dvd-discuss.archive.0012100640 764 764 1232014 7223606145 15327 0ustar wseltzerwseltzerFrom dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 1 01:31:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA14499 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 01:31:20 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA14496 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 01:31:18 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 07:19:28 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 06:10:22 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 06:10:22 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 270K Movie Downloads a Day? Message-ID: <20001201061022.B21377@lemuria.org> References: <20001130222314.A19877@lemuria.org> <48cf5bfe0a86a4d08d61d43b0a834000@anon.xg.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <48cf5bfe0a86a4d08d61d43b0a834000@anon.xg.nu>; from no.user@anon.xg.nu on Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 09:41:06PM -0600 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu No User wrote: > that's maybe 20 half-hour episodes, and each is split into two or three > segments (and TV shows usually are) there's 40-50 files downloaded. It's > not hard to come up with 270,000 downloads per day when you count that way. well, then "270,000 *movies*" is an outright lie. warez are historically split into 2.88 MB files (old disk size), but that doesn't mean every download of all the 100 files in a typical game is "100 games a day". this is not even miscounting or mislabeling, this is plain lying. > The funny thing is, I spent a few hours looking for somewhere to download > a TV show that I wanted to watch. If I could have just gotten it from the > broadcaster's website, I'd have gladly taken it with advertising and all. > The whole experience leaves me wondering whether the studios' so-called > 'piracy' problem isn't almost entirely self-induced. 'course it is. the whole piracy market exists due to the precise same thing that makes the movie mafia filthy rich: free economics. every freshmen student of economics can tell you that if there's a huge demand, a market *will* form, one way or the other. copyright doesn't exist in a free market, whether you like that or not. if something *can* be traded, it will. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 1 11:33:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA23945 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:33:44 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA23942 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:33:43 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:34:43 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] More copyright office hearings on DMCA To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:34:40 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/01/2000 08:34:42 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu and royalties for every acorn too. Tom Vogt Sent by: To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] More copyright office hearings on DMCA 11/30/00 01:14 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > A physical creation? These people seem to be of the mind that "if a tree > falls in the forest and nobody is there does it make a sound" ...absolutely > YES......Incredible....stupid greedy bastards. not quite. they believe that the tree should pay them royalities. someone on cypherpunks would say these people "need killing", and the more you know about them, the less other descriptions seem adequate. they're not only greedy, they're worse. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 1 11:39:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA24119 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:39:27 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA24116 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:39:21 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:40:26 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:40:24 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/01/2000 08:40:26 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu They make multiple copies "Kroll, Dave" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... 11/30/00 10:20 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss How about anti-shock CD players? They're buffering 10-60 seconds in memory, right? David Kroll QA Coordinator 612-882-6452 Dave_Kroll@cdpoly.com -----Original Message----- From: Steve Hosgood [SMTP:steve@i2it.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 8:53 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... Michael.A.Rolenz writes: > Do you realize that this whole problem comes down to language? The legal > profession has not realized that the word COPY has different connotations. > In copyright, it connotes a fixation into media of the material that is > accessible to the purchaser of it. In this case, the buffer copies that are > not accessed are more like unsold copies left in a warehouse.... > It might be useful for this forum to start discussing possible legal rebuffs to this sort of thing. I'm not quite sure if this is really the purpose of this openlaw group, but I can bet that aspects of it will come to bite us as the various inevitable deCSS/LiViD/xxx court cases appear and disappear over the next few years. Forearmed is forewarned (or something like that :-)). Anyway, assuming anyone wants to play, here's a couple of instances I can suggest where existing technologies are "making copies" as a side effect of their normal operations, yet operate unchallenged by the likes of the MPAA/RIAA. 1) Any MPEG decoder has to keep at least some history (and future history) of a datastream in order to function. Obviously this includes DVD players, including of course the cartel's players. 2) Any 100/120Hz anti-flicker TV set contains a framestore or fieldstore in which to hold a copy of picture information so that it can be displayed twice. 3) Some 'analog TV' receivers feature digital signal processing - especially around the colour decoder. No sure about the USA, but in Europe some TVs (especially PALplus ones(*)) store a frame of two of picture in order to permit advanced Y/U/V signal separation. PALplus TVs can also convert an apparent 4:3 letterbox picture into a 16:9 anamorphic one containing extra luminance detail - again they need framestores to do this. The existence of these other systems ought to provide a legally-sound defence against this latest stupidity. The MPAA/RIAA might dismiss all the above as "no, that's not what we meant, that's not a complete copy of the signal, just a few frames held in temporary storage". But then again - where's the line to be drawn in the sand? Is there any indication what the MPAA/RIAA *do* consider to be "a copy for which they think fees should be paid"? If "signal processing" is *not* considered "copying", I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Certainly the LiViD people ought to be OK as long as they don't leave any work files lying around when their player exits. ----------------------------------------------------------- (*) For PALplus info for geeks, see http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve/palplus.html The hotlinks at the top of the page are dead, but the rest is good. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 1 17:51:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA31383 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:51:06 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA31380 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:51:04 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:52:06 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 270K Movie Downloads a Day? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:52:05 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/01/2000 02:52:05 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Did you see the breakdown of the studio revenues at the end? Home video: 46.6% TV: 28.8% Theatrical box office: 24.6% It's so very strange that if 46.6% of their business is from home video, that they would be so very concerned about regional distributionof film etc that are only 24.6% of the business unless somebody had convinced them that they won'thave the other 75.4% if they don't preserve the sanctity of their original distribution. This whole issue isn't piracy it's C O N T R O L . Eric Eldred To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 270K Movie Downloads arvard.edu a Day? 11/30/00 07:53 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 11:47:44AM -0800, James S. Tyre wrote: > [From today's Los Angeles Times] > > http://www.latimes.com/news/front/20001130/t000114997.html >... > "It's cumbersome to use, but in the next four months, there will > be new tools for improving film piracy," said Lance Trebesch, > general manager of the Los Angeles office of Viant. I can't wait until Viant releases those tools in the next four months. Good work, guys. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 1 17:52:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA31461 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:52:56 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA31458 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:52:55 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:53:54 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:53:52 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/01/2000 02:53:53 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "A few frames held in temporary storage..." the next question is does it matter where or how? RAM? Video memory? Hard disk as a file? Hard disk as a swap file? or....making the next leap .....a server? Along the philosophical lines of the good Biship Berkeley - "If a copy of copyright material is made but the copyright material is not viewed or heard by someone, is it really a copy?"....to my thinking the ONLY copy that matters is the one that is accessed by a PERSON. That's where the line should be drawn. A hundred million bootleg copies of the StarWars DVD has NO impact upon their revenues if nobody buys them or they are not sold. "Steve Hosgood" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related arvard.edu hearing... 11/30/00 07:03 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Michael.A.Rolenz writes: > Do you realize that this whole problem comes down to language? The legal > profession has not realized that the word COPY has different connotations. > In copyright, it connotes a fixation into media of the material that is > accessible to the purchaser of it. In this case, the buffer copies that are > not accessed are more like unsold copies left in a warehouse.... > It might be useful for this forum to start discussing possible legal rebuffs to this sort of thing. I'm not quite sure if this is really the purpose of this openlaw group, but I can bet that aspects of it will come to bite us as the various inevitable deCSS/LiViD/xxx court cases appear and disappear over the next few years. Forearmed is forewarned (or something like that :-)). Anyway, assuming anyone wants to play, here's a couple of instances I can suggest where existing technologies are "making copies" as a side effect of their normal operations, yet operate unchallenged by the likes of the MPAA/RIAA. 1) Any MPEG decoder has to keep at least some history (and future history) of a datastream in order to function. Obviously this includes DVD players, including of course the cartel's players. 2) Any 100/120Hz anti-flicker TV set contains a framestore or fieldstore in which to hold a copy of picture information so that it can be displayed twice. 3) Some 'analog TV' receivers feature digital signal processing - especially around the colour decoder. No sure about the USA, but in Europe some TVs (especially PALplus ones(*)) store a frame of two of picture in order to permit advanced Y/U/V signal separation. PALplus TVs can also convert an apparent 4:3 letterbox picture into a 16:9 anamorphic one containing extra luminance detail - again they need framestores to do this. The existence of these other systems ought to provide a legally-sound defence against this latest stupidity. The MPAA/RIAA might dismiss all the above as "no, that's not what we meant, that's not a complete copy of the signal, just a few frames held in temporary storage". But then again - where's the line to be drawn in the sand? Is there any indication what the MPAA/RIAA *do* consider to be "a copy for which they think fees should be paid"? If "signal processing" is *not* considered "copying", I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Certainly the LiViD people ought to be OK as long as they don't leave any work files lying around when their player exits. ----------------------------------------------------------- (*) For PALplus info for geeks, see http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve/palplus.html The hotlinks at the top of the page are dead, but the rest is good. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 1 20:36:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA02981 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 20:36:48 -0500 Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA02978 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 20:36:45 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38lcill.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.74.181]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA11304 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 20:37:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A28519E.EA1A6658@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 20:34:23 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > "A few frames held in temporary storage..." the next question is does > it > matter where or how? RAM? Video memory? Hard disk as a file? Hard disk > as a > swap file? or....making the next leap .....a server? > > ... and the charge, in the DeCSS case, should have been "mounting a proprietary file system with intent to buffer." mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 1 22:55:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA10918 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:55:55 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA10915 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:55:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA20178 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:57:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:57:04 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... In-Reply-To: <3A28519E.EA1A6658@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, mickeym wrote: > > "A few frames held in temporary storage..." the next question is does > > it > > matter where or how? RAM? Video memory? Hard disk as a file? Hard disk > > as a > > swap file? or....making the next leap .....a server? > > > > > > ... and the charge, in the DeCSS case, should have been "mounting a > proprietary file system with intent to buffer." > > Is this redefinition of copy part of a legal strategy to attack music locker services? In the MP3.com case, the service operated a music locker service, but in order to save on upload times, and storage space, allowed users to use the server's music library. If it had not done this, and instead simply granted "storage space" to its users, the record labels would have less of a case. But here, the RIAA is asking for a cut, if a user streams his own recordings to a local machine... The DVDCCA attempted to call the CSS system "copy protection." I think that this analogy has confused the RIAA et al, to the point that an ephemeral, momentary collection of bytes represents a copy if it is not "encrypted." Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Dec 4 17:28:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA23778 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:28:17 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA23775 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:28:16 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35) id ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:30:04 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:29:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Forget those piddly little frame buffers ... what about TIVO and those other recent "interactive TV" devices? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Hosgood [mailto:steve@i2it.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 6:53 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... > > > Michael.A.Rolenz writes: > > Do you realize that this whole problem comes down to > language? The legal > > profession has not realized that the word COPY has > different connotations. > > In copyright, it connotes a fixation into media of the > material that is > > accessible to the purchaser of it. In this case, the buffer > copies that are > > not accessed are more like unsold copies left in a warehouse.... > > > > It might be useful for this forum to start discussing > possible legal rebuffs > to this sort of thing. I'm not quite sure if this is really > the purpose of > this openlaw group, but I can bet that aspects of it will > come to bite us as > the various inevitable deCSS/LiViD/xxx court cases appear and > disappear over > the next few years. Forearmed is forewarned (or something > like that :-)). > > > Anyway, assuming anyone wants to play, here's a couple of > instances I can > suggest where existing technologies are "making copies" as a > side effect of > their normal operations, yet operate unchallenged by the likes of the > MPAA/RIAA. > > 1) Any MPEG decoder has to keep at least some history (and > future history) > of a datastream in order to function. Obviously this includes > DVD players, > including of course the cartel's players. > > 2) Any 100/120Hz anti-flicker TV set contains a framestore or > fieldstore in > which to hold a copy of picture information so that it can be > displayed twice. > > 3) Some 'analog TV' receivers feature digital signal > processing - especially > around the colour decoder. No sure about the USA, but in > Europe some TVs > (especially PALplus ones(*)) store a frame of two of picture > in order to permit > advanced Y/U/V signal separation. PALplus TVs can also > convert an apparent > 4:3 letterbox picture into a 16:9 anamorphic one containing > extra luminance > detail - again they need framestores to do this. > > The existence of these other systems ought to provide a > legally-sound defence > against this latest stupidity. > > The MPAA/RIAA might dismiss all the above as "no, that's not > what we meant, > that's not a complete copy of the signal, just a few frames > held in temporary > storage". But then again - where's the line to be drawn in > the sand? Is there > any indication what the MPAA/RIAA *do* consider to be "a copy > for which they > think fees should be paid"? > > If "signal processing" is *not* considered "copying", I'm not > sure what the > fuss is about. Certainly the LiViD people ought to be OK as > long as they > don't leave any work files lying around when their player exits. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (*) For PALplus info for geeks, see http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve/palplus.html The hotlinks at the top of the page are dead, but the rest is good. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Dec 4 19:34:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA27018 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 19:34:13 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA27015 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 19:34:12 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 16:35:20 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 16:35:18 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/04/2000 04:35:20 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu "interactive TV"....now that's an interesting concept. If I record an interactive TV session, who owns the copyright to it? Assuming that there might be people who are "Grand Masters" at Interactive TV that other people would be wanting to watch what they do (as many do with sports today), who would own the copyrights? The creators of the interactive TV or the "Grand Master". One could argue that an interactive TV program is really nothing more than a sophisticated paper, pencil, paint, set or even a printing press for the creation of works. IT provides a framework or forum for creating works but in itself it is not a work. One may be able to patent the means that the interaction occurs much like Adobe has patents on parts of photoshop (NOTE: I am making no comments about the legitimacy of their patents. The Patent office has been patenting some of the purest BS imaginable recently.) Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... 12/04/00 02:31 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss Forget those piddly little frame buffers ... what about TIVO and those other recent "interactive TV" devices? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Hosgood [mailto:steve@i2it.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 6:53 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... > > > Michael.A.Rolenz writes: > > Do you realize that this whole problem comes down to > language? The legal > > profession has not realized that the word COPY has > different connotations. > > In copyright, it connotes a fixation into media of the > material that is > > accessible to the purchaser of it. In this case, the buffer > copies that are > > not accessed are more like unsold copies left in a warehouse.... > > > > It might be useful for this forum to start discussing > possible legal rebuffs > to this sort of thing. I'm not quite sure if this is really > the purpose of > this openlaw group, but I can bet that aspects of it will > come to bite us as > the various inevitable deCSS/LiViD/xxx court cases appear and > disappear over > the next few years. Forearmed is forewarned (or something > like that :-)). > > > Anyway, assuming anyone wants to play, here's a couple of > instances I can > suggest where existing technologies are "making copies" as a > side effect of > their normal operations, yet operate unchallenged by the likes of the > MPAA/RIAA. > > 1) Any MPEG decoder has to keep at least some history (and > future history) > of a datastream in order to function. Obviously this includes > DVD players, > including of course the cartel's players. > > 2) Any 100/120Hz anti-flicker TV set contains a framestore or > fieldstore in > which to hold a copy of picture information so that it can be > displayed twice. > > 3) Some 'analog TV' receivers feature digital signal > processing - especially > around the colour decoder. No sure about the USA, but in > Europe some TVs > (especially PALplus ones(*)) store a frame of two of picture > in order to permit > advanced Y/U/V signal separation. PALplus TVs can also > convert an apparent > 4:3 letterbox picture into a 16:9 anamorphic one containing > extra luminance > detail - again they need framestores to do this. > > The existence of these other systems ought to provide a > legally-sound defence > against this latest stupidity. > > The MPAA/RIAA might dismiss all the above as "no, that's not > what we meant, > that's not a complete copy of the signal, just a few frames > held in temporary > storage". But then again - where's the line to be drawn in > the sand? Is there > any indication what the MPAA/RIAA *do* consider to be "a copy > for which they > think fees should be paid"? > > If "signal processing" is *not* considered "copying", I'm not > sure what the > fuss is about. Certainly the LiViD people ought to be OK as > long as they > don't leave any work files lying around when their player exits. