jon Johansen!* Seth Johnson Henry Schwan wrote: > > For anyone who hasn't heard. > > -- > Regards, > > Henry Schwan > Paralegal > Electronic Frontier Foundation > (415)436-9333 x114 > (415)436-9993 (fax) > owlswan@eff.org > > "No government is respectable which is not just. Without unspotted > purity of public faith, without sacred public principle, fidelity, > and honor, no machinery of laws, can give dignity to political > society." > -- Daniel Webster > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:04:07 -0800 > From: Will Doherty > > Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release > > For Immediate Release: January 10, 2002 > > Contact: > > Robin Gross > Intellectual Property Attorney > Electronic Frontier Foundation > robin@eff.org > +1 415 436-9333 x112 (office), +1 415 637-5310 (cell) > > Cindy Cohn > Legal Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > cindy@eff.org > +1 415 436-9333 x108 > > Norwegians Indict Teen Who Published Code Liberating DVDs > > U.S. Entertainment Industry Pressured Norwegian Prosecutors > > Oslo, Norway - Acting years after pressure from the U.S. > entertainment industry, the Norwegian government yesterday > indicted teenager Jon Johansen for his role in creating > software that permits DVD owners to view DVDs on players > that are not approved by the entertainment industry. > > On January 9, 2002, the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit > (?KOKRIM) charged Jon Johansen for creating software called > DeCSS in 1999 when he was 15 years old. > > "Johansen shouldn't be prosecuted for breaking into his own > property," said Robin Gross, staff attorney at the > Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "Jon simply wanted to > view his own DVDs on his Linux machine." > > "Although prosecutors in Norway failed to defend the rights > of their citizens against Hollywood?s unprecedented > demands, we are confident that neither the Norwegian people > nor their justice system will allow this charge to stand," > added EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "The movie studios > have used intellectual property rights to silence > scientists, and censor journalists. Now, they are declaring > war on their customers." > > Johansen's indictment comes more than two years after the > Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) initally > contacted ?KOKRIM prosecutors to request a criminal > investigation of the Norwegian teen and his father, Per > Johansen, who owned the equipment on which the DeCSS > software was posted. > > Johansen originally published DeCSS as part of the open > source development project LiVID (Linux Video) in building > a DVD player for the Linux operating system. The MPAA CSS > licensing entity, named DVD-CCA, refuses to license CSS to > projects such as LiVID, which is an open source project > collaborating on the Web to build interoperable software > tools. LiVID's independently created DVD player software > would compete with the movie studio monopoly on DVD players > while offering more consumer friendly features. > > DeCSS also enables people to exercise their fair use > rights with DVD movies, like fast-forwarding through > commercials or copying for educational purposes. > > In January 2000, Johansen won the prestigious "Karoline > Prize" for his DeCSS software innovation. This national > prize is awarded yearly to a Norwegian high school > student with excellent grades who makes a significant > contribution to society outside of school. > > ?KOKRIM Chief Prosecutor Inger Marie Sunde indicted > Johansen, who recently turned 18, for violating Norwegian > Criminal Code section 145(2), which outlaws breaking into > another person?s locked property to gain access to data > that one is not entitled to access. > > Johansen's prosecution marks the first time the Norwegian > government has attempted to punish individuals for > accessing their own property. Previously, the government > used this law only to prosecute those who violated > someone else's secure system, like a bank or telephone > company system, in order to obtain another person's records. > > Norwegian prosecutors did not indict Per Johansen, but > his son Jon Johansen could face two years in prison if > convicted. > > MPAA also requested ?KOKRIM charge Johansen with > contributory copyright infringement; however prosecutors > declined. Johansen?s trial could start before summer 2002. > > On November 1, 2001, the California Court of Appeal for > the 6th District unanimously overturned a lower court's > injunction that banned the publication of DeCSS on trade > secret grounds, citing the First Amendment rights of > individuals to independently obtain or derive information > claimed to be a trade secret by DVD-CCA. > > In another legal case to outlaw DeCSS, brought under U.S. > federal law, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York > recently upheld a lower court's ruling that ordered 2600 > Magazine to remove DeCSS from its online publication, > including hyperlinks. Jon Johansen provided testimony > in the 2600 Magazine case. > > The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will continue to > handle both of these U.S. DeCSS cases and is determining > its role in the Johansen case. > > Additional information on Johansen case: > http://www.eff.org/IP/DeCSS_prosecutions/Johansen_DeCSS_case/ > > Jon Johansen?s testimony at the 2600 Magazine trial in New > York under the DMCA (July 20, 2000): > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20000720_ny_trial_transcript.html > > Declaration of Jon Bing, Norwegian legal expert on lack of > legal precedent in Norway to support ?KOKRIM?s indictment > (filed in California DeCSS trade secrets case): > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20000118_bing_norway_law_decl.html > > Additional information on DVD CCA cases: > http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/ > > About EFF: > > The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil > liberties organization working to protect rights in the > digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and > challenges industry and government to support free > expression, privacy, and openness in the information > society. EFF is a member-supported organization and > maintains one of the most-linked-to websites in the world at > http://www.eff.org/ > > -end- > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov From wild at eff.org Thu Jan 10 16:59:01 2002 From: wild at eff.org (Will Doherty) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:41 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Free Jon Johansen! Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020110164702.0526fc78@mail.eff.org> For those who are interested in the Jon Johansen case, we have set up an email list called: free-jon@eff.org You can subscribe on the web at https://www.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/free-jon or by email at mailto:free-jon-request@eff.org?subject=subscribe EFF staff are currently consulting with Jon and his attorneys to determine how we can best help the his defense. Topics under discussion include: 1) Jon Johansen defense fund 2) Protests at Norwegian consulates 3) Media support 4) Legal support 5) Details of Norwegian copyright, free speech, and trade secret law The EFF media release on the case is available at http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DeCSS_prosecutions/Johansen_DeCSS_case/20020110_eff_pr.html Please keep your eyes on the free-jon email list for further updates. Feel free to post whatever you like related to the case there as well. Free Jon, Will Doherty Online Activist / Media Relations Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Web http://www.eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation - Protecting rights in the digital age ------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20020110/32ab1bbd/attachment.html From sean at thefreevoice.org Fri Jan 11 07:58:29 2002 From: sean at thefreevoice.org (Sean DuVally) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:41 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] DECSS CO-AUTHOR INDICTED IN NORWAY Message-ID: Read this at 2600- http://www.2600.com/news/display.shtml?id=945 This is unbelievable! "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin ---------------------------------------------------- Please check out The Free Voice at http://thefreevoice.org From jei at cc.hut.fi Fri Jan 11 09:11:06 2002 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:41 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Programmers sued, or at risk, for decryption work (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:36:48 -0500 From: Seth Finkelstein Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications To: CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Programmers sued, or at risk, for decryption work With the indictment of Jon Johansen, I decided I'd make a list of all the programmers recently having or needing lawyers for their decryption or related work. Have I missed anybody here who should be on the list? Dimitry Sklyarov - PDF decryption - criminal case Jon Johansen - participating in DVD decryption program - criminal case Unknown German - actual DVD decryption - anonymous Matthew Skala and Eddy L.O. Jansson - CyberPatrol censorware - civil case "Beale Screamer" - Microsoft lockware ("digital rights management") - anonymous SDMI researchers (too many to mention all of them individually, but notably Felten, Craver, etc) - threats Bennett Haselton - Cybersitter, I-Gear censorware - threats Seth Finkelstein - various anticensorware work - 'nuff said -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@sethf.com http://sethf.com http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php BESS vs Google: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@listserv.aol.com ********************************************************************** From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jan 11 10:41:50 2002 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:41 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Neutralizing the Stealing Meme Message-ID: <3C3F31EE.FDF93A44@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Forwarded from Peer to Peer Legal discussion list, p2p-legal@lists.alt.org) -------- Original Message -------- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:35:06 -0500 From: "Lucas Gonze" To get anywhere in the ongoing political mugging over intellectual property, the stealing meme must be neutralized. As long as the baseline is that MP3 filesharing is stealing, it's a law and order issue and the good guys will keep getting creamed. My goal here was to make something short that appeals to common sense. The following is close but not quite, so I want to throw it out there for debugging. Alice says that filesharing is stealing, implying that it is wrong. Bob asks why. Alice says that it's against the law. Bob says that Alice is playing word games. The word stealing has two meanings. Alice is justifying use of the term based on one meaning, and framing conclusions based on the other meaning. The law doesn't define right and wrong, so if Alice means to say that MP3 filesharing is wrong because the law makes it so, that can't be true. The law only defines a narrow and technical meaning of stealing -- a violation of property law -- that has no moral content. This narrow technical meaning is not the same as the most people's meaning of stealing. Most people mean by stealing something which is always wrong, a moral axiom. My hope is that "word games" is short enough to work against "filesharing is stealing". But I think that this is a FAQ entry instead, because the explanation is too complex and because it's not an aggressive counterattack. Thoughts? - Lucas _______________________________________________ p2p-legal mailing list - p2p-legal@lists.alt.org http://lists.alt.