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (*) For PALplus info for geeks, see http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve/palplus.html The hotlinks at the top of the page are dead, but the rest is good. -- Steve | S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan today is better Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow" Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - Conrad Brean --------------------------------------------+ http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" ) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Dec 4 20:41:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA29299 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:41:20 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA29296 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:41:19 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35) id ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 16:57:37 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 16:57:29 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Actually I wasn't thinking of WebTV or something like that. TIVO and (something else) are new devices which are essentially live digital video recorders with huge buffers. The ideas is that if you missed a line of dialog on the show you are watching (or a play on the football game) you can skip back right away to hear it ... the TIVO meanwhile is still recording the show and you can catch up with the live broadcast eventually. I -think- it can also be used in the classic "record to watch later" mode, but the main feature is the live recording/playback. Anyway -- the thing here is that this is neither recording for archival purposes (the betamax case) nor is it really "work buffers" the way that non-skip CDs use them (although that is probably the way to argue this device). -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org] > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 4:35 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... > > > > "interactive TV"....now that's an interesting concept. If I record an > interactive TV session, who owns the copyright to it? > Assuming that there > might be people who are "Grand Masters" at Interactive TV > that other people > would be wanting to watch what they do (as many do with > sports today), who > would own the copyrights? The creators of the interactive TV > or the "Grand > Master". One could argue that an interactive TV program is > really nothing > more than a sophisticated paper, pencil, paint, set or even a printing > press for the creation of works. IT provides a framework or forum for > creating works but in itself it is not a work. One may be > able to patent > the means that the interaction occurs much like Adobe has > patents on parts > of photoshop (NOTE: I am making no comments about the > legitimacy of their > patents. The Patent office has been patenting some of the purest BS > imaginable recently.) > > > > > Richard Hartman > > To: > "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" > Sent by: > > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > > arvard.edu > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related > > hearing... > > > 12/04/00 02:31 PM > > Please respond to > > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > > > Forget those piddly little frame buffers ... what > about TIVO and those other recent "interactive TV" > devices? > > -- > -Richard M. Hartman > hartman@onetouch.com > > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Hosgood [mailto:steve@i2it.co.uk] > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 6:53 AM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Another DMCA-related hearing... > > > > > > Michael.A.Rolenz writes: > > > Do you realize that this whole problem comes down to > > language? The legal > > > profession has not realized that the word COPY has > > different connotations. > > > In copyright, it connotes a fixation into media of the > > material that is > > > accessible to the purchaser of it. In this case, the buffer > > copies that are > > > not accessed are more like unsold copies left in a warehouse.... > > > > > > > It might be useful for this forum to start discussing > > possible legal rebuffs > > to this sort of thing. I'm not quite sure if this is really > > the purpose of > > this openlaw group, but I can bet that aspects of it will > > come to bite us as > > the various inevitable deCSS/LiViD/xxx court cases appear and > > disappear over > > the next few years. Forearmed is forewarned (or something > > like that :-)). > > > > > > Anyway, assuming anyone wants to play, here's a couple of > > instances I can > > suggest where existing technologies are "making copies" as a > > side effect of > > their normal operations, yet operate unchallenged by the > likes of the > > MPAA/RIAA. > > > > 1) Any MPEG decoder has to keep at least some history (and > > future history) > > of a datastream in order to function. Obviously this includes > > DVD players, > > including of course the cartel's players. > > > > 2) Any 100/120Hz anti-flicker TV set contains a framestore or > > fieldstore in > > which to hold a copy of picture information so that it can be > > displayed twice. > > > > 3) Some 'analog TV' receivers feature digital signal > > processing - especially > > around the colour decoder. No sure about the USA, but in > > Europe some TVs > > (especially PALplus ones(*)) store a frame of two of picture > > in order to permit > > advanced Y/U/V signal separation. PALplus TVs can also > > convert an apparent > > 4:3 letterbox picture into a 16:9 anamorphic one containing > > extra luminance > > detail - again they need framestores to do this. > > > > The existence of these other systems ought to provide a > > legally-sound defence > > against this latest stupidity. > > > > The MPAA/RIAA might dismiss all the above as "no, that's not > > what we meant, > > that's not a complete copy of the signal, just a few frames > > held in temporary > > storage". But then again - where's the line to be drawn in > > the sand? Is there > > any indication what the MPAA/RIAA *do* consider to be "a copy > > for which they > > think fees should be paid"? > > > > If "signal processing" is *not* considered "copying", I'm not > > sure what the > > fuss is about. Certainly the LiViD people ought to be OK as > > long as they > > don't leave any work files lying around when their player exits. > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > (*) For PALplus info for geeks, see > http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve/palplus.html > The hotlinks at the top of the page are dead, but the rest is good. > -- > > Steve | > S.Hosgood@swansea.ac.uk | "A good plan > today is better > Phone: +44 1792 540009 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan > tomorrow" > Fax: +44 1792 295811 | - > Conrad Brean > --------------------------------------------+ > http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the > film "Wag the > Dog" > ) > > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Dec 4 20:49:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA29734 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:49:44 -0500 Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA29731 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:49:42 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld7k6.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.158.134]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA03030 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:50:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A2C492E.F075BD88@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 20:47:27 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: [dvd-discuss] Soaps on copyright Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu There is a storyline starting about copyright infringement: http://tvguide.com/soaps/updates/index.asp?soap=gui&soaps_day=11%2F30%2F2000 mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 6 22:23:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA04127 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 22:23:17 -0500 Received: from ns1.capita.org (ns1.capita.org [210.200.137.86]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA04124 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 22:23:14 -0500 From: carlstephen33@writeme.com Received: from 34sdfsdf3423 (1Cust194.tnt23.lax3.da.uu.net [63.28.134.194]) by ns1.capita.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA36998 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:27:47 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from carlstephen33@writeme.com) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:27:47 +0800 (CST) Message-Id: <200012070327.LAA36998@ns1.capita.org> To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] [#2] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu HERE IS THE NEW SITE!! Flash Technology!! this is the future!! http://3506561041/iindex22/newflash.htm This Is A Weekly Mail List. To Be Removed Permanently Email permenentremoval@excite.com with "remove" somewhere in the subject line. PERMANENT REMOVAL!! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 6 23:25:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA06242 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:25:26 -0500 Received: from ns1.capita.org (ns1.capita.org [210.200.137.86]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA06239 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:25:22 -0500 From: carlstephen33@writeme.com Received: from 34sdfsdf3423 (1Cust194.tnt23.lax3.da.uu.net [63.28.134.194]) by ns1.capita.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA36326 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:27:15 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from carlstephen33@writeme.com) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:27:15 +0800 (CST) Message-Id: <200012070327.LAA36326@ns1.capita.org> To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] [#1] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu NEW AND EXCITING!! http://3506561041/iindex22/legal.html This Is A Weekly Mail List. To Be Removed Permanently Email permenentremoval@excite.com with "remove" somewhere in the subject line. PERMANENT REMOVAL!! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 7 10:43:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA13824 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:43:30 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA13821 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:43:28 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 07:44:32 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] [#1] To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 07:44:31 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/07/2000 07:44:32 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu What does this scam have to do with DVDs or DeCSS? carlstephen33@writeme.com Sent by: To: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] [#1] 12/06/00 08:28 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss NEW AND EXCITING!! http://3506561041/iindex22/legal.html This Is A Weekly Mail List. To Be Removed Permanently Email permenentremoval@excite.com with "remove" somewhere in the subject line. PERMANENT REMOVAL!! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 7 21:49:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA19365 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:49:01 -0500 Received: from dns.pegasus-gmbh.de ([194.25.80.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA19362 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:48:59 -0500 From: friends@enterprises200iv.com Date: Thu, 07 Dec 00 18:36:36 EST To: frontunax@radiant.com Subject: [dvd-discuss] YOU CAN MAKE ALOT OF MONEY AT HOME, PART-TIME. Message-ID: Comments: Authenticated sender is Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Dear Friend, You can earn $50,000 or more in next the 90 days sending e-mail, seem impossible? Read on for details (no, there is no 'catch')... Here's an opportunity that I genuinely believe satisfies the criteria we all seek in a Good Business Opportunity. I can confirm from my research this is an ethical opportunity that does indeed provide significant returns. There are plenty of people doing this in the UK, States and Canada; genuine people who are willing to assist you. I send this to you as I received it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL, MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY. But before you make your decision as to whether or not you participate in this program, please answer one question... "DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE IN YOUR LIFE?" If the answer is yes, please look at the following facts about this program: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. YOU WOULD BE SELLING A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST ANYTHING TO PRODUCE! 2. YOU WOULD BE SELLING A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST ANYTHING TO SHIP! 3. AND IT IS A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST YOU ANYTHING TO ADVERTISE! 4. YOU ARE UTILIZING THE POWER OF THE INTERNET AND THE POWER OF MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING TO DISTRIBUTE YOUR PRODUCT ALL OVER THE WORLD! 5. YOUR ONLY EXPENSE OTHER THAN YOUR INITIAL $20 INVESTMENT IS YOUR TIME! 6. VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE INCOME YOU GENERATE FROM THIS PROGRAM IS PURE PROFIT! 7. THIS PROGRAM MAY CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** Print This Now For Future Reference *** The following income opportunity is one you may be interested in taking a look at. It can be started with VERY LITTLE investment and the income return is TREMENDOUS!!! If you would like to make at least $50,000 in less than 90 days! Please read the enclosed program...THEN READ IT AGAIN!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING (MLM) has finally gained respectability. It is being taught in the Harvard Business School, and both Stanford Research and the Wall Street Journal have stated that between 50% and 65% of all goods and services will be sold through multi-level methods by the mid to late 1990's. This is a Multi-Billion Dollar industry and of the 500,000 millionaires in the U.S., 20% (100,000) made their fortune in the last several years in MLM. Moreover, statistics show 45 people become millionaires everyday through Multi-Level Marketing. You may have heard this story before, but over the summer Donald Trump (A MULTI-BILLIONAIRE, ONE OF THE WEALTHIEST MEN IN THE WORLD) made an appearance on the David Letterman show. Dave asked him what he would do if he lost everything and had to start over from scratch. Without hesitating, Trump said he would find a good network marketing company and get to work. The audience started to hoot and boo him. He looked out at the audience and dead-panned his response "That's why I'm sitting up here and you are all sitting out there!" With network marketing you have two sources of income. Direct commissions from sales you make yourself and commissions from sales made by people you introduce to the business. Residual income is the secret of the wealthy. It means investing time or money once and getting paid again and again and again. In network marketing, it also means getting paid for the work of others. The enclosed information is something I almost let slip through my fingers. Fortunately, sometime later I re-read everything and gave some thought and study to it. A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR: My name is Johnathon Rourke. Two years ago, the corporation I worked at for the past twelve years down-sized and my position was eliminated. After unproductive job interviews, I decided to open my own business. Over the past year, I incurred many unforeseen financial problems. I owed my family, friends and creditors over $35,000. The economy was taking a toll on my business and I just couldn't seem to make ends meet. I had to refinance and borrow against my home to support my family and struggling business. AT THAT MOMENT something significant happened in my life and I am writing to share the experience in the hope that this will change your life FOREVER FINANCIALLY!!! In mid December, I received this program via e-mail. Six months prior to receiving this program I had been sending away for information on various business opportunities. All of the programs I received, in my opinion, were not cost effective. They were either too difficult for me to comprehend or the initial investment was too much for me to risk to see if they would work or not. One claimed that I would make a million dollars in one year...it didn't tell me I'd have to write a book to make it! But like I was saying, in December of 1997 I received this program. I didn't send for it, or ask for it, they just got my name off a mailing list. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT!!! After reading it several times, to make sure I was reading it correctly, I couldn't believe my eyes. Here was a MONEY MAKING PHENOMENON. I could invest as much as I wanted to start, without putting me further into debt. After I got a pencil and paper and figured it out, I would at least get my money back. But like most of you I was still a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it all. After determining the program was LEGAL and NOT A CHAIN LETTER, I decided "WHY NOT?" Initially I sent out 100,000 e-mails. It cost me about $15 for my time on-line. The great thing about e-mail is that I don't need any money for printing to send out the program, and because all of my orders are fulfilled via e-mail, the only expense is my time. I am telling you like it is, I hope it doesn't turn you off, but I promised myself that I would not "rip-off" anyone, no matter how much money it cost me. In less than one week, I was starting to receive orders for REPORT #1. By January 13, I had received 26 orders for REPORT #1. Your goal is to "RECEIVE at least 20 ORDERS FOR REPORT #1 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF YOU DON'T, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO!" My first step in making $55,000 in 90 days was done. By January 30, I had received 196 orders for REPORT #2. Your goal is to "RECEIVE AT LEAST 100+ ORDERS FOR REPORT #2 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF NOT, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. ONCE YOU HAVE 100 ORDERS, THE REST IS EASY, RELAX, YOU WILL MAKE YOUR $55,000 GOAL." Well, I had 196 orders for REPORT #2, 96 more than I needed. So I sat back and relaxed. By March 1, of my e-mailing of 100,000, I received $58,000 with more coming in every day. I paid off ALL my debts and bought a much needed new car. Please take time to read the attached program, IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER!!! Remember, it won't work if you don't try it. This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rules of not trying to place your name in a different place. It won't work, you'll lose out on a lot of money! In order for this program to work, you must meet your goal of 20+ orders for REPORT #1, and 100+ orders for REPORT #2 and you will make $55,000 or more in 90 days. I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT WORKS!!! If you choose not to participate in this program, I am sorry. It really is a great opportunity with little cost or risk to you. If you choose to participate, follow the program and you will be on your way to financial security. If you are a fellow business owner and are in financial trouble like I was, or you want to start your own business, consider this a sign. I DID! P.S. Do you have any idea what 11,700 $5 bills ($58,000) look like piled up on a kitchen table? Johnathon Rourke ------------------------------------------------------------------------- With "NO RISK" and "JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT", you can make more money in the next few months than you have ever imagined. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR$ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- INSTRUCTIONS: This method of raising capital REALLY WORKS 100% EVERY TIME. I am sure that you could use up to $50,000 or more in the next 90 days. Before you say "BULL... ", please read this program carefully. This is not a chain letter, but a perfectly legal money making opportunity. Basically, this is what you do: As with all multi-level businesses, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Because of the global nature of the internet, you will be able to recruit new multi-level business partners from all over the world, and we offer a product for EVERY dollar sent. YOUR ORDERS COME BY MAIL AND ARE FILLED BY E-MAIL, so you are not involved in personal selling. You do it privately in your own home, store or office. This is the GREATEST Multi-Level Mail Order Marketing anywhere: This is what you MUST do: 1. Order all 4 reports shown on the list below (you can't sell them if you don't order them). These 4 reports show you how to actually do this online business! * For each report, send $5.00 CASH, the NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, and YOUR NAME & RETURN ADDRESS (in case of a problem) to the person whose name appears on the list next to the report. AND MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE IN CASE OF ANY MAIL PROBLEMS! * When you place your order, make sure you order each of the four reports. You will need all four reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. * Within a few days you will receive, via e-mail, each of the four reports. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. 2. IMPORTANT-- DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than is instructed below in steps "a" through "f" or you will lose out on the majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you'll also see how it doesn't work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter it, it will not work. a. Look below for the listing of available reports. b. After you've ordered the four reports, take this advertisement and remove the name and address under REPORT #4. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their $50,000. c. Move the name and address under REPORT #3 down to REPORT #4. d. Move the name and address under REPORT #2 down to REPORT #3. e. Move the name and address under REPORT #1 down to REPORT #2. f. Insert your name/address in the REPORT #1 position. Please make sure you copy every name and address ACCURATELY! 3. Take this entire letter, including the modified list of names, and save it to your computer. Make NO changes to the instruction portion of this letter. Your cost to participate in this is practically nothing (surely you can afford $20). You obviously already have an Internet connection and e-mail is FREE! To assist you with marketing your business on the internet, the 4 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much, much more. There are two primary methods of building your downline: METHOD #1: SENDING BULK E-MAIL Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we'll assume you and all those involved send out only 2,000 programs each. Let's also assume that the mailing receives a 0.5% response. Using a good list the response could be much better. Also, many people will send out hundreds of thousands of programs instead of 2,000. But continuing with this example, you send out only 2,000 programs. With a 0.5% response, that is only 10 orders for REPORT #1. Those 10 people respond by sending out 2,000 programs each for a total of 20,000. Out of those 0.5%, 100 people respond and order REPORT #2. Those 100 mail out 2,000 programs each for a total of 200,000. The 0.5% response to that is 1000 orders for REPORT #3. Those 1000 send out 2,000 programs each for a 2,000,000 total. The 0.5% response to that is 10,000 orders for REPORT #4. That's 11,110 $5 bills for you. CASH!!! Your total income in this example is $50 + $500 + $5,000 + $50,000 for a total of $55,550!!! REMEMBER, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,990 OUT OF THE 2,000 PEOPLE YOU MAIL TO WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND TRASH THIS PROGRAM! DARE TO THINK FOR A MOMENT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERYONE, OR EVEN HALF SENT OUT 100,000 PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF 2,000. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! REPORT #2 will show you the best methods for bulk e-mailing, tell you where to obtain free bulk e-mail software and where to obtain e-mail lists and show you how to send out 1,000,000 e-mails for free. METHOD #2 - PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET 1. Advertising on the 'Net is very, very inexpensive, and there are HUNDREDS of FREE places to advertise. Let's say you decide to start small just to see how well it works. Assume your goal is to get ONLY 10 people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE ads on the Internet will EASILY get a larger response.) Also assume that everyone else in YOUR ORGANIZATION gets ONLY 6 downline members. Follow this example to achieve the STAGGERING results below. 1st level--your 10 members with $5 ($5 x 10).................$50 2nd level--10 members from those 10 ($5 x 100)..............$500 3rd level--10 members from those 100 ($5 x 1000)......... $5,000 4th level--10 members from those 1000 ($5 x 10,000)......$50,000 THIS TOTALS ---------------------------------------------$55,550 Remember friends, this assumes that the people who participate only recruit 10 people each. Think for a moment what would happen if they got 20 people to participate! Many people will get 100's of participants! THINK ABOUT IT! For every $5.00 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the report they ordered. THAT'S IT! ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS! This will guarantee that the e-mail THEY send out, with YOUR name and address on it, will be prompt because they can't advertise until they receive the report! ------------------------------------------ AVAILABLE REPORTS ------------------------------------------ *** Order Each REPORT by NUMBER and NAME *** Notes: - ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (U.S. CURRENCY) FOR EACH REPORT. CHEQUES NOT ACCEPTED. - ALWAYS SEND YOUR ORDER VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL - Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least two sheets of paper - On one of those sheets of paper, include: (a) the number & name of the report you are ordering, (b) your e-mail address, and (c) your name & postal address. PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW: ______________________________________________________ REPORT #1 "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: Yuko Imports 2187 East 8th Avenue Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V5N1V4 ______________________________________________________ REPORT #2 "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk E-mail on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: IPS Network 355-2252 Kingsway Ave. Vancouver B.C. Canada V5N5X6 ______________________________________________________ REPORT #3 "The Secrets to Multilevel Marketing on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: Sarah Harris PO Box 4271 Verwood BH31 6FW UK ______________________________________________________ REPORT #4 "How to become a Millionaire utilizing the Power of Multilevel Marketing and the Internet" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: Anthony Thomas 2 Hazelwood Drive Dorset BH31 6YQ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------- There are currently more than 175,000,000 people online worldwide! ******* TIPS FOR SUCCESS ******* * TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Be prompt, professional, and follow the directions accurately. * Send for the four reports IMMEDIATELY so you will have them when the orders start coming in because: When you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the requested product/report. * ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. * Be patient and persistent with this program. If you follow the instructions exactly, your results WILL BE SUCCESSFUL! * ABOVE ALL, HAVE FAITH IN YOURSELF AND KNOW YOU WILL SUCCEED! ******* YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES ******* Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: If you don't receive 20 orders for REPORT #1 within two weeks, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Then, a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT#2. If you don't, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100-150 or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a DIFFERENT report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. If you want to generate more income, send another batch of e-mails or continue placing ads and start the whole process again! There is no limit to the income you will generate from this business! ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! NOW IS THE TIME FOR YOUR TURN. DECISIVE ACTION YIELDS POWERFUL RESULTS. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 7 22:26:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA19708 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:26:44 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA19705 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:26:42 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01853 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 20:28:08 -0700 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 20:28:08 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] [#1] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I know it has to do with Yahoo--it's a geocities site. tos@yahoo.com, abuse@yahoo.com, abuse@geocities.com are some good correspondents in this case... On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote: > > What does this scam have to do with DVDs or DeCSS? > > > > carlstephen33@writeme.com > Sent by: To: > owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h cc: > arvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] [#1] > > > 12/06/00 08:28 PM > Please respond to > dvd-discuss > > > > > > > > NEW AND EXCITING!! > > http://3506561041/iindex22/legal.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This Is A Weekly Mail List. To Be Removed Permanently Email > permenentremoval@excite.com > with "remove" somewhere in the subject line. PERMANENT REMOVAL!! > > > -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email galt@inconnu.isu.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 13 10:32:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA11588 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:32:24 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:34:56 -0800 (PST) From: Steve M Bibayoff To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] "Fitting a DVD on a CD" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Just saw this link w/ the title "Fitting a DVD on a CD" http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/answerstips/story/0,23008,3014590,00.html Does anybody think its some type of ploy? Steve -- If Microsoft doesn't trust Windows(TM), why should you? http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q80/5/20.ASP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 14 01:10:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA22978 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:10:39 -0500 Received: from spdmraab.compuserve.com (ds-img-rel-2.compuserve.com [149.174.206.155]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA22975 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:10:38 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id BAA09472 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:11:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mic667 (sfr-tgn-yyh-vty71.as.wcom.net [216.192.16.71]) by spdmraab.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id BAA09455 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:11:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Juergen + Barbara" To: Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] "Fitting a DVD on a CD" Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:12:39 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Disposition-Notification-To: "Juergen + Barbara" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu nope. you can compress and also reduce the information of a DVD (MPEG and only half the lines and width similar to VCR quailty), then you have a VCR type quality CD-ROM. BTW, that was also elaborated on during the 2600.com trial. *jm* -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Steve M Bibayoff Sent: Dienstag, 12. Dezember 2000 22:35 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] "Fitting a DVD on a CD" Just saw this link w/ the title "Fitting a DVD on a CD" http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/answerstips/story/0,23008,3014590,00.html Does anybody think its some type of ploy? Steve -- If Microsoft doesn't trust Windows(TM), why should you? http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q80/5/20.ASP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 14 10:53:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA29214 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:53:56 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA29211 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:53:53 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:55:34 -0800 Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] "Fitting a DVD on a CD" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 March 21, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:55:31 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/14/2000 07:55:34 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu That's always been a point on which the MPAA and Kaplan did a little slough. If the quality of the DVD recording must be degraded to be transmitted over the INTERNET or put on CD-ROM then their arguments about the ability to distribute perfect copies ad infinatum is specious. But then that whole 2600 trial was histrionics and hysteria ad nauseam. "Juergen + Barbara" To: Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] "Fitting a DVD on a arvard.edu CD" 12/13/00 10:15 PM Please respond to dvd-discuss nope. you can compress and also reduce the information of a DVD (MPEG and only half the lines and width similar to VCR quailty), then you have a VCR type quality CD-ROM. BTW, that was also elaborated on during the 2600.com trial. *jm* -----Original Message----- From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Steve M Bibayoff Sent: Dienstag, 12. Dezember 2000 22:35 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] "Fitting a DVD on a CD" Just saw this link w/ the title "Fitting a DVD on a CD" http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/answerstips/story/0,23008,3014590,00.html Does anybody think its some type of ploy? Steve -- If Microsoft doesn't trust Windows(TM), why should you? http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q80/5/20.ASP From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 14 19:11:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA04801 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:11:31 -0500 Received: from emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (cc273095-a.hwrd1.md.home.com [24.3.46.177]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA04798 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:11:29 -0500 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06692 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:13:14 -0500 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.6 on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:13:14 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Bauer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Garbus interview on slashdot Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here are Martin Garbus's responses to Interview questions from slashdot readers. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/12/13/1848257&mode=nocomment Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 14 19:45:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA05171 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:45:13 -0500 Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA05168 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:45:11 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa147.pool012.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.83.147]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21107 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:46:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001214164221.05340220@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:46:55 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Garbus interview on slashdot In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 07:13 PM 12/14/2000 -0500, Jim Bauer wrote: >Here are Martin Garbus's responses to Interview >questions from slashdot readers. > >http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/12/13/1848257&mode=nocomment Cool. My Q, and Bryan Taylor's follow up, on how Marty sees the value of this little list are included. Good answers. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 14 20:14:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA05451 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:14:39 -0500 Received: from mail.world-net.co.nz (mail.world-net.co.nz [203.96.119.27]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA05448 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:14:36 -0500 Received: from world-net.co.nz (nwp-193.world-net.co.nz [202.37.167.193]) by mail.world-net.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19811 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:13:50 +1300 Message-ID: <3A39700D.5080906@world-net.co.nz> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:12:45 +1300 From: Daniel Richards User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001206 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] News? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Im wondering, has anyone heard any news about either the MPAA/NY case (appeals) or the DVDCCA/CA/Trade secret case? I havn't heard anything about them, and everything seems to have gone quiet? It's been about a year since DeCSS came about and it's old hat already? (Although, a year in Internet time is a long time) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 14 21:02:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA06116 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:02:54 -0500 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA06113 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:02:45 -0500 Received: from jy02 (user-2inih3q.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.68.122]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA23051 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:04:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200012150204.VAA23051@granger.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:00:36 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] News? In-Reply-To: <3A39700D.5080906@world-net.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This was sent out by Allonn Levy today. Allonn is a lead attorney for Andrew Bunner in the California DVDCCA case, and was briefly involved in the NY case. ----- Greetings again This is a list of press folk who have asked me to keep them apprised of events on the California and New York DVD cases. From time to time (somewhat sporadically) I try to send out a quick blurb on the relevant events. If you've changed your mind, moved on, or otherwise don't find this legal mumbo jumbo all that exciting, please feel free to send me mail & I'll remove you from my list. Best, Allonn Cal. Case Supreme Court Issues Important Ruling: You may recall that the trial Court issued an order on August 29th 2000, denying LiVid Project leader Matthew Pavlovich's motion to quash service for lack of jurisdiction. This office immediately filed a petition for writ of Mandate with the Sixth District Appellate Court. That Petition for Writ of Mandate, was denied and the issue was placed before the state's High Court through a petition for review. The Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court argued that because the case raises precedent setting issues regarding the use of Internet effects as a basis for jurisdiction, the High Court should grant review of the decision. Numerous groups filed Amicus Curiae letters in support of Mr. Pavlovich's position, urging that the Court review the case. Amici included the prestigious Computer Communications Industry Association (representing numerous high tech companies totaling $300 billion in revenues) and the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California and Nevada. Although very few Petitions are granted by the Supreme Court, on December 14, 2000, the Supreme Court served on Counsel its order granting the review. The Court went on to issue an order transferring the case to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate its order denying Mandate and to issue a new order directing the Superior Court to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. The Supreme Court issued its order unanimously, with all seven justices concurring. - I'm informed that Filings are available on Cryptome.org Underlying Case: The underlying case, headed by defendant Andrew Bunner continues to proceed through discovery. Mr. Bunner's deposition has been taken and un-sealed portions of the transcript will be made available soon. Numerous additional depositions are set, world-wide; Mr. Johnsen's deposition has been set through the Norwegian Court in January 31 ‘01. During the last Court Conference, the Court declined to issue a trial date, despite defendant's request. It is anticipated that a trial date will be set at the next hearing scheduled for February, 2001 in Department 2 of the Santa Clara Superior Court. New York Case: The New York case continues through the appellate process. Appellants briefs are expected in January, with numerous organizations filing Amicus Curiae in support of our position. Resources: http://www.cryptome.org -- tends to get the most recent filings fairly quickly EFF Archive for DVD-CCA Cal. trade secret case: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/ EFF's DVD Archive: http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/DVD/ N.Y. Case The EFF legal team has filed notice appealing Judge Kaplan's decision. Numerous groups have offered to file Amicus briefs in support of our position. Allonn E. Levy HS Law Group, San Jose (formerly HUBER-SAMUELSON) 408.295.7034 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 14 21:32:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA06420 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:32:42 -0500 Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA06417 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:32:39 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa147.pool012.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.83.147]) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24992 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:34:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001214182357.00a98100@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:34:25 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] News? In-Reply-To: <200012150204.VAA23051@granger.mail.mindspring.net> References: <3A39700D.5080906@world-net.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 09:00 PM 12/14/2000 -0500, John Young wrote: >This was sent out by Allonn Levy today. Allonn is a lead attorney >for Andrew Bunner in the California DVDCCA case, and was >briefly involved in the NY case. > >----- > > >Cal. Case > > >Supreme Court Issues Important Ruling: > >You may recall that the trial Court issued an order on August 29th 2000, >denying LiVid Project leader Matthew Pavlovich's motion to quash service >for lack of jurisdiction. This office immediately filed a petition for >writ of Mandate with the Sixth District Appellate Court. That Petition >for Writ of Mandate, was denied and the issue was placed before the >state's High Court through a petition for review. > >The Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court argued that >because the case raises precedent setting issues regarding the use of >Internet effects as a basis for jurisdiction, the High Court should >grant review of the decision. Numerous groups filed Amicus Curiae >letters in support of Mr. Pavlovich's position, urging that the Court >review the case. Amici included the prestigious Computer Communications >Industry Association (representing numerous high tech companies totaling >$300 billion in revenues) and the Association of Defense Counsel of >Northern California and Nevada. > >Although very few Petitions are granted by the Supreme Court, on >December 14, 2000, the Supreme Court served on Counsel its order >granting the review. The Court went on to issue an order transferring >the case to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate its order >denying Mandate and to issue a new order directing the Superior Court to >show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. >The Supreme Court issued its order unanimously, with all seven justices >concurring. Allonn isn't kidding. The historical stats, which don't change much from year to year, are that the Cal Supremes grant review on about 7% of all Petitions for Review filed. Within that 7%, the largest group is where the Court of Appeal has issued a published Opinion (most California appellate court Opinions are not published). Where as here, the Court of Appeal denied the mandate petition without an Opinion, published or otherwise, the Cal Supes rarely intervene. John, at least according to the info on your site, Derek Fawcus' motion to quash was set for hearing today in the superior court. Any word on that? >New York Case: > >The New York case continues through the appellate process. Appellants >briefs are expected in January, with numerous organizations filing >Amicus Curiae in support of our position. Yes, Appellant's brief is due January 19, amicus briefs in support of Appellant are due January 26. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 14 22:36:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA07424 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:36:19 -0500 Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (johnson.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.177]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA07421 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:36:18 -0500 Received: from jy02 (user-2iniguj.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.67.211]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA30174 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:38:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200012150338.WAA30174@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:34:11 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] News? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001214182357.00a98100@cyberpass.net> References: <200012150204.VAA23051@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <3A39700D.5080906@world-net.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Nothing here on the Fawkus hearing. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 15 13:10:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA17183 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:10:52 -0500 Received: from web514.mail.yahoo.com (web514.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.229]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA17180 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:10:51 -0500 Message-ID: <20001215181239.22539.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.100] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:12:39 PST Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:12:39 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] CNET on CA Supreme Court action regarding Pavlovich To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Here's an article about the recent news. http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4159594.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.ni The above article isn't especially enlightning, but it's good that somebody covered it. I saw it on linuxtoday. I'm still trying to understand exactly what this means. As I understand it the CA judge denied Pavlovich's motion to quash without saying much. It sounds like the appeal went all the way up to the CA Supreme Court who ruled that basically "you can't just silently deny it -- explain your reasons". Is that right? I gather this is not a ruling on the merits of the motion to quash. Is the CA Supreme Court order available? Why does this go so slow, given that first amendment rights are at stake? Kaplan's expediency might have been a little excessive, but the opposite extreme is clearly worse. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 15 13:25:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA17469 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:25:41 -0500 Received: from thud.reric.net ([209.98.241.210]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17466 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:25:39 -0500 Received: (from eds@localhost) by thud.reric.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) id MAA13543 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:27:26 -0600 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:27:26 -0600 From: Eric Seppanen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] News? Message-ID: <20001215122726.A13450@thud.reric.net> Mail-Followup-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <3A39700D.5080906@world-net.co.nz> <200012150204.VAA23051@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: <200012150204.VAA23051@granger.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 09:00:36PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > You may recall that the trial Court issued an order on August 29th 2000, > denying LiVid Project leader Matthew Pavlovich's motion to quash service > for lack of jurisdiction. This office immediately filed a petition for > writ of Mandate with the Sixth District Appellate Court. That Petition > for Writ of Mandate, was denied and the issue was placed before the > state's High Court through a petition for review. > > > Although very few Petitions are granted by the Supreme Court, on > December 14, 2000, the Supreme Court served on Counsel its order > granting the review. The Court went on to issue an order transferring > the case to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate its order > denying Mandate and to issue a new order directing the Superior Court to > show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. > The Supreme Court issued its order unanimously, with all seven justices > concurring. So the supreme court issued an order that tells the appeals court: - to "vacate it's order denying mandate". So this completely reverses the appeals court's decision, right? - to in turn order the trial court to "show couse why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted". Are they saying, "defend your stupid decision or we're going to reverse it"? Why didn't they just grant "Mandate" (or however you're supposed to say "let Matt off the hook" in California)? Does this get Matt 90% of the way to being off the hook? From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 15 13:59:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA18038 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:59:32 -0500 Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA18035 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:59:30 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa066.pool011.at001.earthlink.net [216.249.74.66]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03690 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:01:06 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001215103248.00ad0890@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:59:54 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CNET on CA Supreme Court action regarding Pavlovich In-Reply-To: <20001215181239.22539.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 10:12 AM 12/15/2000 -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: >Here's an article about the recent news. > >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4159594.