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-legal Traffic on this list is _not_ legal advice, regardless of the poster. From proclus at iname.com Fri Jan 11 10:48:00 2002 From: proclus at iname.com (proclus@iname.com) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:41 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] DECSS CO-AUTHOR INDICTED IN NORWAY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200201111848.g0BIm7v01348@moerbeke> One wonders if someone is trying to make a precident in Norway that they were unable to make in the US. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/news.html On 11 Jan, Sean DuVally wrote: > Read this at 2600- > http://www.2600.com/news/display.shtml?id=945 > > This is unbelievable! > > > "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety > deserve neither liberty nor safety." > --Benjamin Franklin > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Please check out The Free Voice at > http://thefreevoice.org > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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++++ UBOULI++++$ 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/20020111/61de0849/attachment.pgp From mk at ucant.org Fri Jan 11 10:58:39 2002 From: mk at ucant.org (Martin Keegan) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:41 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Neutralizing the Stealing Meme In-Reply-To: <3C3F31EE.FDF93A44@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Seth Johnson wrote: > To get anywhere in the ongoing political mugging over > intellectual property, the stealing meme must be > neutralized. As long as the baseline is that MP3 > filesharing is stealing, it's a law and order issue and the > good guys will keep getting creamed. The rhetorical power of the stealing meme is undeniable. One tactic might be to turn it on its head. Look at the effects of the DMCA/EUCD (which allow rightholders to extend their control over distribution and reproduction to access and use), and ask the question "Who's REALLY Stealing Music"? Mk From mk at ucant.org Fri Jan 11 11:00:23 2002 From: mk at ucant.org (Martin Keegan) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:41 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Free Jon Johansen! In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020110164702.0526fc78@mail.eff.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Will Doherty wrote: > For those who are interested in the Jon Johansen case, > we have set up an email list called: > > free-jon@eff.org Not another mailing list to be on! At some point we need to rationalise all these mailing lists. Mk From mk at ucant.org Fri Jan 11 11:01:15 2002 From: mk at ucant.org (Martin Keegan) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:41 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] DECSS CO-AUTHOR INDICTED IN NORWAY In-Reply-To: <200201111848.g0BIm7v01348@moerbeke> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 proclus@iname.com wrote: > One wonders if someone is trying to make a precident in Norway that > they were unable to make in the US. Does Norway even *have* the precedent system? Mk From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jan 11 11:54:25 2002 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:41 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] [Fwd: [free-jon] Thoughts on how to respond] Message-ID: <3C3F42F1.49AE226A@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Forwarded from Free Jon Johansen list, free-jon@eff.org) -------- Original Message -------- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:25:27 -0800 From: Marc Perkel Just throwing out some thoughts here on how to respond to this latest prosecution of Jon Johansen. In Dmitry - we immediately organized protests putting the heat on Adobe and they caved in. Eventually the government had to follow. First of all - I see this was a war over who controlls the net. So lets start there. I say - the net is owned by the people of the planet and is owned and controlled by no one. I believe that it is absolutely imperitive to the future of the human race that the net never be in the control of any government or combination of governments. The net is ours - and we must never let them take it from us. Having said that - I believe that the MPAA and content industries who want to controll all media for profit and can buy givernment influence if conspiring with governments who want to be able to pass laws to control the net. To read your email and spy on you (US Patriot Act) and otherwise oppress thinking and free expression. I believe that this case and the arrest of Dmitry are attempts by governments and corporations who control governments to terrorize us "computer professionals" into submission through criminal action. Our response. Protests - long and loud - smashing disks in front of TV cameras. In this case - as you can see on the EFF web site. the MPAA is the force behind the prosectutor - and - since they are doing it for money - we need to hurt them by attacking them publically and hurting their public image. On a technolical front. We need to develop mure software that undermines the ability of a government to control us. I believe that everything that goes over the internet should be strongly encrypted by default. I believe that we should eliminate anything that requires a central point where control can be exerted. I believe that we need to establish as much as possible more ways to do private secure networks in manners that make control technologically impossible. So - lets organize some protests. Let's get some news coverage. Lets start disking out some pain and show the MPAA that we can bite back. _______________________________________________ free-jon mailing list free-jon@eff.org https://www.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/free-jon From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jan 11 12:00:27 2002 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:42 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] [Fwd: Re: [free-jon] Thoughts on how to respond] Message-ID: <3C3F445B.A8CBA696@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [free-jon] Thoughts on how to respond Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:41:05 -0800 From: Robin Gross To: Marc Perkel ,free-jon@eff.org References: <3C3F31EE.FDF93A44@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> I just spoke with Jon and Per. They reported that there were protests in Norway tonight over Jon's indictment and will be a protest tomorrow in front of the Norwegian parliament. The person to write to and request the charges be dropped is: Chief Prosecutor Inger Marie Sunde of the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit Post Box 8193 0034 OSLO I'm checking on other politicians who may be in a position to do something here. Jon will send me contact info for Electronic Frontier Norway (EFN), who we should coordinate with if possible. Thanks, Robin At 11:25 AM 1/11/2002 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote: > Just throwing out some thoughts here on how to respond to > this latest > prosecution of Jon Johansen. > > In Dmitry - we immediately organized protests putting the > heat on Adobe and > they caved in. Eventually the government had to follow. > > First of all - I see this was a war over who controlls the > net. So lets start > there. > > I say - the net is owned by the people of the planet and > is owned and > controlled by no one. I believe that it is absolutely > imperitive to the future > of the human race that the net never be in the control of > any government or > combination of governments. The net is ours - and we must > never let them take > it from us. > > Having said that - I believe that the MPAA and content > industries who want to > controll all media for profit and can buy givernment > influence if conspiring > with governments who want to be able to pass laws to > control the net. To read > your email and spy on you (US Patriot Act) and otherwise > oppress thinking and > free expression. > > I believe that this case and the arrest of Dmitry are > attempts by governments > and corporations who control governments to terrorize us > "computer > professionals" into submission through criminal action. > > Our response. Protests - long and loud - smashing disks in > front of TV > cameras. In this case - as you can see on the EFF web > site. the MPAA is the > force behind the prosectutor - and - since they are doing > it for money - we > need to hurt them by attacking them publically and hurting > their public image. > > On a technolical front. We need to develop mure software > that undermines the > ability of a government to control us. I believe that > everything that goes > over the internet should be strongly encrypted by default. > I believe that we > should eliminate anything that requires a central point > where control can be > exerted. I believe that we need to establish as much as > possible more ways to > do private secure networks in manners that make control > technologically > impossible. > > So - lets organize some protests. Let's get some news > coverage. Lets start > disking out some pain and show the MPAA that we can bite > back. > > > > _______________________________________________ > free-jon mailing list > free-jon@eff.org > https://www.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/free-jon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Robin D. Gross - Cyberspace Attorney @ Law - Intellectual Property Director - Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression (CAFE) Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110 e: robin@eff.org w: http://www.eff.org p: 415.863.5459 f: 415.436.9993 http://www.eff.org/cafe http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From tompoe at renonevada.net Fri Jan 11 11:57:53 2002 From: tompoe at renonevada.net (tom poe) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:42 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Neutralizing the Stealing Meme In-Reply-To: <3C3F31EE.FDF93A44@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> References: <3C3F31EE.FDF93A44@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <02011111575300.10762@aether> On Friday 11 January 2002 10:41, Seth Johnson wrote: > > My hope is that "word games" is short enough to work against > "filesharing is stealing". But I think that this is a FAQ > entry instead, because the explanation is too complex and > because it's not an aggressive counterattack. > > Thoughts? > > - Lucas > Hi: Is there an acknowledged threshold at which one can point to? In other words, at what point does file-sharing become a criminal offense? Just a thought. Tom > _______________________________________________ > p2p-legal mailing list - p2p-legal@lists.alt.org > http://lists.alt.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-legal > Traffic on this list is _not_ legal advice, regardless of > the poster. > > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov@zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jan 11 12:04:24 2002 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:42 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] [Fwd: Re: [free-jon] Thoughts on how to respond] Message-ID: <3C3F4548.653E094B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Forwarded from Free Jon Johnsen list, free-jon@eff.org) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [free-jon] Thoughts on how to respond Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:52:15 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen I saw the idea of protesting at Norwegian consulates in the United States (much as there were protests to free Dmitry Sklyarov at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow). The only reason this might be somewhat ill-received is that Jon is a Norwegian citizen and so some people will say that his prosecution is a "purely internal affair" for Norway and Norwegians. That's not a reason not to do it, of course. Robin Gross writes: > I just spoke with Jon and Per. They reported that there were protests in > Norway tonight over Jon's indictment and will be a protest tomorrow in > front of the Norwegian parliament. > > The person to write to and request the charges be dropped is: > Chief Prosecutor Inger Marie Sunde of the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit > Post Box 8193 0034 OSLO > > I'm checking on other politicians who may be in a position to do something > here. Jon will send me contact info for Electronic Frontier Norway (EFN), > who we should coordinate with if possible. -- Seth David Schoen | Reading is a right, not a feature! http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | -- Kathryn Myronuk http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | _______________________________________________ free-jon mailing list free-jon@eff.org https://www.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/free-jon From mk at ucant.org Fri Jan 11 12:19:47 2002 From: mk at ucant.org (Martin Keegan) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:42 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] [Fwd: Re: [free-jon] Thoughts on how to respond] In-Reply-To: <3C3F4548.653E094B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Seth Johnson wrote: > Sklyarov at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow). The only reason > this might be somewhat ill-received is that Jon is a > Norwegian citizen and so some people will say that his > prosecution is a "purely internal affair" for Norway and > Norwegians. That's not a reason not to do it, of course. In the UK we protested outside the US embassy for Dmitri[*]. I don't see how protesting at the Norwegian embassy would be different for us or the Muscovites, though since you US people had Dmitri in the US, it *will* be a departure for you. My rationale goes something like this: if UK/US residents were to travel to Norway, that would be inappropriate[**]. Protesting on one's home turf about some wrong going on in foreign parts cannot be wrong (or at least, cannot be wrong without condemning all the Apartheid protestors who ever shouted on the streets of London). Mk [*] We stopped doing that out of courtesy after 11 Sep. [**] in the European context, protesting by any European citizens in Brussels or Strasbourg is probably Ok, too. From jei at cc.hut.fi Fri Jan 11 15:09:13 2002 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:42 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Neutralizing the Stealing Meme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Martin Keegan wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Seth Johnson wrote: > > > To get anywhere in the ongoing political mugging over > > intellectual property, the stealing meme must be > > neutralized. As long as the baseline is that MP3 > > filesharing is stealing, it's a law and order issue and the > > good guys will keep getting creamed. > > The rhetorical power of the stealing meme is undeniable. One tactic > might be to turn it on its head. > > Look at the effects of the DMCA/EUCD (which allow rightholders to extend > their control over distribution and reproduction to access and use), and > ask the question "Who's REALLY Stealing Music"? What if car-manufacturers were allowed to control the access and use of the cars they manufacture? May I lend my car to my friend to day to go shopping? Oh, I have to buy a second driver's licence for my car.. IMHO, this all boils down to limiting individual people's freedom to communicate. Who gets to control what you say, or communicate, how, when, and to whom? Is it MPAA and RIAA? Do you own the copyrights to your own words if you morse-code or whistle a song, or perhaps read out loud the hexabytes on a Windows CD-ROM to your friend? Is your friend licenced to record, listen and use your speech in his computer? From izel at sulam.com Fri Jan 11 12:52:10 2002 From: izel at sulam.com (Izel Sulam) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:42 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Neutralizing the Stealing Meme Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020111155140.00a19ec0@host-131.nationalbrokers.com> Some good thoughts here. I think we need to attack the stealing meme on the scarcity angle. Namely: When you steal something, the original owner no longer has it. When you steal his car, he no longer has his car. When you steal his couch, he no longer has his couch. But when someone shares his music with you, he has his music, and you have your music, too. We never run out of copies of music. You can always make new copies of music. How can you steal something that never runs out? This explanation moves the debate from the simplistic and misleading context of stealing into the legitimate context of copyright law, where we can start debating the need for reform in copyright law. -------------- next part -------------- --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release Date: 1/2/02 From junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu Fri Jan 11 17:53:27 2002 From: junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:42 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Neutralizing the Stealing Meme Message-ID: <200201120153.g0C1rRI23532@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Isn't ``fraud'' the best antidote. ``They sell you a movie on a DVD and then say they'll sue you if you watch it. That's fraud!'' Or, ``They sell you a CD and then say that you don't own its content. They really are a bunch of crooks.'' -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists From will.morton at irmplc.com Fri Jan 11 17:36:21 2002 From: will.morton at irmplc.com (Will) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:42 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Neutralizing the Stealing Meme In-Reply-To: <200201120153.g0C1rRI23532@samsara.law.cwru.edu> References: <200201120153.g0C1rRI23532@samsara.law.cwru.edu> Message-ID: <1010799381.1189.24.camel@glamdring> On Sat, 2002-01-12 at 01:53, Peter D. Junger wrote: > > Or, ``They sell you a CD and then say that you don't own its content. > They really are a bunch of crooks.'' > Exactly - as Martyn said earlier, the idea that they're stealing from us rather than the other way round: "Look, you paid 20 Euros for that CD - what exactly did you pay for? The right to listen to it only when, where and in what form the Record Company says you can? We're not saying that you should steal from the Artist - only that you should be able to listen to music you've lawfully paid for the way you want to listen to it" W From mk at ucant.org Fri Jan 11 18:05:44 2002 From: mk at ucant.org (Martin Keegan) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:42 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Neutralizing the Stealing Meme In-Reply-To: <1010799381.1189.24.camel@glamdring> Message-ID: On 12 Jan 2002, Will wrote: > On Sat, 2002-01-12 at 01:53, Peter D. Junger wrote: > > > Or, ``They sell you a CD and then say that you don't own its content. > > They really are a bunch of crooks.'' > > > Exactly - as Martyn said earlier, the idea that they're stealing from > us rather than the other way round: > > "Look, you paid 20 Euros for that CD - what exactly did you pay for? > The right to listen to it only when, where and in what form the Record > Company says you can? In the UK there's no defence of private non-commercial use. So the rightholder has a point when he/she says we should be paying for such use. De jure we should, but the law here is presuming that the distribution of entitlements (in this case, whether the producer or the consumer is in charge of private non-commerical use). That doesn't settle the question of what the entitlements *ought* to be. But even if the rightholder is currently entitled to say "no you can't copy that CD to your computer and play it back as an MP3" (as