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.ni > >The above article isn't especially enlightning, but it's good that >somebody covered it. I saw it on linuxtoday. > >I'm still trying to understand exactly what this means. As I understand >it the CA judge denied Pavlovich's motion to quash without saying much. >It sounds like the appeal went all the way up to the CA Supreme Court >who ruled that basically "you can't just silently deny it -- explain >your reasons". Is that right? I gather this is not a ruling on the >merits of the motion to quash. California state court trial-level judges (and, I think, most state court judges), unlike federal judges, rarely write formal Opinions, nor was one required here. Typically, a motion such as Matt's would be ruled on in what is called a Minute Order, which, typically, would say no more than "the motion to quash service of summons by Defendant Matt Pavlovich is denied." (I haven's seen the actual minute order here.) That ruling was *not* an appealable ruling, meaning that Matt did not have an absolute right to have it reviewed by an appellate court now, as opposed to after trial. Rather, Matt filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Court of Appeal, which, literally, is classified as an extraordinary writ. The appellate court can decide it wants to hear the matter, but it has completely unfettered discretion not to hear the matter, for any reason at all, or for no reason, and with no requirement that any reason be stated. Summary denials by the appellate courts of such petitions now are computer generated on a real piece of paper, mailed in a real envelope, but we old farts still call them postcard denials because, until about the late eighties or so, they were sent out on postcards. ("Hi, having a great time in Hawaii, your petition is denied!.") Undaunted by the postcard denial, Matt filed a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court. Again, it was entirely discretionary whether that court would entertain the matter. (See my post last night on some semi-relevant statistics.) The CA Supremes found the issue sufficiently worthy that it granted review, a quite extraodinary thing. However, rather than retaining jurisdiction and hearing the matter itself, it transferred it back to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings. The Court of Appeal now is required to decide the matter on the merits. It is not required to decide in Matt's favor, but the Review grant by the California Supremes is a strong signal of how they might decide the matter had they retained jurisdiction themselves. So this is a good step, but only that. >Is the CA Supreme Court order available? Yes, but as is typical in this procedural posture, it says nothing much of note. http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/Video/DVDCCA_case/20001213_ca_supct_order.html >Why does this go so slow, given that first amendment rights are at >stake? Kaplan's expediency might have been a little excessive, but the >opposite extreme is clearly worse. I hate to break it to you, but this is not slow at all compared to the norm. One potentially good thing about the CA Supes sending it back to the Court of Appeal is that the Court of Appeal almost certainly will decide it faster/less slowly than the CA Supes would have if they had kept it. The last time I had a cse before the California Supreme court it was, if memory serves, close to two years from oral argument to decision. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 15 14:00:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA18049 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:00:23 -0500 Received: from mhultra.aero.org (mhultra.aero.org [130.221.88.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA18045 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:00:20 -0500 From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org Received: from ladir01.aero.org by mhultra.aero.org with ESMTP for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:02:02 -0800 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CNET on CA Supreme Court action regarding Pavlovich To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:02:00 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ladir01/AeroNet/Aerospace/US(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 12/15/2000 11:02:02 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Not only the first amemdment but the whole Federal vs State legal systems. Has Pavlovich ever been in California? Or was he even in it when he allegedly "did the deed". The notion that one can charge and try someone in absentia in one state is quite unprecedented. The CA supreme court is quite right in asking for their reasons ON THE RECORD. Bryan Taylor To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sent by: cc: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.h Subject: [dvd-discuss] CNET on CA Supreme Court arvard.edu action regarding Pavlovich 12/15/00 10:14 AM Please respond to dvd-discuss Here's an article about the recent news. http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4159594.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.ni The above article isn't especially enlightning, but it's good that somebody covered it. I saw it on linuxtoday. I'm still trying to understand exactly what this means. As I understand it the CA judge denied Pavlovich's motion to quash without saying much. It sounds like the appeal went all the way up to the CA Supreme Court who ruled that basically "you can't just silently deny it -- explain your reasons". Is that right? I gather this is not a ruling on the merits of the motion to quash. Is the CA Supreme Court order available? Why does this go so slow, given that first amendment rights are at stake? Kaplan's expediency might have been a little excessive, but the opposite extreme is clearly worse. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 15 16:27:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA19143 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:27:21 -0500 Received: from web510.mail.yahoo.com (web510.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA19140 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:27:20 -0500 Message-ID: <20001215212908.5642.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.100] by web510.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:29:08 PST Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:29:08 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CNET on CA Supreme Court action regarding Pavlovich To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- "James S. Tyre" wrote: > http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/Video/DVDCCA_case/20001213_ca_supct_order.html This says: "The matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, with direction to vacate its order denying mandate and to issue an order directing respondent superior court to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. " This does two notable things: 1. "vacate[s]" the Appellate court order denying mandate 2. directs that the superior court (Elfving?) must "show cause" How intimidating will this be on a superior court judge? Is it possible that the Elfving will now reconsider his decision not to quash? What exactly does it mean that he must "show cause"? If the judge attempts to show cause, and adopts the DVDCCA's position wholesale, what happens next? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 15 16:54:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA19459 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:54:07 -0500 Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA19456 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:54:05 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa066.pool011.at001.earthlink.net [216.249.74.66]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26764 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:55:50 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001215133410.00b7f570@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:55:09 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CNET on CA Supreme Court action regarding Pavlovich In-Reply-To: <20001215212908.5642.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 01:29 PM 12/15/2000 -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: >--- "James S. Tyre" wrote: > > >http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/Video/DVDCCA_case/20001213_ca_supct_order.html > >This says: "The matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Sixth >Appellate District, with direction to vacate its order denying mandate >and to issue an order directing respondent superior court to show cause >why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. " > >This does two notable things: >1. "vacate[s]" the Appellate court order denying mandate >2. directs that the superior court (Elfving?) must "show cause" > >How intimidating will this be on a superior court judge? Is it possible >that the Elfving will now reconsider his decision not to quash? > >What exactly does it mean that he must "show cause"? > >If the judge attempts to show cause, and adopts the DVDCCA's position >wholesale, what happens next? It sounds intimidating, but it is just the procedural way of doing things. "Show cause" means "explain and justify your reasoning in denying Matt's motion." Technically, the writ petition is an original proceeding, in which Matt is suing the superior court. In practice, it is approximately once in a blue moon when the superior court judge defends himself. Rather, the propriety of the court order is defended by the Real Party in Interest, which would be DVDCCA. (Because it is an original proceeding, it is captioned "Pavlovich v. Superior Court, DVDCCA, Real Party in Interest," rather than using the underlying case caption, DVDCCA v. McLaughlin.) The Court of Appeal now must decide Matt's motion on the merits, with a formal Opinion, which may or may not be certified for publication. The loser can petition the California Supreme Court to review the decision, but as with all Petitions for Review, the Court will have complete discretion as to whether to entertain the Petition. The only cases which the California Supreme Court must hear are cases in which the death penalty has been imposed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 15 17:03:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA19618 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:03:10 -0500 Received: from mercury.clearway.com ([199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA19615 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:03:09 -0500 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:04:27 -0500 Message-ID: From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] CNET on CA Supreme Court action regarding Pavl ovich Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:04:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I take it until this matter is decided there can be no trial date set, right? So I guess we have to wait for the next version of the IP laws when they buy a "death for copying" statute :). >James S. Tyre > >The only cases which the >California Supreme Court must hear are cases in which the death penalty has >been imposed. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 15 17:20:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA19846 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:20:15 -0500 Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA19843 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:20:14 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa066.pool011.at001.earthlink.net [216.249.74.66]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23611 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:22:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001215141106.00aba700@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:21:50 -0800 To: From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] CNET on CA Supreme Court action regarding Pavl ovich In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 05:04 PM 12/15/2000 -0500, Leland Ray wrote: >I take it until this matter is decided there can be no trial >date set, right? Nope. Elfving (I think that's the judge's name) may choose to hold off on trial until this is resolved, but he does not have to, he can go forward with trial involving all defendants who have appeared in the case. On the other hand, Andrew Bunner still has his appeal pending from the order granting the preliminary injunction. Elfving does not have to wait for that one, either, but it would make sense that he would, since the resolution of that appeal may decide the substantive law applicable to the case, not just the much more limited question raised by Matt. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 15 17:29:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20070 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:29:13 -0500 Received: from web509.mail.yahoo.com (web509.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.224]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA20067 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:29:12 -0500 Message-ID: <20001215223101.1078.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [131.44.121.100] by web509.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:31:01 PST Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:31:01 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CNET on CA Supreme Court action regarding Pavlovich To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- "James S. Tyre" wrote: > The Court of Appeal now must decide Matt's motion on the merits, with > a formal Opinion, which may or may not be certified for publication. > The loser can petition the California Supreme Court to review the > decision, but as with all Petitions for Review, the Court will > have complete discretion as to whether to entertain the > Petition. The only cases which the California Supreme Court > must hear are cases in which the death penalty has > been imposed. So the real effect is that the Supreme Court forced the Court of Appeal to do a non-trivial examination on the merits now as opposed to after trial and issue a ruling in writing. Does this indicate that it is somewhat likely that the CA Supreme Court would agree with Matt? Does it indicate they might want to hear it themselves after the lower court rules? By the way, is the Court of Appeal a panel of judges? If so, I'd say that's probably good for us on this issue. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 15 18:12:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA20533 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:12:58 -0500 Received: from mercury.clearway.com ([199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA20530 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:12:57 -0500 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:14:15 -0500 Message-ID: From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] CNET on CA Supreme Court action regarding Pavl ovich Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:12:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >James S. Tyre >Nope. Elfving (I think that's the judge's name) may choose to hold off on >trial until this is resolved, but he does not have to, he can go forward >with trial involving all defendants who have appeared in the case. Hmmm...how procedurally do you do this and not violate due process? Suppose I sue X, Y, and Z. X and Y show up, but Z files a motion to quash. The motion is denied, but the writ is granted and the court of appeals decides to hear arguments. The trial proceeds, and a decision is ruled my favor. X and Y are ordered to pay me damages. Z does not participate in the trial in any way. Seven months after the trial is over, the court of appeals decides to deny the motion and include Z. What happens then? Surely, Z would not be included in the judgement against X and Y, because Z has not had an opportunity to present his own arguments. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 15 18:49:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA20846 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:49:08 -0500 Received: from falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA20843 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:49:07 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa066.pool011.at001.earthlink.net [216.249.74.66]) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29315 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:50:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001215153715.00ab7ba0@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:50:58 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CNET on CA Supreme Court action regarding Pavlovich In-Reply-To: <20001215223101.1078.qmail@web509.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 02:31 PM 12/15/2000 -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: >--- "James S. Tyre" wrote: > > > The Court of Appeal now must decide Matt's motion on the merits, with > > a formal Opinion, which may or may not be certified for publication. > > The loser can petition the California Supreme Court to review the > > decision, but as with all Petitions for Review, the Court will > > have complete discretion as to whether to entertain the > > Petition. The only cases which the California Supreme Court > > must hear are cases in which the death penalty has > > been imposed. > >So the real effect is that the Supreme Court forced the Court of Appeal >to do a non-trivial examination on the merits now as opposed to after >trial and issue a ruling in writing. Yes. >Does this indicate that it is somewhat likely that the CA Supreme Court >would agree with Matt? Does it indicate they might want to hear it >themselves after the lower court rules? Oftentimes, it is anyone's guess why, when and under what circumstances the court grants review. But I can think of no rational reason why the court would have granted review here unless, at least at first glance, it was persuaded by Matt's argument. More's the case since the writ was signed by all seven Justices when only four are required. As to whether they would want to hear it themselves later, that depends on a host of factors, including, but not limited to, the most obvious: whether they agree with whatever the Court of Appeal will decide. If they do, then they would be less inclined to hear it themselves. >By the way, is the Court of Appeal a panel of judges? If so, I'd say >that's probably good for us on this issue. Three judge panel. Likely, but not certainly, it will be the same three judges who decide Bunner's appeal from the preliminary injunction. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 15 18:56:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA20992 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:56:09 -0500 Received: from falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA20989 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:56:06 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa066.pool011.at001.earthlink.net [216.249.74.66]) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22035 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:57:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001215155107.00c8d1e0@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:58:00 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] CNET on CA Supreme Court action regarding Pavl ovich In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 06:12 PM 12/15/2000 -0500, Leland Ray wrote: > >James S. Tyre > > >Nope. Elfving (I think that's the judge's name) may choose to hold off on > >trial until this is resolved, but he does not have to, he can go forward > >with trial involving all defendants who have appeared in the case. > >Hmmm...how procedurally do you do this and not violate due process? > >Suppose I sue X, Y, and Z. > >X and Y show up, but Z files a motion to quash. The motion is denied, >but the writ is granted and the court of appeals decides to hear arguments. > >The trial proceeds, and a decision is ruled my favor. X and Y are ordered >to pay me damages. Z does not participate in the trial in any way. > >Seven months after the trial is over, the court of appeals decides >to deny the motion and include Z. > >What happens then? Surely, Z would not be included in the judgement >against X and Y, because Z has not had an opportunity to present >his own arguments. Correct. A ruling against you in the trial of X and Y might, depending on the grounds, prevent you from getting a second bite with a trial against Z. But a ruling in favor of you in the X and Y trial cannot prevent Z from later having his day in court. Most certainly it is a due process thing, and it is a reason why Elfving might decide not to proceed with trial until both the Bunner appeal and the Pavlovich writ are decided by the appellate court. But it is his discretion. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 15 20:08:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA21578 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:08:44 -0500 Received: from mercury.clearway.com ([199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA21575 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:08:43 -0500 Received: by c100.clearway.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:10:01 -0500 Message-ID: From: Leland Ray To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Sec. Cohen throws $295,000 party for Valenti Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:08:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring-2000121521106.htm (You have to scroll down the page to find this story). This is a story about a party thrown by Sec of Defense Cohen to try and get better military exposure in movies. Here is a quote from this story I found *very* interesting: "The word from some in the building is that Mrs. Cohen, a former television reporter, pushed for the party because she is angling to replace Motion Picture Association of America President Jack Valenti as the movie industry's top lobbyist sometime in the future." From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Dec 16 17:34:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA32651 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 17:34:30 -0500 Received: from web510.mail.yahoo.com (web510.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.225]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA32648 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 17:34:28 -0500 Message-ID: <20001216223619.9510.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [38.27.214.187] by web510.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:36:19 PST Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:36:19 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CNET on CA Supreme Court action regarding Pavlovich To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- "James S. Tyre" wrote: > >By the way, is the Court of Appeal a panel of judges? If so, I'd say > >that's probably good for us on this issue. > > Three judge panel. Likely, but not certainly, it will be the same > three judges who decide Bunner's appeal from the preliminary > injunction. Do we know who those judges were? I'd be interested in finding out what kind of reputation they have. Are CA judges elected or appointed? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Dec 16 19:10:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA00842 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:10:01 -0500 Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.12]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA00839 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:09:59 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa193.pool012.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.83.193]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10941 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 16:11:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001216151137.053b1720@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 15:32:09 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CNET on CA Supreme Court action regarding Pavlovich In-Reply-To: <20001216223619.9510.qmail@web510.