is the case in the UK), that does not mean the rightholder deserves to be compensated financially for such use. The question I *really* want the answer to is: has the market not already factored unauthorised copying into the price you're selling the CD at? > We're not saying that you should steal from the Artist - only that you > should be able to listen to music you've lawfully paid for the way you > want to listen to it" "The way you want to listen to it" is going to become an ever more important issue; the user wants complete flexibility as to what playback device, format, time, location, etc, he/she uses. The rightholder wants to charge for every playback. This issue is even celebrated in popular culture; in "Men in Black", Tommy Lee Jones' character observes he's going to have to buy the Beatles' White Album *again* when it comes out in some new format based on advanced alien technology. Mk From wendy at seltzer.com Fri Jan 11 18:04:30 2002 From: wendy at seltzer.com (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:42 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Re: Neutralizing the Stealing Meme In-Reply-To: <02011111575300.10762@aether> References: <3C3F31EE.FDF93A44@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <3C3F31EE.FDF93A44@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20020111151110.02091570@mailbox.bellatlantic.net> At 11:57 AM 1/11/02 -0800, tom poe wrote: > > > > My hope is that "word games" is short enough to work against > > "filesharing is stealing". But I think that this is a FAQ > > entry instead, because the explanation is too complex and > > because it's not an aggressive counterattack. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > - Lucas > > > >Hi: Is there an acknowledged threshold at which one can point to? In other >words, at what point does file-sharing become a criminal offense? One place to look is the No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act of 1997, which removed the requirement of monetary gain from the definition of the criminal offense. The NET Act was enacted specifically to reverse the LaMacchia case, when prosecutors found themselves without the necessary laws to go after not-for-profit copying and distribution of software. See Specifically 17 U.S.C. ? 506 ? 506. Criminal offenses (a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either-- 1.for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or 2.by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement. That is, there's some leeway on whether the infringement was "willful," but otherwise the threshold is a $1,000 combined list price of the works copied or distributed. (Sorry to retain all the cc's, but I can't tell where the message originated...) --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From schoen at loyalty.org Fri Jan 11 18:09:20 2002 From: schoen at loyalty.org (Seth David Schoen) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:42 2005 Subject: [free-jon] Re: [free-sklyarov] Neutralizing the Stealing Meme In-Reply-To: <02011111575300.10762@aether> References: <3C3F31EE.FDF93A44@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <02011111575300.10762@aether> Message-ID: <20020112020920.GJ24481@zork.net> tom poe writes: > On Friday 11 January 2002 10:41, Seth Johnson wrote: > > > > > My hope is that "word games" is short enough to work against > > "filesharing is stealing". But I think that this is a FAQ > > entry instead, because the explanation is too complex and > > because it's not an aggressive counterattack. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > - Lucas > > > > Hi: Is there an acknowledged threshold at which one can point to? In other > words, at what point does file-sharing become a criminal offense? > Just a thought. Tom I want to discourage people from crossposting between free-sklyarov and free-jon (although perhaps there's something to be said for reducing the number of lists out there that deal with this stuff, I can imagine that someone may be interested in freeing Dmitry but not in freeing Jon, or in the DMCA but not in reverse engineering or trade secret law). I'm not a lawyer and can't warrant that a particular thing is legal or illegal, but in the U.S. there was no _criminal_ liability for noncommercial copyright infringement until the 1997 "No Electronic Theft Act", which amended 17 USC to provide that (among other things) there would be criminal liability for anyone who "willfully" infringed a copyright [...] by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000 [...] (17 USC 506(a)(2), as amended by 105 P.L. 147) The penalties for violating this include (but are not necessarily limited to) those provided in 18 USC 2319: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html See also http://www.google.com/search?q=lamacchia+loophole This doesn't mean that smaller noncommercial copyright infringement is legal, but just that it's a civil offense (something you can be sued for) instead of a criminal offense (something you can be imprisoned for). There is _no_ threshold at which noncommercial copyright infringement can't be the subject of a civil lawsuit in the sense that you can be sued even if there's no particular commercial value or market for the work in which the copyright was infringed. There are many limitations on copyright and defenses to a charge of copyright infringement; fair use is one of them. (I also think that "fair use is a right" but some representatives of copyright industries like to say that "fair use is a defense, not a right", just because there's no statute in the U.S. which says that people who _prevent_ fair uses are committing a crime.) -- Seth David Schoen | Reading is a right, not a feature! http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | -- Kathryn Myronuk http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | From schoen at loyalty.org Fri Jan 11 18:19:33 2002 From: schoen at loyalty.org (Seth David Schoen) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:43 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Future of this list Message-ID: <20020112021933.GM24481@zork.net> I'm planning to leave this list in place as long as the Elcomsoft case goes on. For the benefit of those whose interest is in that particular case, I'd prefer not to have too much discussion of other issues here. For people who are planning to unsubscribe (we've already lost about 100 subscribers since Dmitry went home), can we collect a list of other lists and resources which may be of interest to people concerned about the DMCA? I can put that into a sort of FAQ document and circulate it here and elsewhere. -- Seth David Schoen | Reading is a right, not a feature! http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | -- Kathryn Myronuk http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | From tompoe at renonevada.net Fri Jan 11 18:55:47 2002 From: tompoe at renonevada.net (tom poe) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:43 2005 Subject: [free-jon] Re: [free-sklyarov] Neutralizing the Stealing Meme In-Reply-To: <20020112020920.GJ24481@zork.net> References: <3C3F31EE.FDF93A44@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <02011111575300.10762@aether> <20020112020920.GJ24481@zork.net> Message-ID: <02011118554701.12453@aether> On Friday 11 January 2002 18:09, Seth David Schoen wrote: - - -snip - - - > I want to discourage people from crossposting between free-sklyarov > and free-jon (although perhaps there's something to be said for > reducing the number of lists out there that deal with this stuff, I > can imagine that someone may be interested in freeing Dmitry but not > in freeing Jon, or in the DMCA but not in reverse engineering or trade > secret law). - - -snip - - - Hi, Seth: You raise a good point. However, if I may. What's interesting about all these lists, in this particular instance, is the spreading of the word in an exaggerated fashion. Any list that is remotely related, is a candidate for these discussions, as the situation is rapidly approaching a crisis that cannot be ignored by the general public, any longer. Communication is the name of the game, and as many lists as possible need to take up the glove, and move to the center of the ring. Nope, in this case, I would strongly encourage as much cross-posting with as many lists as possible, and sort the bandwidth concerns out later. Spam is our friend, ally, and weapon if-you-will. What do you think? Thanks, Tom From tompoe at renonevada.net Fri Jan 11 19:03:59 2002 From: tompoe at renonevada.net (tom poe) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:43 2005 Subject: [free-jon] Re: [free-sklyarov] Neutralizing the Stealing Meme In-Reply-To: <20020112020920.GJ24481@zork.net> References: <3C3F31EE.FDF93A44@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <02011111575300.10762@aether> <20020112020920.GJ24481@zork.net> Message-ID: <02011119035902.12453@aether> On Friday 11 January 2002 18:09, Seth David Schoen wrote: >- - -snip - - - > There is _no_ threshold at which noncommercial copyright infringement > can't be the subject of a civil lawsuit in the sense that you can be > sued even if there's no particular commercial value or market for the > work in which the copyright was infringed. There are many limitations > on copyright and defenses to a charge of copyright infringement; fair > use is one of them. (I also think that "fair use is a right" but some > representatives of copyright industries like to say that "fair use is > a defense, not a right", just because there's no statute in the U.S. > which says that people who _prevent_ fair uses are committing a crime.) Hi, Seth: I thought our First Amendment was that "statute", and, indeed, those who restrict it are committing a crime. hmmmm. When I read about all of the researchers and academicians that did, are, and will be going silent as a result of the RIAA tactics, I shuddered, but felt that, as in the McCarthy era, reason would return, and because of the technological advancement with the Internet, the word would move faster, the response time shortened. Naive, aren't I? Thanks, Tom From schoen at loyalty.org Fri Jan 11 19:15:23 2002 From: schoen at loyalty.org (Seth David Schoen) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:43 2005 Subject: Crossposting (was: Re: [free-jon] Re: [free-sklyarov] Neutralizing the Stealing Meme) In-Reply-To: <02011118554701.12453@aether> References: <3C3F31EE.FDF93A44@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <02011111575300.10762@aether> <20020112020920.GJ24481@zork.net> <02011118554701.12453@aether> Message-ID: <20020112031523.GD28395@zork.net> tom poe writes: > Hi, Seth: You raise a good point. However, if I may. What's interesting > about all these lists, in this particular instance, is the spreading of the > word in an exaggerated fashion. Any list that is remotely related, is a > candidate for these discussions, as the situation is rapidly approaching a > crisis that cannot be ignored by the general public, any longer. > Communication is the name of the game, and as many lists as possible need to > take up the glove, and move to the center of the ring. Nope, in this case, I > would strongly encourage as much cross-posting with as many lists as > possible, and sort the bandwidth concerns out later. Spam is our friend, > ally, and weapon if-you-will. What do you think? > Thanks, Tom I agree that it's important to spread the word widely about possibly-related issues, but I can't believe that all of the subscribers to each list would appreciate that. First, some people are subscribed to more than one of these lists. Second, and more importantly, some people's interest in a particular topic is narrow and specific, so that they don't appreciate hearing about peripherally related things. I've heard people complain that people who care about one thing _should_ care about other related things and actually criticize some activists for not being appropriately broadly concerned. I can understand the importance of building coalitions and networks between people concerned about various things, but I also want to express appreciation and respect for _everyone_ who's worked to free Dmitry (for example), including those who just wanted to hear about Dmitry. Therefore, I think the appropriate thing is to post only on topic, although it's reasonable to send _announcements_ to a list when they would be of interest to a typical subscriber. It's not usually good practice to continue a cross-posted discussion unless it's really clear that it's really relevant to all of them. (What's more, with current anti-spam measures, people who try to participate without being subscribed to all of the lists involved are likely to get their messages bounced each time.) -- Seth David Schoen | Reading is a right, not a feature! http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | -- Kathryn Myronuk http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | From dackroyd at ea.com Fri Jan 11 19:23:20 2002 From: dackroyd at ea.com (Ackroyd, Dan) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:43 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Neutralizing the Stealing Meme Message-ID: On Jan 11 Martin Keegan wrote: > On 12 Jan 2002, Will wrote: > > > On Sat, 2002-01-12 at 01:53, Peter D. Junger wrote: > > > > > Or, ``They sell you a CD and then say that you don't own > its content. > > > They really are a bunch of crooks.'' > > > > > Exactly - as Martyn said earlier, the idea that they're > stealing from > > us rather than the other way round: > > > > "Look, you paid 20 Euros for that CD - what exactly did > you pay for? > > The right to listen to it only when, where and in what form > the Record > > Company says you can? > > In the UK there's no defence of private non-commercial use. So the > rightholder has a point when he/she says we should be paying > for such use. > De jure we should, but the law here is presuming that the > distribution of > entitlements (in this case, whether the producer or the consumer is in > charge of private non-commerical use). > Hi Martin, Have we got a definite answer on this then ? I thought this section of the CDPA was still a hopeful one (and certainly one I'd bring up if I got arrested for making backup copies of my CDs) From tack at gaffle.com Sat Jan 12 11:43:15 2002 From: tack at gaffle.com (tack) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:43 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] lists Message-ID: hey all, I agree with Seth that we need to evaluate the extent to which this list is active, and the cross-posting issue. As we have seen, and illustrated in a previous post, this struggle is a multi-front conflict. This list was created to address one of those fronts. I think we should put some planning into how we organize ourselves so we can spilt up the traffic and have a more effective structure. In particular, I think we should invest time into building a network which can adapt to and swarm on evolving particular instances of this conflict. My thoughts are influenced by this study of netwar (network organization), particularly the chapters on the Burma struggle, chiapas rebellion and seattle protests communication structure (social netwars section): http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1382/ So with that in mind, I propose the following list structure: Core group. A list of the people who've organized all these things. List moderators and local organizers. These are people who are focusing on their individual aspects of the struggle, but are like minded in the things we want to change (stopping enabling statues of the WIPO treaty (dmca), maintaining fair use rights and maintaining free speech rights). this would more or less be a general policy and direction list. the members would get a feel for what's going on broad spectrum, and should key figures in a particular front be arrested or otherwise silenced, one/some of the members could easily pick up the slack or regain contact with the affinity group they represented, and help them compensate for the loss. It is not a governing body as much as it is a round table for key figures to swap notes and reach consensus, with the input of the people they work with. This should be an encrypted list, soliciting members after a trust relationship has been established. Chat should use SSL (jabber?). We don't want our opponents lurking here. Law list. This list focuses on the legal front. It concentrates our global brain-trust of legal experts and works as a legal force amplifier. We should encourage legal teams active in cases to at least lurk in here to get a feel for what their opponents are up to on a global level. Some of the more active members are in core group. PR list. Our PR flack/media. These are reporters, pr people, spin doctors. We need to control public perception, as illustrated in the stealing meme thread. This is our meme factory and brainstorming session on how to get our message across to the public at large. Even if we lose the battles, if we get public opinion on our side we can still win the war. They are charged with designing flyers, web sites, media relations and other associated duties. Some of the more active members are in core group. Action list. Global activity list. This list organizes the efforts of our activists for PR, protests, letter writing...anything we need lots of people to do in meatspace. This list has localized sublists (as in the structure of free-sklyarov lists) so that we can couple global planning with local action while enabling local actors to act without the need of centralized planning. We should welcome the input of the organizers of the Burma efforts to planning this. Some of the more active members are in core group. Issue groups. These lists come end go as the specific issues/incidents they address arrive and pass. They are created ad-hoc as the conflict space changes, lasting years, months days or even just hours. They also can be existing external entities which form temporary alliances with our groups. General list. The general list is very noisy. This will be where anybody can report on new incidents so that efforts can be organized around that particular effort. It is our affinity group factory. Issue groups (free-somebody, boycott so-and-so) can be created here, and the thread splintered off from the general group. This is also a broad news list, with the ohter lists posting updates and requests for help. Anyway, this is just a thought. I think we should organize around core issues, and spin the discussions off to particular efforts to further our goals. I don't think free-sklyarov general should fit this role...I think we should create appropriate groups for our functions, and individually join the ones we feel we can best contribute to (participation in multiple groups is encouraged). If this is already the case, that's great, else we may want to invest some thought into this. I look forward to Elcom being aquitted. The retirement of this particular list after that would be a sign of success. tack From dave at fen-net.de Sat Jan 12 12:23:38 2002 From: dave at fen-net.de (David Haworth) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:43 2005 Subject: [free-jon] Re: [free-sklyarov] Neutralizing the Stealing Meme In-Reply-To: <20020112020920.GJ24481@zork.net>; from schoen@loyalty.org on Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 06:09:20PM -0800 References: <3C3F31EE.FDF93A44@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <02011111575300.10762@aether> <20020112020920.GJ24481@zork.net> Message-ID: <20020112212338.A2008@fen-net.de> On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 06:09:20PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > [...] by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic > means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or > phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total > retail value of more than $1,000 [...] > > (17 USC 506(a)(2), as amended by 105 P.L. 147) Fascinating. How can you put a retail value on something that is never sold retail? Primary example being a single track off an album. Get yourself a good lawyer and you'd walk.... "Well, the retail value of that album is $21, but 3 tracks were released as singles at $7 each, which puts the remaining value at $0". -- David Haworth dave@fen-net.de Baiersdorf, Germany. http://home.graffiti.net/pogue/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20020112/beb17e2a/attachment.pgp From tompoe at renonevada.net Sat Jan 12 14:11:15 2002 From: tompoe at renonevada.net (tom poe) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:43 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] lists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02011214111500.17397@aether> On Saturday 12 January 2002 11:43, tack wrote: > General list. The general list is very noisy. This will be where anybody > can report on new incidents so that efforts can be organized around that > particular effort. It is our affinity group factory. Issue groups > (free-somebody, boycott so-and-so) can be created here, and the thread > splintered off from the general group. This is also a broad news list, > with the ohter lists posting updates and requests for help. Hi: This is exactly what is needed. Excellent! Anyway, a model that brings order to chaos, and also accomplishes general widespread communication. Terrific. Sign me up for the General list. Thanks, Tom From kmself at ix.netcom.com Sat Jan 12 17:18:18 2002 From: kmself at ix.netcom.com (Karsten M. Self) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:43 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Free Jon Johansen! In-Reply-To: ; from mk@ucant.org on Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 07:00:23PM +0000 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020110164702.0526fc78@mail.eff.org> Message-ID: <20020112171818.B2915@navel.introspect> on Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 07:00:23PM +0000, Martin Keegan (mk@ucant.org) wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Will Doherty wrote: > > > For those who are interested in the Jon Johansen case, > > we have set up an email list called: > > > > free-jon@eff.org > > Not another mailing list to be on! At some point we need to rationalise > all these mailing lists. There is an fsl-discuss list which has been set up for general discussion, administered by myself. DeCSS isn't strictly a free software issue, though it's got large components of intersection: http://lists.alt.org/mailman/listinfo/fsl-discuss I feel that the issue-specific discussions have some use, though they also tend to lose focus over time. I'd prefer a few lists which hit the issues I'm concerned with, rather than larger numbers, with much overlap. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20020112/ce615e4c/attachment.pgp From kmself at ix.netcom.com Sat Jan 12 17:50:37 2002 From: kmself at ix.netcom.com (Karsten M. Self) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:43 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Programmers sued, or at risk, for decryption work (fwd) In-Reply-To: ; from jei@cc.hut.fi on Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 07:11:06PM +0200 References: Message-ID: <20020112175037.C2915@navel.introspect> on Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 07:11:06PM +0200, Jei (jei@cc.hut.fi) wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:36:48 -0500 > From: Seth Finkelstein > Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications > To: CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Programmers sued, or at risk, for decryption work > > With the indictment of Jon Johansen, I decided I'd make a list > of all the programmers recently having or needing lawyers for their > decryption or related work. Have I missed anybody here who should be > on the list? > > Dimitry Sklyarov - PDF decryption - criminal case > > Jon Johansen - participating in DVD decryption program - criminal case > > Unknown German - actual DVD decryption - anonymous > > Matthew Skala and Eddy L.O. Jansson - CyberPatrol censorware - civil case > > "Beale Screamer" - Microsoft lockware ("digital rights management") - > anonymous > > SDMI researchers (too many to mention all of them individually, but > notably Felten, Craver, etc) - threats > > Bennett Haselton - Cybersitter, I-Gear censorware - threats > > Seth Finkelstein - various anticensorware work - 'nuff said Emmanuel Goldstein, 2600, DeCSS. Not sure if he fits your hacker cut. Various named and unnamed plaintifs in the Santa Clara DeCSS case: http://www.dibona.com/social/dvd/cover/index.shtml Peace. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20020112/e4371988/attachment.pgp From debug at centras.lt Mon Jan 14 04:00:34 2002 From: debug at centras.lt (DeBug) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:43 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] commercial and noncommercial copyright infringement Message-ID: <18112158299.20020114130034@centras.lt> Can one give a definition of commercial and noncommercial copyright infringement I think it is more a question of goodwillingness When i make a gift is it commercial or noncommercial operation ? And how often do we gift or used to gift music CDs ? From jei at cc.hut.fi Mon Jan 14 10:13:26 2002 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:43 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Finally, A Solution To The DMCA! Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:55:44 -0500 From: Michael Wally To: dmca_discuss@lists.microshaft.org Subject: [DMCA_discuss] DMCA Solution I'm not sure if this hit this mailing list yet, so if it has, sorry for re-posting. I found this floating around the internet and thought you might enjoy it. I've been reading the list for a while and enjoy the current news quite a lot. I have done as much as I can on my end, such as putting anti-dmca.org banners on the top levels of the domains I have and whatnot. This is my first post, and I just wanted to let everyone else know that I like what I see as far as arranging protests and the wonderful ideas you have come up with. Anyhow, onto the Solution. Finally, A Solution To The DMCA! August 23, 2001 For years, the geek community has been at the wrong end of the War on Piracy waged by Hollywood lawyers. The situation could change, however, with the unveiling of a secret weapon -- "The First Church Of Digital Grepping". This newly created church argues that copying digital information is a form of religious worship. As such, it's protected in the US by the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment. "Rock beats scissors. And Free Exercise of Religion beats Digital Millennium Copyright Act(tm). Ha ha, suckers!" said the church's High Priest. Chapter 16, Verse 256 of the Sacred Readme of the First Church Of Digital Grepping states: On the first day, the Great Programmer created a new text file and the Universe was born. The Great Programmer flexed his fingers, started hacking, and entered Deep Hack Mode. First He wrote universe.c. Then sys/laws_of_physics.h and universal_constants.h. The Great Programmer continued his Hacking Binge into the second day with sol.c, which begat terra.c, which begat land_and_sea.c, which laid the foundation for the creation of life.c. On the third day, He gazed upon his Program and saw that it was good. More he produced: prokaryotes.c, eukaryotes.c, sys/dna.h, invertebrates.c, vertebrates.c. On the fourth day, the Great Programmer, against his better judgement, coded mankind.c. On the fifth day, He compiled his work, and received 1,024 errors. On the sixth day, He debugged. On the seventh day, He continued to debug. Rest is for the weak. On the eight day, the debugging continued. Only 128 compiler warnings did He now receive. On the ninth day, the program compiled correctly. Upon execution, it immediately coredumped. On the tenth day, The Great Programmer debugged. On the eleventh day, He debugged. On the twelfth day, He waved a dead chicken, but the Great Program continued to segfault. On the thirteenth day, He discovered the fatal flaw, a misplaced comma He did find. And then void main() executed, and the Big Bang did occur. Then the Great Programmer leaned back in his executive chair, and gazed upon the newborn Universe. And frowned. He knew those sentient humans would be a problem. Even after He had sweated over a hot terminal for thirteen days, those humans were ungrateful. They called their place of existence the "Universe", not the "Great Programmer/Universe". On the fourteenth day, he decided to take action. He would send these humans The Meaning Of Life, and soon the world would worship Him and his Hacking Skills. He did just that. He inspired a certain human to produce a work of art which includes His message, The Meaning Of Life. Eventually the humans would discover the .plan of the Great Programmer hidden in a certain work of art and all would be well... The Sacred Readme is a tad vague, but the church's High Priest believes that "The Meaning Of Life" is encoded in either a popular song, or a Hollywood movie, or an Adobe e-book. "If only we could figure out which 'work of art' the Sacred Readme refers to, and then grep through the binary representation to extract the divine message," the High Priest explains. The mission of the church is to make digital copies of every music CD, every movie DVD, and every printed book and then grep the digital version for any tell-tale signs of 'The Meaning Of Life'." "Our church cannot function if the DMCA prohibits us from making copies as part of the Fair Use Doctrine. We worship the Great Programmer by trying to discover His secret message. Why should we put the profits of Big Evil Corporations above the search for The Meaning Of Life?" Of course, the MPAA, RIAA, DVD-CCA, BSA, and other groups see things slightly differently. "This is all bull," said a MPAA spokesperson. "We didn't buy a slate of Congressmen to get the DMCA passed just so some fake parody religion could claim a bogus exemption!" An investigator for Oracle discovered a hand-written copy of the Sacred Readme while rummaging through the High Priest's trash cans. The P.I. believes that the holy document was actually written last Wednesday when the High Priest had a little too much to drink. The founder of the church stands his ground, however. "I wasn't drunk last Wednesday," he argues, "I was busy trying to find the divine message within a copy of 'Star Trek XXIII: We Promise This Movie Doesn't Include Any Annoying Characters Like Jar Jar Binks' on my big-screen projection TV. Needless to say, I came up empty." The judges in the California Sixth District Court of Appeals were all unavailable for comment at press time. - Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ _______________________________________________ ------------------------ http://www.anti-dmca.org ------------------------ DMCA_discuss mailing list DMCA_discuss@lists.microshaft.org http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss From jei at cc.hut.fi Sun Jan 27 04:49:56 2002 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:44 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Re: [DMCA_discuss] Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break the law (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anatoly Volynets To: Jei Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 23:18:29 -0800 Subject: Re: [DMCA_discuss] Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break the law (fwd) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 26 January 2002 04:02 pm, you wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 17:40:02 +0000 (GMT) > From: Martin Keegan > Reply-To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk > To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk > Subject: Re: Buy DVDs and games abroad - and break the law (fwd) > > On Sat, 26 Jan 2002, Graham Murray wrote: > > > In effect, the UK's Copyright and Patents Act 1988 gives copyright > > > holders more power than America's highly controversial Digital > > > Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), because there are no exceptions, as > > > Martin Keegan, of the UK-based Campaign for Digital Rights points out. > > > > Is anyone campaigning for the removal (or severe curtailing) from > > copyright owners the "right" to control the use (in particular > > restricting where and on what equipment entertainment may be enjoyed) > > of authorised copies? Once a copy has been created, with the > > There's the UK Campaign for Digital Rights (http://uk.eurorights.org/), > and other small groups, as well as, I believe, EBLIDA (librarians), who > probably aren't small, but aren't focused on this particular issue. UK > CDR is more about being against the European Copyright Directive and > defending the status quo on copyright (see the quote from me in the > Register article at the beginning of this thread), rather than having a > positive programme of its own. > > The problem is as follows: the traditional balance of copyright is being > upset by the massively reduced cost of infringement, and the efforts of > rightholders to increase the protection the State gives them. The former > is being used to justify the latter, but the legislative scrutiny to which > the latter is being submitted is insufficient to strike a new balance in > which the public interest is best served. I believe we should stop talk about "traditional balance of copyright", because it is injurious illusion. There have never been such a balance, and the problem is as follows: ALL copyright related laws mix up author and copyright holder. It was not apprehended by public so far, because have not created that much tension until Internet involvement. Copyright holder in fact is the same as a publisher (in general terms), and is just a business entity, which tries to exploit author (it works even in those cases when author and publisher is the same person). Author, generally speaking, does not depend on businessman in order to create. Author is the only one,who needs protection. And the only danger he or she needs to be protected from is a publisher, which intents to still name. One of the most powerful forces, which encourage creativity is an audience. This means that ANY limitation on distribution of any idea, art work, invention, music, article, etc. causes damage to public. Thus ANY copyright related law or action, which, generally speaking, implements some limitations on ideas' distribution, definitely harms public. So called "copyright balance" protects ONLY certain business models. The question is, why any business model should be protected on expense of the public interest? I can understand necessity to protect market, industry, science, culture, technology, etc. development. But this does not imply protection of certain business models. It seems to be obvious: if a business model contradicts market and, general society development then such model should not be protected. But we must talk not only about protection of society. We must think how to enforce its development. And one easy answer for this question does exist: Eliminate any possible limitation on circulation of ideas, works of art, music, inventions, etc. Do you need examples, how this worked in the history of mankind? Find them yourself! Do not pass by WWW, Internet, Linux, radio, telephone, automobile, book printing, ...wheel. Do you need examples, how copyright law harmed author, slowed down industry, technology, culture development? Do not ask me. Find them! Forget about business models, which do not comply with FREE circulation of ideas. There are another models on the market and they work. One can say, if we remove all copyright limitations, the material interest of an author will be compromised. Let us think about this problem then. I can imagine some kind of special taxes for use of a new idea, special public funds to compensate author work... This must be elaborated. I personally believe that there is no place for a compromise in these matters. We must find such a mechanisms, which would serve to the best SOCIETY AND AUTHOR interest! World Wide Web grew up on ground of complete freedom of circulation of ideas. I think it happened because WWW gave in set of tools for everyone to create and communicate. These capabilities, I believe, are the very fundamental for human being. There are millions of people, who act in this arena and are happy to do so. On the other hand, when job was done by public, and powerful productive nature of WWW was uncovered, money hunters woke up and try to control it, using their business models. That is how the great tension of our time develops. That is why so many people try to understand, what is going on, and how to protect... But who must be protected? I hope, it will eventually become clear for majority that the problem is not, how to protect revenues of some nearsighted corporations. The only problem is the very idea of intellectual property. This is a monster, which causes more and more troubles and will cause more and more... That is why for me all talks about possible positive side effects of THE COMPLETELY WRONG IDEA of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY sound like talks about positive side effects of murder. > Personally, I believe that the Internet constitutes a qualitatively new > environment, and that a new set of compromises will have to be reached, > which may include the legal protection for technological protection > measures (TPMs). > > It seems to me, though I know little of this area, being more of a UNIX > sysadmin type than a security specialist, that TPMs cannot in principle > perfectly protect information goods, but that they can significantly > increase the cost of certain acts to the point where they are an > economically feasible way of protecting `content'. If the law is to > protect such measures, it ought to do it in a way calculated to maximise > the benefit to the public; too much or too little legal protection to > information works themselves hurts the public (either too few people will > *make* new works, or too few people can *use* them), and the same applies > to legal protection for TPMs. This hurts. Freedom cannot slow down "making of new works". I will be very surprised to meet a single person who will not write a book, or article, or music, or will stop to think about new engineering idea because of lack copyright protection. An author, normally, is afraid of just one thing: stealing of the name. There is nothing to do here with a publisher fear, because this one is about money. The illusion that copyright encourages creativity is the actual problem. Copyright works against creativity, because gives tools in hands of publisher to control author. > There are four major limits on copyright: duration of term, scope of works > which may be covered, fair use/dealing, exhaustion/first sale. The > contours of the law in these areas can in some cases only be determined by > the courts; there's no programmatic way (I assert) that the creator of a > TPM to be used by a rightholder (or even to be used by a pirate) can > express the whole of copyright law to ensure that the TPM operates the way > that copyright law would; we should expect a competent and rational > TPM-creator to create a TPM system which furthered his interests, which > could be maximising his profits at the expense of the public through > circumventing copyright law, or the prevention of the detection and > punishment of piracy, or an attempt at reproducing the balance in > copyright law. > This hurts. There is no such-like problems: how technical and law protection should cooperate. All attempts to state and solve those problems cause the ONE REAL PROBLEM: limitation of freedom of communication and creativity. The other side of this medal is enforcement of business models, which exploited limitations of freedom. Why should we think about this? I do not congratulate us for such-like "science". I would prefer to talk about real problems. > The law should not, as it seems to do in the UK, protect the intentions of > TPM creators, whether or not those intentions are conformant with public > policy (on copyright and competition and such-like). It should limit its > protection to such TPM systems as are conformant with public policy. > The EUCD and DMCA attempt to do this, but they don't go nearly far enough, > and the danger is that rightholders will act in reliance on their extra > protection and complain when the public tries to get the extra protection > taken away. > This hurts. "Rightholders" complain that public attempts to protect very basic right and need of human being, and scientists think how to slightly limit those complaints. May I state this one more and last time? Those twisted complaints are normal developments of the idea of intellectual property. People have right to protect their property. The problem is that there is no such a thing in cultural fields: property. Finish. > Anyone who's got time to help me research this stuff please contact me; I > work three days a week as it is to allow me time to read up on copyright > law and related topics, and a helping hand would be most welcome. > > Mk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ------------------------ > http://www.anti-dmca.org > ------------------------ > > DMCA_discuss mailing list > DMCA_discuss@lists.microshaft.org > http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjxTqdEACgkQUUfze/28Q+4A6wCfRuYhttD9siXLArVJqIRI/woI 1NUAn2SlWghA9yB/akj9mxc/eu2RFJ8a =r0ef -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From kfoss at planetpdf.com Mon Jan 28 21:01:48 2002 From: kfoss at planetpdf.com (Kurt Foss) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:44 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FYI> PR: ElcomSoft seeks dismissal of DMCA charges Message-ID: Attorneys for ElcomSoft, a Russian software company facing criminal charges in California for allegedly violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), have filed motions seeking that the charges be dismissed. They argue that the DMCA is "vague, overly broad and has been misapplied in this case." The next court date in the case -- involving decryption of protected, Adobe PDF-based eBooks -- is March 4. http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=1869 rgds ~ Kurt ____________________ Kurt Foss - Editor _______________________ Planet PDF - A world of Acrobat/PDF news, tips, tools and