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 02:36 PM 12/16/2000 -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: >--- "James S. Tyre" wrote: > > >By the way, is the Court of Appeal a panel of judges? If so, I'd say > > >that's probably good for us on this issue. > > > > Three judge panel. Likely, but not certainly, it will be the same > > three judges who decide Bunner's appeal from the preliminary > > injunction. > >Do we know who those judges were? I'd be interested in finding out what >kind of reputation they have. Someone may, but I don't. Actually, I'm not sure if it has gone to oral argument. Prior to orals, the attorneys know the general pool from which the three will come, but not which three specific ones. (It is very common for superior court judges to sit pro tem on a Court of Appeal panel >Are CA judges elected or appointed? Appellate court and Supreme Court Justices are appointed, but subject to a retention election by the voters every seven years. In '86, CJ Rose Bird and two of her colleagues lost their retention elections, on account of their consistent reversals of death sentences. That is the only time that CA Supreme Court Justices have lost retention elections, and I believe, but am not positive, that no Court of Appeal Justice has ever lost a retention election. -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Dec 16 19:37:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01082 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:37:22 -0500 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA30626 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:39:12 -0500 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA31231 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:40:07 -0600 Message-ID: <3A3BC445.B781AB0F@mninter.net> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 13:36:37 -0600 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Sec. Cohen throws $295,000 party for Valenti References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is just further evidence of the intricate dependance of our national interest (national security, even) on the entertainment industry. Beware the entertainment-industrial complex. -- moseng@mninter.net I use PGP 6.5.3 -- http://www.underwhelm.org/pgp From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Dec 16 19:38:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA01128 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:38:53 -0500 Received: from mail.virtualrecordings.com ([209.0.104.81]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA01007 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:22:40 -0500 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 16:20:25 -0800 Message-Id: <200012161620.AA1378746932@mail.virtualrecordings.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Robin Gross" To: Subject: [dvd-discuss] EFF DVD Update: Supreme Court Thwarts Hollywood's War on Cyberspace X-Mailer: Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu EFF DVD Update: California DeCSS Trade Secret Litigation DVD-CCA v. Pavlovich -- December 15, 2000 Supreme Court Thwarts Hollywood's War on Cyberspace The California Supreme Court delivered a severe blow to the movie industry's attempt to ban DeCSS software and control speech on the Net. On December 13, 2000 it granted Matthew Pavlovich's petition for review based on lack of personal jurisdiction over him. The high court sent the matter back to the trial judge to show why the non-California resident should remain in the case. The Supreme Court's unanimous decision signals its disapproval of the lower court's attempt to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Indiana college student who published DeCSS on a Web site hosting various Linux-based open-source projects. The ruling marks a victory for civil liberties on the Net. While not writing a complete opinion, the seven justices sent a message to California lower courts about the Constitutional limitations to exert power over out-of-jurisdiction defendants. If allowed to stand, the lower court's order could have eliminated the traditional limits on jurisdiction and allowed nearly limitless California jurisdiction over individuals around the world for simply using the Internet. "The Supreme Court has re-affirmed the principle that you don't lose your Constitutional due process rights when you enter cyberspace," stated Pavlovich's attorney Allonn Levy of the HS Law Group in San Jose. Levy also serves as Electronic Frontier Foundation's lead litigator in its California DeCSS defense team of Andrew Bunner, Pavlovich's co-defendant. Levy's co-counsel in defense of Pavlovich and Bunner, EFF staff attorney Robin Gross said of the ruling, "that it is proof that perseverance is required to preserve liberty when litigating these issues." Last year the movie industry, represented by its trade group DVD-CCA, filed a lawsuit in California alleging trade secret misappropriation. It attempted to force dozens of "named" individuals and 500 "John Does" located all over the world to come to San Jose to defend their publication of DeCSS software on their Web sites. DeCSS is free software that allows people to play DVDs without technological restrictions, such as region codes, that are preferred by movie studios. At a preliminary hearing in January, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge William Elfving ordered the named defendants to remove their postings pending the case's outcome at trial. One of those named defendants was Pavlovich, who argued that there was no basis for the California court to have jurisdiction over him. The Supreme Court overturned the Superior court's denial of Pavlovich's motion to dismiss the case against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, based on the fact that he has no connection with the state. British citizen Derek Fawcus and journalist Emmanuel Goldstein of 2600 Magazine also have motions pending, contesting DVD-CCA and the California court's attempt to exert jurisdiction over them. Goldstein also is a defendant in EFF's appeal of an injunction issued by a New York trial court under the DMCA banning him from publishing the code. EFF's California DeCSS defense team expects the court to set a trial date for Bunner in early February 2001. RELATED LINKS: California Supreme Court's Order Reversing Lower Courts: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20001213_ca_supct_order.html Matthew Pavlovich's Motion to Quash for lack of jurisdiction: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20000802_pavlovich_quash_motion.html DVD-CCA's Opposition to Pavlovich's Motion: http://cryptome.org/dvd-v-521-opq.htm 6th Appellate District Court Denial of Pavlovich Motion: http://cryptome.org/dvd-v-521-pqa.htm DVD-CCA v. Derek Fawkus: Motion to Quash: http://cryptome.org/dvd-v-fawkus.htm Hollywood dealt setback in DVD code case -- By Evan Hansen: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4159594.html EFF Archive for DVD-CCA Cal. trade secret case: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/ EFF's DVD Archive: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/ An index of EFF's DVD updates can be found at: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVD_Updates/ Join EFF's mailing list for the latest news by receiving the regular DVD updates directly in your inbox. To subscribe, email majordomo@eff.org and put this in the text: subscribe cafe-news The Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org) is the leading global nonprofit organization linking technical architectures with legal frameworks to support the rights of individuals in an open society. 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 Web sites in the world. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Dec 17 07:56:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA09442 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 07:56:18 -0500 Received: from boltswitch.com ([209.100.96.234]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA09428; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 07:56:16 -0500 From: 7iZCf930b@YAHOO.COM Received: from JQM25mHnb (1Cust248.tnt8.lax3.da.uu.net [63.23.75.248]) by boltswitch.com; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 00:49:06 -0600 DATE: 17 Dec 00 12:23:56 AM Message-ID: Subject: [dvd-discuss] FWD: FROM JOHN Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu CHECK THIS OUT. JOHN SENT IT TO ME, I THOUGHT YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED! HTTP://www.geocities.com/newestpage5543/ipb.html TO BE REMOVED FROM ALL FUTURE EMAILS, SIMPLY REPLY WITH "REMOVE" IN THE SUBJECT LINE From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Dec 17 11:53:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA10614 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 11:53:16 -0500 Received: from dfawcus-laptop.cisco.com (isdn-nat-1.cisco.com [192.82.152.130]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA10611 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 11:53:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 1575 invoked by uid 69022); 17 Dec 2000 16:55:26 -0000 Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 16:55:04 +0000 From: Derek Fawcus To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Cc: jstyre@jstyre.com, jya@pipeline.com Subject: [dvd-discuss] News Message-ID: <20001217165504.A1568@dfawcus-gw-home.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001214182357.00a98100@cyberpass.net> Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Jim, the story is that the hearing got delayed. The DVD-CCA were supposed to have filed their reply on 5th Dec. However they want to have discovery relating to the jurisdiction issue first. << Mind it seems a bit weird that some party can sue another for vague reasons, then go on a fishing trip to get some justification for them sueing in the first place. >> So that's sort of set for early Jan, with the rest proceeding after. I can't remember the exact schedule now. Oh - and John, my surname is spelt with a letter 'c' not a letter 'k'. :-) DF From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sun Dec 17 15:05:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11656 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 15:05:02 -0500 Received: from boltswitch.com ([209.100.96.234]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA11631; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 15:05:00 -0500 From: q2bzaSg3g@myfreeoffice.com Received: from gj2iB8cjT (1Cust88.tnt8.lax3.da.uu.net [63.23.75.88]) by boltswitch.com; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 03:27:45 -0600 DATE: 17 Dec 00 3:02:33 AM Message-ID: Subject: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu You Are Receiveing This Again, Due To Another Typo In The Last Web Address. $99 Flatrate Longdistance STATE TO STATE / UNLIMITED CALLS GET RID OF THOSE HUGE LONG DISTANCE BILLS. DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FOCUS FROM YOUR PRIMARY PROGRAM!! SO... GET YOUR WHOLE DOWNLINE ON IT FOR RAPID GROWTH IN YOUR CURRENT PROGRAM!! http://www.geocities.com/redir13321/redirect.html This Is A Weekly Mail List. To Be Removed Permanently Email permenentremoval@excite.com with "remove" somewhere in the subject line. PERMANENT REMOVAL!! (May Take 1-2 days to be completely off all lists) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Dec 18 07:40:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA03745 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:40:00 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA03742 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:39:58 -0500 Received: from ip196.bedford9.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.79.196]) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 147zc1-00048Y-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:41:53 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:49:20 -0500 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id HAA03743 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu looks like it may be time to killfile "1Cust88.tnt8.lax3.da.uu.net" On 17 Dec 00 3:02:33 AM, q2bzaSg3g@myfreeoffice.com wrote: __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Dec 18 11:15:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA06122 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:15:59 -0500 Received: from ndlismtp01.newsday.com (ndlimail01.newsday.com [170.165.1.6]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA06119 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:15:58 -0500 Received: by ndlismtp01.newsday.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 852569B9.00594821 ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:15:11 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: NEWSDAY From: "Rita Ciolli" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-ID: <852569B9.00594725.00@ndlismtp01.newsday.com> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:15:05 -0500 Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-di Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Dec 18 11:15:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA06114 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:15:44 -0500 Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA06111 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:15:43 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10627 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:13:21 -0700 (MST) Received: from sessions.phx.primenet.com(206.132.239.114), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAA4_aGTh; Mon Dec 18 08:59:13 2000 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA31600 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:03:24 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:03:24 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00121809032400.07136@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Monday 18 December 2000 05:49, you wrote: # looks like it may be time to killfile "1Cust88.tnt8.lax3.da.uu.net" # # On 17 Dec 00 3:02:33 AM, q2bzaSg3g@myfreeoffice.com wrote: [Spam deleted] I haven't been LARTing the list spammers who've been showing up lately, since that's usually handled by the list owner. If nobody else wants to, though, I'll do the homework to track down the sources and see about getting their connections pulled. In this case, since it's coming though a UUnet dialup, there's virtually no chance of disconnecting the source. We can maybe get the website nuked, the dropbox unplugged, etc. but the UUnet dialup is untouchable. Best bet there would be to get the harvard.edu mail admins to subscribe to the DUL and maybe RBL. -- | The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. | | Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Dec 18 14:46:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA09836 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:46:58 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA09833 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:46:57 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35) id ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:49:14 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:49:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu UUnet cancels customers for violating TOS. The dialup is not untouchable if UUnet does their job. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: D. C. Sessions [mailto:dcs@lumbercartel.com] > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:03 AM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE > > > On Monday 18 December 2000 05:49, you wrote: > # looks like it may be time to killfile "1Cust88.tnt8.lax3.da.uu.net" > # > # On 17 Dec 00 3:02:33 AM, q2bzaSg3g@myfreeoffice.com wrote: > > [Spam deleted] > > I haven't been LARTing the list spammers who've been showing up > lately, since that's usually handled by the list owner. If > nobody else > wants to, though, I'll do the homework to track down the sources and > see about getting their connections pulled. > > In this case, since it's coming though a UUnet dialup, > there's virtually > no chance of disconnecting the source. We can maybe get the website > nuked, the dropbox unplugged, etc. but the UUnet dialup is > untouchable. > > Best bet there would be to get the harvard.edu mail admins to > subscribe > to the DUL and maybe RBL. > > -- > | The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. | > | Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat. | > +--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+ > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Dec 18 19:33:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA12786 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:33:01 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA12783 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:33:00 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA20544 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:34:56 -0700 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:34:56 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Better yet, get uu.net to...postmaster@uu.net would be more than pleased to hear about it :) On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Ron Gustavson wrote: > looks like it may be time to killfile "1Cust88.tnt8.lax3.da.uu.net" > > On 17 Dec 00 3:02:33 AM, q2bzaSg3g@myfreeoffice.com wrote: > > > __________NO-∞-DO__________ > -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email galt@inconnu.isu.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Dec 18 19:42:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA12944 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:42:13 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA12941 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:42:12 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35) id ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:44:31 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:44:29 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu actually the address to use to report abuse at most sites is "abuse". use "postmaster" only if "abuse" does not exist. -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: John Galt [mailto:galt@inconnu.isu.edu] > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 4:35 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE > > > > Better yet, get uu.net to...postmaster@uu.net would be more > than pleased > to hear about it :) > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Ron Gustavson wrote: > > > looks like it may be time to killfile "1Cust88.tnt8.lax3.da.uu.net" > > > > On 17 Dec 00 3:02:33 AM, q2bzaSg3g@myfreeoffice.com wrote: > > > > > > __________NO-∞-DO__________ > > > > -- > Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a > damn. > email galt@inconnu.isu.edu > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Dec 18 19:43:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA13033 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:43:50 -0500 Received: from inconnu.isu.edu (root@inconnu.isu.edu [134.50.8.55]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA13028 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:43:48 -0500 Received: from localhost (galt@localhost) by inconnu.isu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA20960 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:45:45 -0700 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:45:44 -0700 (MST) From: John Galt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu One other thing. Geocities probably doesn't know that their service is being used as a base for spamming...abuse@yahoo.com is a good idea as well... On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, John Galt wrote: > > Better yet, get uu.net to...postmaster@uu.net would be more than pleased > to hear about it :) > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Ron Gustavson wrote: > > > looks like it may be time to killfile "1Cust88.tnt8.lax3.da.uu.net" > > > > On 17 Dec 00 3:02:33 AM, q2bzaSg3g@myfreeoffice.com wrote: > > > > > > __________NO-∞-DO__________ > > > > -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email galt@inconnu.isu.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Dec 18 23:21:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA15123 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:21:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:21:14 -0500 From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-Id: <200012190421.XAA15123@eon.law.harvard.edu> Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA14753 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:33:27 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA25915 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:34:07 -0700 (MST) Received: from sessions.phx.primenet.com(206.132.239.114), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAviaiHY; Mon Dec 18 20:33:55 2000 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA32761 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:34:35 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:34:35 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00121820343500.11467@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss On Monday 18 December 2000 12:49, Richard Hartman wrote: # UUnet cancels customers for violating TOS. The dialup is # not untouchable if UUnet does their job. (a) You haven't been following the sorry story of UU.net and spam, have you? (b) That dialup wasn't a direct UUnet account; it was an account with a UUnet reseller such as MSN which doesn't block direct outgoing port 25 connections. UUnet can't cancel an MSN account because, if nothing else, they don't have the logs to know which MSN customer (ab)used the connection. -- | The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. | | Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Dec 18 23:34:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA16182 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:34:55 -0500 Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA16179 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:34:54 -0500 Received: from banquo (adsl-151-202-34-10.nyc.adsl.bellatlantic.net [151.202.34.10]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.9.3 (PHNE_21697)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA29511 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:36:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001218233104.01efd030@law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: wseltzer@law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:37:36 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Wendy Seltzer Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE In-Reply-To: <00121809032400.07136@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 09:03 AM 12/18/2000 -0700, dcs@lumbercartel.com wrote: >On Monday 18 December 2000 05:49, you wrote: ># looks like it may be time to killfile "1Cust88.tnt8.lax3.da.uu.net" ># ># On 17 Dec 00 3:02:33 AM, q2bzaSg3g@myfreeoffice.com wrote: > >[Spam deleted] > >I haven't been LARTing the list spammers who've been showing up >lately, since that's usually handled by the list owner. OK, the delinquent list owner has written to to abuse@uu.net and to abuse@yahoo.com asking them to pull the geocities page. I experimented with making the list postable only from subscribers, but too many bona fide subscribers are posting from addresses different from those under which they're subscribed, so I switched it back pretty quickly. Other suggestions? --Wendy --- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Dec 19 02:12:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA18787 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:12:45 -0500 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA18784 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:12:34 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 148Gyi-0000bZ-00; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:14:28 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 148Gyj-0002sj-00; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:14:29 +0100 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:14:29 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE Message-ID: <20001219081429.A10976@inka.de> References: <00121809032400.07136@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <4.2.2.20001218233104.01efd030@law.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20001218233104.01efd030@law.harvard.edu>; from wendy@seltzer.com on Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:37:36PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:37:36PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > I experimented with making the list postable only from subscribers, but too > many bona fide subscribers are posting from addresses different from those > under which they're subscribed, so I switched it back pretty quickly. > > Other suggestions? Would it be possible to allow subscribers to add additional addresses, which could be used to post, but wouldn't receive postings? I've never used majordomo or any other mailing list manager, so don't know how feasible this is. Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ Ignorance killed the cat, curiosity was framed. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Dec 19 08:17:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA21353 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:17:30 -0500 Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA21350 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:17:28 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h0060b03c5b8b.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.139]) by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA11773 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:19:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A3F605C.7060501@mediaone.net> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:19:24 -0500 From: Sphere User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108 Netscape6/6.0 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE References: <00121809032400.07136@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <4.2.2.20001218233104.01efd030@law.harvard.edu> <20001219081429.A10976@inka.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sham Gardner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:37:36PM -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > >> I experimented with making the list postable only from subscribers, but too >> many bona fide subscribers are posting from addresses different from those >> under which they're subscribed, so I switched it back pretty quickly. >> >> Other suggestions? > > > Would it be possible to allow subscribers to add additional addresses, which > could be used to post, but wouldn't receive postings? I've never used > majordomo or any other mailing list manager, so don't know how feasible this > is. > > Sham Majordomo itself at least didn't allow this, but it's written in Perl so with the right skills you can't get it to do anything. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Dec 19 09:23:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA21911 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:23:29 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id GAA20603 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 06:34:23 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:26:42 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:27:16 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:27:16 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE Message-ID: <20001219102716.A25103@lemuria.org> References: <00121809032400.07136@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> <4.2.2.20001218233104.01efd030@law.harvard.edu> <20001219081429.A10976@inka.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001219081429.A10976@inka.de>; from mail@risctaker.inka.de on Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 08:14:29AM +0100 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sham Gardner wrote: > Would it be possible to allow subscribers to add additional addresses, which > could be used to post, but wouldn't receive postings? I've never used > majordomo or any other mailing list manager, so don't know how feasible this > is. it's possible with majordomo, but it's a lot of admin overhead because majordomo doesn't support any "subscribe for posting only" commands, so you'd have to do that by hand. it's feasable for some things (my online game, for example, because I can just grab the "alternative" e-mails out of a database) but not for open discussion lists like this one. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Dec 19 10:19:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA22892 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:19:22 -0500 Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA22889 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:19:20 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08913 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:17:37 -0700 (MST) Received: from sessions.phx.primenet.com(206.132.239.114), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAbFaGzr; Tue Dec 19 08:17:30 2000 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA01744 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:21:06 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:21:06 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: <4.2.2.20001218233104.01efd030@law.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20001218233104.01efd030@law.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00121908210600.12661@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Monday 18 December 2000 21:37, you wrote: # At 09:03 AM 12/18/2000 -0700, dcs@lumbercartel.com wrote: # >On Monday 18 December 2000 05:49, you wrote: # ># looks like it may be time to killfile "1Cust88.tnt8.lax3.da.uu.net" # ># # ># On 17 Dec 00 3:02:33 AM, q2bzaSg3g@myfreeoffice.com wrote: # > # >[Spam deleted] # > # >I haven't been LARTing the list spammers who've been showing up # >lately, since that's usually handled by the list owner. # # OK, the delinquent list owner has written to to abuse@uu.net and to # abuse@yahoo.com asking them to pull the geocities page. # # I experimented with making the list postable only from subscribers, but too # many bona fide subscribers are posting from addresses different from those # under which they're subscribed, so I switched it back pretty quickly. # # Other suggestions? Mainly that it would be a Good Idea to have the sysadmin subscribe to the MAPS DUL (http://mail-abuse.org/dul), which would block any direct-to-MX attacks on the list. The RBL would do a lot of good, but some of the posters might get caught in the fallout. -- | The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. | | Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Dec 19 12:44:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA23732 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:44:33 -0500 Received: from dial69.roadrunner.com (sf-du69.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.69]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA23729 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:44:29 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial69.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01622 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:35:21 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:35:21 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] FWD: MORE INFO ON THE PHONE SERVICE Message-ID: <20001219103521.A1606@localhost> References: <4.2.2.20001218233104.01efd030@law.harvard.edu> <00121908210600.12661@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <00121908210600.12661@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com>; from dcs@lumbercartel.com on Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 08:21:06AM -0700 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 08:21:06AM -0700, D. C. Sessions wrote: > On Monday 18 December 2000 21:37, you wrote: > # At 09:03 AM 12/18/2000 -0700, dcs@lumbercartel.com wrote: > # >On Monday 18 December 2000 05:49, you wrote: > # ># looks like it may be time to killfile "1Cust88.tnt8.lax3.da.uu.net" > # ># > # ># On 17 Dec 00 3:02:33 AM, q2bzaSg3g@myfreeoffice.com wrote: > # > > # >[Spam deleted] > # > > # >I haven't been LARTing the list spammers who've been showing up > # >lately, since that's usually handled by the list owner. > # > # OK, the delinquent list owner has written to to abuse@uu.net and to > # abuse@yahoo.com asking them to pull the geocities page. > # > # I experimented with making the list postable only from subscribers, but too > # many bona fide subscribers are posting from addresses different from those > # under which they're subscribed, so I switched it back pretty quickly. > # > # Other suggestions? > > Mainly that it would be a Good Idea to have the sysadmin subscribe to the > MAPS DUL (http://mail-abuse.org/dul), which would block any direct-to-MX > attacks on the list. The RBL would do a lot of good, but some of the posters > might get caught in the fallout. What about those of us who route outbound mail directly from a local MTA? DUL creates fallout too. Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Dec 19 22:40:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA29626 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:40:13 -0500 Received: from mercury.cc.oberlin.edu (mercury.cc.oberlin.edu [132.162.1.220]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA29623 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:40:11 -0500 Received: from superkorn (DHCPP2025.resnet.oberlin.edu [132.162.233.59]) by oberlin.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #46472) with SMTP id <0G5U009E7KYAQ6@oberlin.edu> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:42:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:44:59 -0500 From: Mark Subject: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? In-reply-to: <20001219103521.A1606@localhost> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Hey, I think this has come up at some point before, but I couldn't find it in the archive so I am asking now. Last week I put up DeCSS in both binary and source form on my web page here at school, figuring that I would have at least a couple weeks before I got any threatening letters about it. Tonight, less than a week later, I received the following email: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:35:21 -0500 From: Rob Tomke Subject: Account Violation To: Mark.Kornblum@oberlin.edu Hello Mark, Due to possible legal action from the MPAA, we unfortunately must require you to eliminate the DeCSS from your webpage. This is a federal offense and you may be subpoened to the Supreme Court. Failure to remove DeCSS from your webpage will result in legal action that could send you to prison for a maximum of 5 years and/or a $500,000 fine. Please remove DeCSS from your page immediately and continue to use your DVD's in a legal manner. Thank you for your cooperation. Rob Tomke MPAA I am curious as to what I should do now. I have some doubts about the authenticity of the email, being as it is from a hotmail account and Rob Tomke apparently does not have a position at the MPAA, he just is the MPAA. Also it never actually cites the DMCA, which if I remember right most of the previous cease and desist type emails did. Can anyone help me verify if this is legit or not? If it is, how likely are they to prosecute me if I do not comply? Thanks for any help, Mark Kornblum From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Dec 19 23:02:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA30971 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:02:26 -0500 Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA30968 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:02:24 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-35-220.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.35.220]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA71436 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:04:24 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:04:25 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? Message-ID: <3A3FDB69.12499.14B8CF7@localhost> References: <20001219103521.A1606@localhost> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu IANAL as everyone will tell you, but I think legal notices must be supplied on paper. That may only apply to the government I suppose. I do think it is perfectly reasonable and within your rights to request more information from the emailer, such as his position within the MPAA, his supervisor, telephone numbers, and so on. Then you take that information, you contact others who can help There should really be a class people can take which tells them all about this stuff, what the technicalities of their rights are and so on. I sure could use one. you make something of it. Even if it is the MPAA, don't forget that they have conducted a huge bullying campaign.. on paper I think. It would be odd for them to suddenly resort to email. The bullying letters they sent out were all very formal if I remember. sparky On 19 Dec 2000, at 22:44, Mark wrote: > Hey, I think this has come up at some point before, but I couldn't > find it in the archive so I am asking now. Last week I put up DeCSS > in both binary and source form on my web page here at school, figuring > that I would have at least a couple weeks before I got any threatening > letters about it. Tonight, less than a week later, I received the > following email: > > > Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:35:21 -0500 > From: Rob Tomke > Subject: Account Violation > To: Mark.Kornblum@oberlin.edu > > Hello Mark, > > Due to possible legal action from the MPAA, we unfortunately must > require you to eliminate the DeCSS from your webpage. This is a > federal offense and you may be subpoened to the Supreme Court. > Failure to remove DeCSS from your webpage will result in legal action > that could send you to prison for a maximum of 5 years and/or a > $500,000 fine. Please remove DeCSS from your page immediately and > continue to use your DVD's in a legal manner. Thank you for your > cooperation. > > Rob Tomke > MPAA > > > I am curious as to what I should do now. I have some doubts about the > authenticity of the email, being as it is from a hotmail account and > Rob Tomke apparently does not have a position at the MPAA, he just is > the MPAA. Also it never actually cites the DMCA, which if I remember > right most of the previous cease and desist type emails did. Can > anyone help me verify if this is legit or not? If it is, how likely > are they to prosecute me if I do not comply? > > Thanks for any help, > > Mark Kornblum > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Dec 19 23:35:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA32182 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:35:12 -0500 Received: from mail.swdata.com (root@mail.mninter.net [208.142.244.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA32179 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:35:11 -0500 Received: from mninter.net (moseng.swdata.com [205.140.224.214]) by mail.swdata.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA32314 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:36:21 -0600 Message-ID: <3A4036A1.BEB7E307@mninter.net> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:33:37 -0600 From: Chris Moseng X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu You should simply reply "cram it." Even if the MPAA actually intended to "subpoena you to the Supreme Court" (whatever that means), they could do it whether they sent you a cease and desist letter or not. Here's a hint that it's illegitimate: the subject line says Account Violation, suggesting the person is actually a representative of the organization that provides your account. Unless you have some sort of "account" with the MPAA, this person is trying to dupe you. Then again, maybe everybody who owns a DVD is an MPAA account holder and they track us with orbiting laserbeams and, of course, our credit cards. If you can think of something more colorful than "cram it," by all means use that, just don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. Mark wrote: > Hey, I think this has come up at some point before, but I > couldn't [...] -- moseng@mninter.net I use PGP 6.5.3 -- http://www.underwhelm.org/pgp From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 20 01:02:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA04869 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:02:30 -0500 Received: from mercury.cc.oberlin.edu (mercury.cc.oberlin.edu [132.162.1.220]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA04866 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:02:28 -0500 Received: from superkorn (DHCPP2025.resnet.oberlin.edu [132.162.233.59]) by oberlin.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #46472) with SMTP id <0G5U0043BRJ23B@oberlin.edu> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:04:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:07:02 -0500 From: Mark Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? In-reply-to: <3A4036A1.BEB7E307@mninter.net> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Thanks for the help. I sent an email requesting a phone number for either him or his supervisor, or some other way of getting in contact. As of now the DeCSS code is still up. Mark -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Chris Moseng Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 11:34 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? You should simply reply "cram it." Even if the MPAA actually intended to "subpoena you to the Supreme Court" (whatever that means), they could do it whether they sent you a cease and desist letter or not. Here's a hint that it's illegitimate: the subject line says Account Violation, suggesting the person is actually a representative of the organization that provides your account. Unless you have some sort of "account" with the MPAA, this person is trying to dupe you. Then again, maybe everybody who owns a DVD is an MPAA account holder and they track us with orbiting laserbeams and, of course, our credit cards. If you can think of something more colorful than "cram it," by all means use that, just don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. Mark wrote: > Hey, I think this has come up at some point before, but I > couldn't [...] -- moseng@mninter.net I use PGP 6.5.3 -- http://www.underwhelm.org/pgp From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 20 01:28:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA05366 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:28:29 -0500 Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA05363 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:28:28 -0500 Received: from gabrielle (24-148-35-220.na.21stcentury.net [24.148.35.220]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA06179 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:30:28 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from sparky@suba.com) From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:30:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? Message-ID: <3A3FFDA6.29488.1D14994@localhost> References: <3A4036A1.BEB7E307@mninter.net> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'd just like to say, while my recommendation seems tamer than Chris', really I meant it as a means to Chris' end. :) sp On 20 Dec 2000, at 1:07, Mark wrote: > Thanks for the help. I sent an email requesting a phone number for > either him or his supervisor, or some other way of getting in contact. > As of now the DeCSS code is still up. > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Chris > Moseng Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 11:34 PM To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone > offer some advice? > > > You should simply reply "cram it." > > Even if the MPAA actually intended to "subpoena you to the Supreme > Court" (whatever that means), they could do it whether they sent you a > cease and desist letter or not. > > Here's a hint that it's illegitimate: the subject line says Account > Violation, suggesting the person is actually a representative of the > organization that provides your account. Unless you have some sort of > "account" with the MPAA, this person is trying to dupe you. Then > again, maybe everybody who owns a DVD is an MPAA account holder and > they track us with orbiting laserbeams and, of course, our credit > cards. > > If you can think of something more colorful than "cram it," by all > means use that, just don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. > > Mark wrote: > > Hey, I think this has come up at some point before, but I > couldn't > > [...] > -- > moseng@mninter.net > I use PGP 6.5.3 -- http://www.underwhelm.org/pgp > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 20 02:23:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA05717 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:23:38 -0500 Received: from mercury.cc.oberlin.edu (mercury.cc.oberlin.edu [132.162.1.220]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA05714 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:23:36 -0500 Received: from superkorn (DHCPP2025.resnet.oberlin.edu [132.162.233.59]) by oberlin.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #46472) with SMTP id <0G5U00N79VANS1@oberlin.edu> for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:25:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:28:23 -0500 From: Mark Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? In-reply-to: <3A3FFDA6.29488.1D14994@localhost> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Yeah thanks man. I didn't think it looked very authentic, but I wanted to get a second opinion. Suffice to say I didn't exactly say "shove it" but asked how this person had the authority to tell me to take it down, which is kind of the same thing only a lot more high class :) -----Original Message----- From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of sparky Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 1:31 AM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? I'd just like to say, while my recommendation seems tamer than Chris', really I meant it as a means to Chris' end. :) sp On 20 Dec 2000, at 1:07, Mark wrote: > Thanks for the help. I sent an email requesting a phone number for > either him or his supervisor, or some other way of getting in contact. > As of now the DeCSS code is still up. > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Chris > Moseng Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 11:34 PM To: > dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone > offer some advice? > > > You should simply reply "cram it." > > Even if the MPAA actually intended to "subpoena you to the Supreme > Court" (whatever that means), they could do it whether they sent you a > cease and desist letter or not. > > Here's a hint that it's illegitimate: the subject line says Account > Violation, suggesting the person is actually a representative of the > organization that provides your account. Unless you have some sort of > "account" with the MPAA, this person is trying to dupe you. Then > again, maybe everybody who owns a DVD is an MPAA account holder and > they track us with orbiting laserbeams and, of course, our credit > cards. > > If you can think of something more colorful than "cram it," by all > means use that, just don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. > > Mark wrote: > > Hey, I think this has come up at some point before, but I > couldn't > > [...] > -- > moseng@mninter.net > I use PGP 6.5.3 -- http://www.underwhelm.org/pgp > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 20 03:44:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA06466 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:44:26 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id DAA06460 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:44:24 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:37:09 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:21:48 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:21:48 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? Message-ID: <20001220092148.B28216@lemuria.org> References: <3A4036A1.BEB7E307@mninter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from mark.kornblum@oberlin.edu on Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 01:07:02AM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Mark wrote: > Thanks for the help. I sent an email requesting a phone number for either > him or his supervisor, or some other way of getting in contact. As of now > the DeCSS code is still up. keep it up until a lawyer shows up at your front door (or the equivalent action in paper happens). depending on where you are, that may take a LONG time. I'm in germany and I've had the code up from the very beginning (over 14 months now) and I've yet to even see a single letter from a german lawyer, not to speak of german courts. they definitely INTEND to prosecute half the internet, but unless the cal court falls over backwards and declares that through some mysterious means it has jurisdiction over al abdul, UAE just as much as santa clara, CA, they just don't have the will to pull it through. seriously, I'm quite confident that their being pretty much inactive when it comes to germany for over a year should be a strong defense should they ever come here. "so, you're requesting IMMEDIATE relief now, after 14 months? say, if it is that urgent, you couldn't have noticed a little earlier, could you?" in essence, it's a bullshitting campaign. they try to prosecute ONE person, then use that to threaten everyone else. and maybe, if they feel like it, make an example out of two or three more. but that's it. if the US legal system were less seriously fucked up, I'd recommend we all counter-sue, in individual lawsuits. that should spread the resources of the MPAA pretty thin. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 20 03:44:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA06459 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:44:24 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id DAA06455 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:44:23 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:37:09 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:14:42 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:14:42 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? Message-ID: <20001220091442.A28216@lemuria.org> References: <20001219103521.A1606@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from mark.kornblum@oberlin.edu on Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 10:44:59PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Mark wrote: > Hey, I think this has come up at some point before, but I couldn't find it > in the archive so I am asking now. Last week I put up DeCSS in both binary > and source form on my web page here at school, figuring that I would have at > least a couple weeks before I got any threatening letters about it. > Tonight, less than a week later, I received the following email: this is almost certainly bullshit, maybe by some buddy who wants to threaten you. I've received dozens of MPAA love letters, and they all look very different from this one. however, the tell-tale sign is this; > Hello Mark, > > Due to possible legal action from the MPAA, we unfortunately must require [...] > Rob Tomke > MPAA so this guy who is WITH MPAA says that first line? yeah, sure. if you want to read some real MPAA letters, head to my homepage (www.lemuria.org/DeCSS). I'm pretty sure I have at least one of them on it somewhere. they're always very formal, never mention specific courts or fines and always end with the magic formula "I declare under penalty of perjury that the forementioned is true, blah, blah" or something very similiar. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 20 07:27:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA07998 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:27:57 -0500 Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (johnson.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.177]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA07995 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:27:55 -0500 Received: from jy02 (user-2inij76.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.76.230]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA16195 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:29:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: X-Sender: jya@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:25:20 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: John Young Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? In-Reply-To: References: <20001219103521.A1606@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is surely a prank, though not as pretentious as MPAA's pseudolegal-speakeasy bluffs. But then MPAA's are not as fantastic as CSS. And CSS not as fictional as cinema. And global corporate IP not as deadly as mad cow refreshments. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 20 07:58:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA08191 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:58:33 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA08188 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:58:32 -0500 Received: by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 0EF6227AF0; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:59:13 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:59:13 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] eu directive ? Message-ID: <20001220135913.A11332@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu someone from this list asked a while ago for the european directive for harmonization of copyright (aka "EU DMCA"). I found it in my archives as a .pdf file, with full references (document number etc) to check it's authentity. if you're reading this: send me a mail again and I'll forward it. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 20 08:03:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA08410 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:03:00 -0500 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA08407 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:02:59 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 148ivP-0004Yn-00; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:04:56 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 148ivQ-0005pP-00; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:04:56 +0100 Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:04:56 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] eu directive ? Message-ID: <20001220140455.A20243@inka.de> References: <20001220135913.A11332@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <20001220135913.A11332@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 01:59:13PM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 01:59:13PM +0100, Tom Vogt wrote: > someone from this list asked a while ago for the european directive for > harmonization of copyright (aka "EU DMCA"). > > I found it in my archives as a .pdf file, with full references > (document number etc) to check it's authentity. if you're reading this: > send me a mail again and I'll forward it. Something wrong with putting it on a website? Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ Ignorance killed the cat, curiosity was framed. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 20 08:50:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA08648 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:50:16 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f148.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.148]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA08645 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:50:14 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 05:51:44 -0800 Received: from 12.109.34.95 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:51:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.109.34.95] From: "Richard Bowers" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:51:44 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2000 13:51:44.0976 (UTC) FILETIME=[FD57C500:01C06A8B] Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The DMCA actually specifies the form of cease & desist letters that may be supplied. They don't have to be paper, but they do need to supply an almost-generic section referring to the DMCA, and stating "under penalty of perjury", and so on. Oh, and I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet. I don't know that I advise one way or the other on what to do with the email, other then responding once with a note saying "Your letter doesn't conform to the requirements of the DMCA. If this is a legitimate email, please reply with the information required under the Act." Richard Bowers >From: "sparky" >Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:04:25 -0600 > >IANAL as everyone will tell you, but I think legal notices must be >supplied on paper. That may only apply to the government I >suppose. I do think it is perfectly reasonable and within your rights >to request more information from the emailer, such as his position >within the MPAA, his supervisor, telephone numbers, and so on. >Then you take that information, you contact others who can help > >There should really be a class people can take which tells them all >about this stuff, what the technicalities of their rights are and so on. >I sure could use one. > >you make something of it. Even if it is the MPAA, don't forget that >they have conducted a huge bullying campaign.. on paper I think. It >would be odd for them to suddenly resort to email. The bullying >letters they sent out were all very formal if I remember. > >sparky > >On 19 Dec 2000, at 22:44, Mark wrote: > > > Hey, I think this has come up at some point before, but I couldn't > > find it in the archive so I am asking now. Last week I put up DeCSS > > in both binary and source form on my web page here at school, figuring > > that I would have at least a couple weeks before I got any threatening > > letters about it. Tonight, less than a week later, I received the > > following email: > > > > > > Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:35:21 -0500 > > From: Rob Tomke > > Subject: Account Violation > > To: Mark.Kornblum@oberlin.edu > > > > Hello Mark, > > > > Due to possible legal action from the MPAA, we unfortunately must > > require you to eliminate the DeCSS from your webpage. This is a > > federal offense and you may be subpoened to the Supreme Court. > > Failure to remove DeCSS from your webpage will result in legal action > > that could send you to prison for a maximum of 5 years and/or a > > $500,000 fine. Please remove DeCSS from your page immediately and > > continue to use your DVD's in a legal manner. Thank you for your > > cooperation. > > > > Rob Tomke > > MPAA > > > > > > I am curious as to what I should do now. I have some doubts about the > > authenticity of the email, being as it is from a hotmail account and > > Rob Tomke apparently does not have a position at the MPAA, he just is > > the MPAA. Also it never actually cites the DMCA, which if I remember > > right most of the previous cease and desist type emails did. Can > > anyone help me verify if this is legit or not? If it is, how likely > > are they to prosecute me if I do not comply? > > > > Thanks for any help, > > > > Mark Kornblum > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 20 08:57:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA08773 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:57:24 -0500 Received: from ruby.ils.unc.edu (ruby.ils.unc.edu [152.2.81.1]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA08770 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:57:23 -0500 Received: (from gbnewby@localhost) by ruby.ils.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.0) id IAA18680 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:59:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:59:24 -0500 From: Greg Newby To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? Message-ID: <20001220085923.A18574@ils.unc.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from richardsbowers@hotmail.com on Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 08:51:44AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu When I got my letter from the MPAA via email (actually, UNC got it), we called the MPAA through their switchboard to confirm they actually sent the letter. (They did.) This is a reasonable step to take, and certainly offsets the otherwise tenuous nature of email. One thing that's nice about email is it's easy to claim you never got it -- something that's a little harder to do with registered postal mail. -- Greg On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 08:51:44AM -0500, Richard Bowers wrote: > The DMCA actually specifies the form of cease & desist letters that may be > supplied. They don't have to be paper, but they do need to supply an > almost-generic section referring to the DMCA, and stating "under penalty of > perjury", and so on. > > Oh, and I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet. I don't know that > I advise one way or the other on what to do with the email, other then > responding once with a note saying "Your letter doesn't conform to the > requirements of the DMCA. If this is a legitimate email, please reply with > the information required under the Act." > > Richard Bowers > >From: "sparky" > >Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > >To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > >Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? > >Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:04:25 -0600 > > > >IANAL as everyone will tell you, but I think legal notices must be > >supplied on paper. That may only apply to the government I > >suppose. I do think it is perfectly reasonable and within your rights > >to request more information from the emailer, such as his position > >within the MPAA, his supervisor, telephone numbers, and so on. > >Then you take that information, you contact others who can help > > > >There should really be a class people can take which tells them all > >about this stuff, what the technicalities of their rights are and so on. > >I sure could use one. > > > >you make something of it. Even if it is the MPAA, don't forget that > >they have conducted a huge bullying campaign.. on paper I think. It > >would be odd for them to suddenly resort to email. The bullying > >letters they sent out were all very formal if I remember. > > > >sparky > > > >On 19 Dec 2000, at 22:44, Mark wrote: > > > > > Hey, I think this has come up at some point before, but I couldn't > > > find it in the archive so I am asking now. Last week I put up DeCSS > > > in both binary and source form on my web page here at school, figuring > > > that I would have at least a couple weeks before I got any threatening > > > letters about it. Tonight, less than a week later, I received the > > > following email: > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:35:21 -0500 > > > From: Rob Tomke > > > Subject: Account Violation > > > To: Mark.Kornblum@oberlin.edu > > > > > > Hello Mark, > > > > > > Due to possible legal action from the MPAA, we unfortunately must > > > require you to eliminate the DeCSS from your webpage. This is a > > > federal offense and you may be subpoened to the Supreme Court. > > > Failure to remove DeCSS from your webpage will result in legal action > > > that could send you to prison for a maximum of 5 years and/or a > > > $500,000 fine. Please remove DeCSS from your page immediately and > > > continue to use your DVD's in a legal manner. Thank you for your > > > cooperation. > > > > > > Rob Tomke > > > MPAA > > > > > > > > > I am curious as to what I should do now. I have some doubts about the > > > authenticity of the email, being as it is from a hotmail account and > > > Rob Tomke apparently does not have a position at the MPAA, he just is > > > the MPAA. Also it never actually cites the DMCA, which if I remember > > > right most of the previous cease and desist type emails did. Can > > > anyone help me verify if this is legit or not? If it is, how likely > > > are they to prosecute me if I do not comply? > > > > > > Thanks for any help, > > > > > > Mark Kornblum > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 20 11:52:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA10020 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:52:49 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10017 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:52:46 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35) id ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:55:12 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:55:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I'm pretty sure that ny official notice would have office contact information (address, phone #). Actually I doubt that official notice would arrive by e-mail. How about sending a reply requesting that official notice be sent via registered mail and that any e-mail notifications would be considered fraudulent. You might even want to report the account to abuse@hotmail.com for sending harassing e-mails ;-) -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark [mailto:mark.kornblum@oberlin.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 7:45 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? > > > Hey, I think this has come up at some point before, but I > couldn't find it > in the archive so I am asking now. Last week I put up DeCSS > in both binary > and source form on my web page here at school, figuring that > I would have at > least a couple weeks before I got any threatening letters about it. > Tonight, less than a week later, I received the following email: > > > Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:35:21 -0500 > From: Rob Tomke > Subject: Account Violation > To: Mark.Kornblum@oberlin.edu > > Hello Mark, > > Due to possible legal action from the MPAA, we unfortunately > must require > you to eliminate the DeCSS from your webpage. This is a > federal offense and > you may be subpoened to the Supreme Court. Failure to remove > DeCSS from > your webpage will result in legal action that could send you > to prison for a > maximum of 5 years and/or a $500,000 fine. Please remove > DeCSS from your > page immediately and continue to use your DVD's in a legal > manner. Thank > you for your cooperation. > > Rob Tomke > MPAA > > > I am curious as to what I should do now. I have some doubts about the > authenticity of the email, being as it is from a hotmail > account and Rob > Tomke apparently does not have a position at the MPAA, he > just is the MPAA. > Also it never actually cites the DMCA, which if I remember > right most of the > previous cease and desist type emails did. Can anyone help > me verify if > this is legit or not? If it is, how likely are they to > prosecute me if I do > not comply? > > Thanks for any help, > > Mark Kornblum > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 20 12:04:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10188 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:04:20 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA10185 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:04:18 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:57:55 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:23:29 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:23:29 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] eu directive ? Message-ID: <20001220172328.A29331@lemuria.org> References: <20001220135913.A11332@lemuria.org> <20001220140455.A20243@inka.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001220140455.A20243@inka.de>; from mail@risctaker.inka.de on Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 02:04:56PM +0100 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Sham Gardner wrote: > > I found it in my archives as a .pdf file, with full references > > (document number etc) to check it's authentity. if you're reading this: > > send me a mail again and I'll forward it. > > Something wrong with putting it on a website? uh. not at all. you'll find it linked from my webpage in a few minutes (as soon as I find a good spot to put it in). the direct link is: http://www.lemuria.org/DeCSS/09512en0.pdf -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 20 15:46:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA12341 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:46:40 -0500 Received: from zork.zork.net (coranado.parts-unknown.com [208.25.84.245]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA12338 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:46:38 -0500 Received: from schoen by zork.zork.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 148qA2-00083f-00; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:48:30 -0800 Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:48:30 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Can anyone offer some advice? Message-ID: <20001220124830.X12328@zork.net> Mail-Followup-To: Seth David Schoen , dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from richardsbowers@hotmail.com on Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 08:51:44AM -0500 X-Accept-Language: en,la,eo Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Bowers writes: > The DMCA actually specifies the form of cease & desist letters that may be > supplied. They don't have to be paper, but they do need to supply an > almost-generic section referring to the DMCA, and stating "under penalty of > perjury", and so on. > > Oh, and I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet. I don't know that > I advise one way or the other on what to do with the email, other then > responding once with a note saying "Your letter doesn't conform to the > requirements of the DMCA. If this is a legitimate email, please reply with > the information required under the Act." We had people here suggest that you _not_ do that: if you're going to ignore a threatening letter or e-mail, really ignore it. Don't say "I got your letter, and I'm going to ignore it". If you do the latter, it's one more document that could potentially be introduced in court later on to prove that you were aware of the issue for a long time. If you're actually considering _whether or not_ to do something, then maybe asking for clarification (through and on the advice of a lawyer) is useful. If you just want to annoy the MPAA by nitpicking, don't. The MPAA pays someone hundreds of dollars an hour to carefully ignore your logic! -- Seth David Schoen | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 21 17:30:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA27239 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:30:44 -0500 Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA27236 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:30:43 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa084.pool010.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.81.84]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA29525 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:32:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001221143138.053b5100@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:32:42 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This just in from elsewhere: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:16:03 -0800 From: John Gilmore To: cryptography@c2.net, gnu@toad.com Subject: IBM&Intel push copy protection into ordinary disk drives The Register has broken a story of the latest tragedy of copyright mania in the computer industry. Intel and IBM have invented and are pushing a change to the standard spec for PC hard drives that would make each one enforce "copy protection" on the data stored on the hard drive. You wouldn't be able to copy data from your own hard drive to another drive, or back it up, without permission from some third party. Every drive would have a unique ID and unique keys, and would encrypt the data it stores -- not to protect YOU, the drive's owner, but to protect unnamed third parties AGAINST you. The same guy who leads the DVD Copy Control Association is heading the organization that licenses this new technology -- John Hoy. He's a front-man for the movie and record companies, and a leading figure in the California DVD lawsuit. These people are lunatics, who would destroy the future of free expression and technological development, so they could sit in easy chairs at the top of the smoking ruins and light their cigars off 'em. The folks at Intel and IBM who are letting themselves be led by the nose are even crazier. They've piled fortunes on fortunes by building machines that are better and better at copying and communicating WHATEVER collections of raw bits their customers desire to copy. Now for some completely unfathomable reason, they're actively destroying that working business model. Instead they're building in circuitry that gives third parties enforceable veto power over which bits their customers can send where. (This disk drive stuff is just the tip of the iceberg; they're doing the same thing with LCD monitors, flash memory, digital cable interfaces, BIOSes, and the OS. Next week we'll probably hear of some new industry-wide copy protection spec, perhaps for network interface cards or DRAMs.) I don't know whether the movie moguls are holding compromising photos of Intel and IBM executives over their heads, or whether they have simply lost their minds. The only way they can succeed in imposing this on the buyers in the computer market is if those buyers have no honest vendors to turn to. Or if those buyers honestly don't know what they are being sold. So spread the word. No copy protection should exist ANYWHERE in generic computer hardware! It's up to the BUYER to determine what to use their product for. It's not up to the vendors of generic hardware, and certainly not up to a record company that's shadily influencing those vendors in back-room meetings. Demand a policy declaration from your vendor that they will build only open hardware, not covertly controlled hardware. Use your purchasing dollars to enforce that policy. Our business should go to the honest vendors, who'll sell you a drive and an OS and a motherboard and a CPU and a monitor that YOU, the buyer, can determine what is a valid use of. Don't send your money to Intel or IBM or Sony. Give your money to the vendors who'll sell you a product that YOU control. John http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html Stealth plan puts copy protection into every hard drive Hastening a rapid demise for the free copying of digital media, the next generation of hard disks is likely to come with copyright protection countermeasures built in. Technical committees of NCTIS, the ANSI-blessed standards body, have been discussing the incorporation of content protection currently used for removable media into industry-standard ATA drives, using proprietary technology originating from the 4C Entity. They're the people who brought you CSS2: IBM, Toshiba Intel and Matsushita. The scheme envisaged brands each drive with a unique identifier at manufacturing time. The proposals are already at an advanced stage: three drafts have already been discussed for incorporating CPRM (Content Protection for Recordable Media) into the ATA specification by the NCTIS T.13 committee. The committee next meets in February. If, as expected, the CPRM extensions become part of the ATA specification, copyright protection will be in every industry-standard hard disk by next summer, according to IBM. However, what's likely to create a firestorm of industry protest is that the proposed mechanism introduces problems to moving data between compliant and non-compliant hard drives. Modifications to existing backup programs, imaging software, RAID arrays and logical volume managers will be required to cope with the new drives, The Register has discovered. The ramifications are enormous. Although the benefit to producers is great - - bringing the holy grail of secure content one step closer - the costs to consumers will be significant. For example, corporate IT departments will be unable to mix compliant and non-compliant ATA drives as they try to enforce uniform back up policies, we've discovered. Restoring personal backups to a different physical drive - a common enough occurrence when a disk has failed - will require authentication with a central server. Imaging software used by OEMs and large corporates to distribute one-to-many disk images will also need to be modified. And the move casts a shadow over some of the hottest emerging business models: the network attached storage industry, which relies on virtualising media pools, the digital video recorder market currently led by TiVo and Replay, and the nascent peer-to-peer model all face technical disruption. How it works Today, CPRM is implemented on DVD and removable SD disks. But the SCSI and ATA/ATAPI proposals incorporate an extension of the scheme to allow the encryption to be used on hard drives, in addition to removable drives and ATAPI devices such as CD-ROMs and DVD drives. The proposal makes use of around a megabyte of read-only storage on each hard drive that isn't usually accessed by the end user for a "Media Key Block". According to research scientist Jeffrey Lotspiech of IBM's Almaden Research Lab, this is a matrix of 16 columns and some 3000 rows. A static "Media Unique Key" in a separate, hidden area of the drive, identifies the individual drive. Making use of broadcast encryption and one way key algorithms, would-be hackers face a daunting number of keys to break. CPRM adds new commands into the ATA specification. But because the system makes use of the physical location on the device of the encrypted item, software designed for non-compliant drives will break in some circumstance when encrypted data files are moved. "It requires both drives to be compliant when data is to move from one disk to another," says Lotspiech. "And a compliant application to get all that data to the new drive". So a hard drive containing small individual containing non-copyable files of say, Gartner reports, will essentially be unrestorable using existing backup programs. Similar problems arise with RAID arrays using IDE disks, acknowledges IBM. "This may help IT managers when auditing for copyright compliance," suggests IBM spokesman Mike Ross. However the decision to make an organisation CPRM compliant. Free copying is no longer an option:- "It's not up to us to determine or guess what the content provider might permit," says Ross. "Nothing will handcuff proper backup and restoring provided the content provider permits it. Some may not permit it - but what will the customers reaction be then?" Well, quite. Clearly key management becomes an urgent priority when CPRM-aware drives are introduced next year, as CPRM-aware content will surely follow. The decision to go with CPRM in an organisation is also an all or nothing proposition - it can't be introduced gradually. But for home users, the party's over. CRPM paves the way for CPRM-compliant audio CDs, and the free exchange of digital recordings will be limited to non-CPRM media. The Register understands there is fierce opposition to the plan from Microsoft and its OEM customers. Generating hundreds of thousands of images each week, the PC industry relies on data going from one master to many reliably and smoothly. Imaging programs face the same problem as restore software: the target disk isn't the same as the originator disk. Microsoft Redmond already has put in a counter-proposal that eschews low-level hardware calls. Where were you when they copy-protected the hardware, Daddy? The intellectual property is owned by the 4C Entity, and administered by License Management International, LLC - a limited liability company based in Morgan Hill, California. Company founder John Hoy told The Register that "LMI,LC holds no intellectual property. Entities are granted a master license." Per-device royalties are payable to LLI,LC. License fees of between 2c and 17c have been mooted for each device, according to documents circulated to the T.13 group. 