forums mailto:kfoss@binarything.com | mailto:kfoss@planetpdf.com http://www.binarything.com/ | http://www.planetpdf.com/ The ePublish Store http://www.epublishstore.com/ BinaryThing - The ePublishing Network From vkatalov at elcomsoft.com Tue Jan 29 06:55:24 2002 From: vkatalov at elcomsoft.com (Vladimir Katalov) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:44 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] FYI> PR: ElcomSoft seeks dismissal of DMCA charges In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <893342588.20020129175524@elcomsoft.com> Hello, > http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=1869 Thanks. And here a German and Dutch articles (probably, reprinted from PlanetPDF one): http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-29.01.02-002/ http://www.webwereld.nl/nieuws/10001.phtml And btw, here is a good in-depth article I've just found ("ElcomSoft vs. Adobe: How AEBPR cracked Adobe?s Acrobat E-Book Reader"): http://rr.sans.org/software/elcomsoft.php /Vladimir vkatalov@elcomsoft.com From jei at cc.hut.fi Tue Jan 29 17:15:59 2002 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:44 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] Comic book sales limitations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It has come to my attention that VIZ Comics is implementing trade limitations on to the sellers of their Dragon Ball Z manga (comic) books, similar to DVD-region codings. UK and US retailers are apparently forced to NOT sell the books to anyone outside UK, US, New Zealand or Australia, as I understand it, or the (small shops at least) will not get them any more. I find this very frustrating, as the books in question are very hard to get because of it in Finland, and several net shops refuse to sell them to you on the basis of where you live or where you try to order them to. This applies to major resellers in the US (who deliver stuff to comic books in Finland), as well as web-shops when you try to order the manga from UK or US shops to Finland. I am VERY frustrated by this!!! Is this kind of racist limitation of trade legal? This example is not the only one of it's kind, and I'm afraid the trend is getting worse. From jei at cc.hut.fi Tue Jan 29 18:13:43 2002 From: jei at cc.hut.fi (Jei) Date: Fri Jul 8 22:09:44 2005 Subject: [free-sklyarov] A-M$: Rick Boucher on the DMCA - http://news.com.com/2010-1078-825335.html (fwd) Message-ID: http://news.com.com/2010-1078-825335.html Time to rewrite the DMCA By Rick Boucher January 29, 2002, 12:00 PM PT The American public has traditionally enjoyed the ability to make convenient and incidental copies of copyrighted works without obtaining the prior consent of copyright owners. These traditional "fair use" rights are at the foundation of the receipt and use of information by the American people. Unfortunately, those rights are now under attack. In 1997, motion picture studios, record producers, book publishers and other content owners came to Congress with a simple proposition: Give us a law that will stop pirates from circumventing technical protection measures used to safeguard copyrighted works, and we will release all sorts of exciting new content in digital formats At the time, libraries, universities, consumer electronics manufacturers, Internet portals and others warned that enactment of the broadly worded legislation would stifle new technology, would threaten access to information, and would move us inexorably towards a "pay per use" society. That day is now close at hand. When Congress considered the content community's anti-circumvention proposal, I put forward a series of amendments intended to preserve the fair-use rights of consumers. My colleagues and I feared that broad application of the proposed new anti-circumvention law would threaten the viability of the fair-use doctrine in the digital age. Unfortunately, as so often happens, Congress paid more attention to the loudest voices in the debate. In writing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, Congress made some important, but ultimately modest, changes to the original proposal. And we persuaded ourselves that we had achieved a rough balance of interests. But in the end, Congress agreed to a fundamentally flawed bill, which created the new crime of circumvention--a crime divorced from over a century and a half of respect for the fair-use rights of consumers. The DMCA, as enacted, quite clearly tilted the balance in the Copyright Act toward complete protection and away from information availability. In the three years since the law was enacted, we have not seen the promised new digital content. Instead, we have seen a rash of lawsuits; the imprisonment by U.S. authorities of a Russian computer programmer who had come to the United States to give a technical talk; and, more recently, the release of compact discs into the market that cannot be played in computers or even some CD players, and thus cannot be used to create custom compilations of consumers' favorite songs. Some of the most serious lawsuits have implicated academic freedom and free speech. In response to an open challenge by the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI), which invited the world to seek to defeat the watermarking technologies it had proposed for protecting digital audio content, Princeton University Professor Edward Felten and his colleagues defeated all of the proposed watermarks. The Felten team then sought to exercise their First Amendment rights by publishing the results of their scientific research and presenting the paper at a security conference. Before he presented the paper, however, Felten received a threatening letter from the SDMI warning that doing so would subject him to liability under the DMCA. Felten then filed a lawsuit to uphold his First Amendment right to publish his research findings. The case has been dismissed, but the issue has not gone away, because the judge did not rule on the actual merits of his complaint. Similarly, the publisher of 2600 magazine was sued by motion picture studios for providing a link to a Web site that contained the DeCSS code, which can be used to defeat the industry-standard DVD copy protection system enabling movies to be played on a Linux-based operating system. After losing at the trial level, the magazine publisher appealed, trying to preserve his right to link to sites without being held responsible for everything on those sites. Unfortunately, the federal courts in these cases did not uphold the First Amendment rights of these publishers. In the 2600 case, the appellate court circumscribed traditionally accepted fair-use rights by declaring that these rights did not apply to the most convenient, highest-quality formats available to consumers. These examples of the content community successfully threatening and hauling into court individuals seeking to exercise traditional free speech rights demonstrate how the DMCA is flawed, and has tipped the copyright balance in a damaging way against traditional fair-use rights. Given the breadth of the DMCA, the fair-use rights of the public at large also are at risk. From the college student who photocopies a page from a library book or prints an article from a newspaper's Web site for use in writing a report, to the newspaper reporter excerpting materials from a document for a story, to the typical television viewer who records a broadcast program for viewing at a later time, we all depend on the ability to make limited copies of copyrighted material without having to pay a fee or obtain prior approval of the copyright owner. In fact, fair-use rights to obtain and use a wide array of information are essential to the exercise of First Amendment rights. The very vibrancy of our democracy is dependent upon the information availability and use facilitated by the fair-use doctrine. Yet, efforts to exercise those rights increasingly are being threatened by section 1201 of the DMCA, which created the new crime of circumvention. Section 1201 (a)(1), for example, prohibits unauthorized access to a work by circumventing an effective technological protection measure used by a copyright owner to control access to a copyrighted work. Because the law does not limit its application to circumvention for the purpose of infringing a copyright, all types of traditionally accepted activities may be at risk. Any action of circumvention without the consent of the copyright owner is made criminal. Consider the implications. A time may soon come when what is available for free on library shelves will only be available on a pay-per-use basis. It would be a simple matter for a copyright owner to impose a requirement that a small fee be paid each time a digital book or video documentary is accessed by a library patron. Even the student who wants even the most basic access to only a portion of the book to write a term paper would have to pay to avoid committing a crime. The day is already here in which copyright owners use "click on" licenses to limit what purchasers of a copyrighted work may do with it. Some e-book licenses, for example, prohibit the reader from reading the book out loud. Some go so far as to make it a violation of the license to even criticize the contents of a work, let alone to make a copy of a paragraph or two. To counter this emerging threat to traditionally accepted fair-use values, Congress must rewrite the law. We should begin by revising section 1201, which is at the heart of the Felten and 2600 magazine litigations, and which can be used to keep library patrons from copying even a paragraph from a book without making a separate payment. The only conduct that should be declared criminal is circumvention for the purpose of infringing a copyright. That approach would provide adequate protection for copyright owners without abridging the legitimate fair-use rights of consumers, libraries, educators and other users. For over 150 years, the fair-use doctrine has helped stimulate broad advances in scientific inquiry and education, and has advanced broad societal goals in countless other ways. In this emerging digital era, we need to return to first principles. We need to achieve the balance that should be at the heart of our efforts to promote the interests of copyright owners while respecting the rights of information consumers. We need to rewrite the law for the benefit of society as a whole before all access to information is irreversibly controlled. In short, we need to reaffirm fair use. == "Anti-M$ Mailing List", another fine service of Enemy.ORG / VBS == == [un]subscribe requests to Majordomo@Enemy.ORG or Anti_ms-owner@Enemy.ORG ==