5c is the current rate for a DVD device. Three possible paths lie ahead. CPRM may be bounced out of the T.x committees. Or manufacturers may choose not to implement it, and opt for an incomplete ATA or SCSI specification. This is deemed unlikely. Or thirdly, manufacturers may choose to implement the new command set, but not activate it. Although it hardly has a prominent media profile - yet - CPRM in hardware is the most comprehensive mechanism for enforcing rights protection the industry has seen, and is likely to be viewed by content producers as a magic bullet. Its progress depends on whether its proponents can overcome industry and consumer opposition. Which might be brewing right about ... now. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 21 18:10:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA27549 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:10:00 -0500 Received: from godzilla.monsters.org (root@godzilla.monsters.org [204.180.109.4]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA27546 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:09:58 -0500 Received: from zero.monsters.org (IDENT:root@zero.monsters.org [208.191.248.1]) by godzilla.monsters.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06225 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:12:02 -0600 Received: from zero.monsters.org (IDENT:sjohnson@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zero.monsters.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21416 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:12:01 -0600 Message-Id: <200012212312.RAA21416@zero.monsters.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.3 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:32:42 PST." <4.3.2.7.2.20001221143138.053b5100@cyberpass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:12:01 -0600 From: Stephen L Johnson Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Dec 21, "James S. Tyre" wrote: > This just in from elsewhere: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:16:03 -0800 > From: John Gilmore > To: cryptography@c2.net, gnu@toad.com > Subject: IBM&Intel push copy protection into ordinary disk drives > > The Register has broken a story of the latest tragedy of copyright > mania in the computer industry. Intel and IBM have invented and are > pushing a change to the standard spec for PC hard drives that would > make each one enforce "copy protection" on the data stored on the hard > drive. You wouldn't be able to copy data from your own hard drive to > another drive, or back it up, without permission from some third > party. Every drive would have a unique ID and unique keys, and would > encrypt the data it stores -- not to protect YOU, the drive's owner, > but to protect unnamed third parties AGAINST you. I've read about this before. but while I was reading the article I had an epiphany (aka a chilling thought). If these new CPRM disks become dominant, it will be a virtual death knell to any Open Source operation system on servers with these drives. The system manufactures would have to keep the drivers propriatory. Otherwise the Open Source OS's will be able to get access to the hidden key areas on the drives. And as we all know, one that happens all bets of protection are off. :) Future Open Source system would be worse off then they are today. They will shut out of every new media product or services that uses these CRPM devices. I forsee a very bleak future. Stephen L Johnson From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 21 18:15:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA27696 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:15:54 -0500 Received: from relay20.smtp.psi.net (relay20.smtp.psi.net [38.8.20.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA27693 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:15:53 -0500 Received: from ip80.bedford16.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.90.80] helo=tiac.net) by relay20.smtp.psi.net with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 149EyE-0004kM-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:17:58 -0500 Message-ID: <3A429172.FD5799D7@tiac.net> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:25:38 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001221143138.053b5100@cyberpass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This has been inevitable ever since the Firewire encryption effort was announced. The good news is that it is totally untenable. They won't be able to sell these drives to either the corporate sector or their own industry. Without those markets, the new fast drives should remain too expensive for the rest of us. A big backlash ought come when the spyware aspects of the plan become known. Can you say DIVX? "James S. Tyre" wrote: > From: John Gilmore > To: cryptography@c2.net, gnu@toad.com > Subject: IBM&Intel push copy protection into ordinary disk drives > > The Register has broken a story of the latest tragedy of copyright > mania in the computer industry. Intel and IBM have invented and are > pushing a change to the standard spec for PC hard drives that would > make each one enforce "copy protection" on the data stored on the hard > drive. You wouldn't be able to copy data from your own hard drive to > another drive, or back it up, without permission from some third > party. Every drive would have a unique ID and unique keys, and would > encrypt the data it stores -- not to protect YOU, the drive's owner, > but to protect unnamed third parties AGAINST you. -- ________NO-∞-DO________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 21 18:34:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA27866 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:34:07 -0500 Received: from SCARAB.bnj.com ([208.161.105.35]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA27863 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:34:06 -0500 Received: by SCARAB.bnj.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:34:12 -0800 Message-ID: From: Shaun Clark To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:34:11 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C06BA6.857849D0" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C06BA6.857849D0 Content-Type: text/plain Wait a second. How hard is this stuff to subvert anyways? If someone does break the encryption, then the threat is neutralized. And what admin. wants to add weekly hard drive crack fixes to his/her list of tasks? I agree with Ron, no one will want to hassle with these new drives in the name of security. Does anyone know if the encryption slows the performance and by how much? -----Original Message----- From: Ron Gustavson [mailto:rongus@tiac.net] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 3:26 PM To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? This has been inevitable ever since the Firewire encryption effort was announced. The good news is that it is totally untenable. They won't be able to sell these drives to either the corporate sector or their own industry. Without those markets, the new fast drives should remain too expensive for the rest of us. A big backlash ought come when the spyware aspects of the plan become known. Can you say DIVX? "James S. Tyre" wrote: > From: John Gilmore > To: cryptography@c2.net, gnu@toad.com > Subject: IBM&Intel push copy protection into ordinary disk drives > > The Register has broken a story of the latest tragedy of copyright > mania in the computer industry. Intel and IBM have invented and are > pushing a change to the standard spec for PC hard drives that would > make each one enforce "copy protection" on the data stored on the hard > drive. You wouldn't be able to copy data from your own hard drive to > another drive, or back it up, without permission from some third > party. Every drive would have a unique ID and unique keys, and would > encrypt the data it stores -- not to protect YOU, the drive's owner, > but to protect unnamed third parties AGAINST you. -- ________NO-∞-DO________ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C06BA6.857849D0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk = drives?

Wait a second. How hard is this stuff to subvert = anyways? If someone does break the encryption, then the threat is = neutralized. And what admin. wants to add weekly hard drive crack fixes = to his/her list of tasks? I agree with Ron, no one will want to hassle = with these new drives in the name of security. Does anyone know if the = encryption slows the performance and by how much?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Gustavson [mailto:rongus@tiac.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 3:26 PM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of = ordinary disk drives?


This has been inevitable ever since the Firewire =
encryption effort was announced. The good news is =
that it is totally untenable. They won't be = able
to sell these drives to either the corporate sector = or
their own industry. Without those markets, the new = fast
drives should remain too expensive for the rest of = us.

A big backlash ought come when the spyware aspects = of
the plan become known. Can you say DIVX?

"James S. Tyre" wrote:

> From: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
> To: cryptography@c2.net, gnu@toad.com
> Subject: IBM&Intel push copy protection = into ordinary disk drives
>
> The Register has broken a story of the latest = tragedy of copyright
> mania in the computer industry.  Intel and = IBM have invented and are
> pushing a change to the standard spec for PC = hard drives that would
> make each one enforce "copy = protection" on the data stored on the hard
> drive.  You wouldn't be able to copy data = from your own hard drive to
> another drive, or back it up, without = permission from some third
> party.  Every drive would have a unique ID = and unique keys, and would
> encrypt the data it stores -- not to protect = YOU, the drive's owner,
> but to protect unnamed third parties AGAINST = you.
--
     = ________NO-&infin;-DO________

------_=_NextPart_001_01C06BA6.857849D0-- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 21 19:07:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA28157 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:07:28 -0500 Received: from dial236.roadrunner.com (sf-du236.cybermesa.com [209.12.75.236]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA28154 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:07:25 -0500 Received: (from paul@localhost) by dial236.roadrunner.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01205 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:58:26 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:58:25 -0700 From: Paul Fenimore To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Message-ID: <20001221165825.A1185@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from ShaunC@bnj.com on Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 03:34:11PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 03:34:11PM -0800, Shaun Clark wrote: > Wait a second. How hard is this stuff to subvert anyways? If someone does The point isn't that it will be difficult to wrest control of your computer back from Jack Valenti. The point is that it will be *illegal* to fully control your own computer. > break the encryption, then the threat is neutralized. And what admin. wants > to add weekly hard drive crack fixes to his/her list of tasks? I agree with > Ron, no one will want to hassle with these new drives in the name of > security. Does anyone know if the encryption slows the performance and by > how much? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Gustavson [mailto:rongus@tiac.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 3:26 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? > > > This has been inevitable ever since the Firewire > encryption effort was announced. The good news is > that it is totally untenable. They won't be able > to sell these drives to either the corporate sector or > their own industry. Without those markets, the new fast > drives should remain too expensive for the rest of us. > > A big backlash ought come when the spyware aspects of > the plan become known. Can you say DIVX? Yes, the English translation is "control". Paul Fenimore From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 21 20:29:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA28809 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 20:29:37 -0500 Received: from mail.world-net.co.nz (mail.world-net.co.nz [203.96.119.27]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA28806 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 20:29:35 -0500 Received: from leopard (nw3-115.world-net.co.nz [202.37.68.115]) by mail.world-net.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA05809 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:29:52 +1300 Message-Id: <200012220129.OAA05809@mail.world-net.co.nz> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:28:22 +1200 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: Daniel Richards Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Organization: Digital Freedom X-Mailer: Opera 5.00 build 828 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu 12/21/00 6:12:01 PM, Stephen L Johnson wrote: >I've read about this before. but while I was reading the article I had an >epiphany (aka a chilling thought). If these new CPRM disks become dominant, it >will be a virtual death knell to any Open Source operation system on servers >with these drives. > >The system manufactures would have to keep the drivers propriatory. Otherwise >the Open Source OS's will be able to get access to the hidden key areas on the >drives. And as we all know, one that happens all bets of protection are off. :) > >Future Open Source system would be worse off then they are today. They will >shut out of every new media product or services that uses these CRPM devices. >I forsee a very bleak future. Auctally, once it's reverse engineered (and it will be) all it would do is make things like Linux and *BSD and such illegal. We'd have another DeCSS on our hands. That is, it's illegal but it serves a valid purpose (to read/write data from the HD or in the DeCSS case, play DVD's) This would also "unobselete" old hardware, that is if people even BUY these drives. We'd see things such as "50gigabyte HD, NON-CRPM!!" being sold, and those people would get a lot of business, assuming they arn't sued, like the REing OSS Driver writing people would be. (If it's patented, it wouldn't so hard to RE, but the drivers would then be iillegal, where it's patented) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 21 21:57:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA29417 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:57:16 -0500 Received: from web511.mail.yahoo.com (web511.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.226]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA29414 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:57:14 -0500 Message-ID: <20001222025920.15928.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.113.151] by web511.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:59:20 PST Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:59:20 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Paul Fenimore wrote: > The point isn't that it will be difficult to wrest control of your > computer back from Jack Valenti. The point is that it will > be *illegal* to fully control your own computer. Right. I can see Microsoft requiring their operating system to be installed on such a drive and using the DMCA to enforce the restriction. If some segment of the market adopts it, then every media goon out there will require it for their "content access services" and the masses will acquiesce. I really doubt people would add hardware unless the OS was leveraging them. The countervailing pressure is that the price of PC is steadily declining. Soon we'll reach the threshold where linux PC's will be noticably cheaper than MS PC's. Adding new technology hardrives will almost certainly raise hardware costs, so hopefully Microsoft will see adding higher cost drives as damaging to their strategic interest. On the other hand, this price pressure may get so great that Microsoft's business model collapses taking copy protection with it once and for all. Somebody pinch me. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 21 22:09:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA29582 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:09:36 -0500 Received: from attila.stevens-tech.edu (khockenb@attila.stevens-tech.edu [155.246.14.11]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA29579 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:09:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (khockenb@localhost) by attila.stevens-tech.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/7) with ESMTP id WAA9529434 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:11:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:11:40 -0500 From: Kurt Hockenbury To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? In-Reply-To: <200012220129.OAA05809@mail.world-net.co.nz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Daniel Richards wrote: > 12/21/00 6:12:01 PM, Stephen L Johnson wrote: > > >Future Open Source system would be worse off then they are today. They will > >shut out of every new media product or services that uses these CRPM devices. > >I forsee a very bleak future. > > Auctally, once it's reverse engineered (and it will be) all it would do is > make things like Linux and *BSD and such illegal. So, obviously, the thing to do is push Open Source OSes as far and fast as possible, so as to make the installed base too big, loud, and rich to be outlawed/ignored when these devices actually make it to market. Get your company to use an open source OS today! -Kurt ObDVD: Since I'm giving my brother some DVDs he requested for Christmas, I feel another EFF donation to ease the conscience coming on. Time to get out the checkbook. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 21 22:35:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA29814 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:35:39 -0500 Received: from email.doorcounty.net (www.doorcountyoccasions.com [216.127.216.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA29811 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:35:38 -0500 Received: from gabrielle [216.127.207.82] by email.doorcounty.net with ESMTP (SMTPD32-5.05) id ABBB1BA603B4; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:34:19 -0600 From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:37:14 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Message-ID: <3A42780A.16514.52BA61@localhost> In-reply-to: <20001221165825.A1185@localhost> References: ; from ShaunC@bnj.com on Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 03:34:11PM -0800 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 21 Dec 2000, at 16:58, Paul Fenimore wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 03:34:11PM -0800, Shaun Clark wrote: > > Wait a second. How hard is this stuff to subvert anyways? If someone > > does > > The point isn't that it will be difficult to wrest control of your > computer back from Jack Valenti. The point is that it will be > *illegal* to fully control your own computer. I think we're missing an important point: the "copy protection" of generic hard drives will not be protected by the DMCA. DeCSS is a legal problem because it gets around copy protection on discs which have copyrighted stuff on them. These hard drives - someone correct me if I'm wrong - when we buy them, where's the copyrighted stuff? Maybe they're not even formatted. I know the last hard drive I bought wasn't. Which means there isn't even always a file system to protect. So just what the Hell is the copy protection for? The platter? These people really ARE insane. sparky > > > break the encryption, then the threat is neutralized. And what > > admin. wants to add weekly hard drive crack fixes to his/her list of > > tasks? I agree with Ron, no one will want to hassle with these new > > drives in the name of security. Does anyone know if the encryption > > slows the performance and by how much? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ron Gustavson [mailto:rongus@tiac.net] > > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 3:26 PM > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? > > > > > > This has been inevitable ever since the Firewire > > encryption effort was announced. The good news is > > that it is totally untenable. They won't be able > > to sell these drives to either the corporate sector or > > their own industry. Without those markets, the new fast > > drives should remain too expensive for the rest of us. > > > > A big backlash ought come when the spyware aspects of > > the plan become known. Can you say DIVX? > > Yes, the English translation is "control". > > > Paul Fenimore > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 21 22:43:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA29950 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:43:11 -0500 Received: from PROXY.mitswa.com.au (cust-mits.optus.net.au [202.139.53.82] (may be forged)) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA29947 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:43:08 -0500 Received: from 192.168.200.12 by PROXY.mitswa.com.au (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:44:07 +0800 Received: by cbt.mitswa.com.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:36:18 +0800 Message-ID: <54A50136B6CAD3118FBD00C00D00DDEF037466@cbt.mitswa.com.au> From: "McMeikan, Andrew" To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: [dvd-discuss] while on the subject of mass encryptions Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:36:12 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu This is just FYI, 607 bit keys with the data and on the fly encrypt/decrypt. Probably more weak encryption (packet header as seed to a big LFSR?), but if everything is encrypted (no matter how weak) then any thing (OS, S/W) that makes a copy instead of paying for another stream/download/'press-of-play-button' will be in violation. I think that there is even now some sense that if you are an artist that is by-passing the RIAA/MPAA etc.. then you must be cheating some law. cya, Andrew... > -----Original Message----- > TRANZ-SEND BROADCASTING NETWORK INTEGRATES SECUREMEDIA ENCRYPTION INTO > ITS eMEDIA "NETWORK VIDEO-ENABLING" SOLUTION > Result Provides the Most Efficient and Secure Solution for > On-Demand Delivery of DVD-Quality Video and Audio > SAN FRANCISCO, CA - December 6, 2000 -SecureMedia, the leading provider > of high-performance encryption technology for broadband content, today > announced that its Encryptonite(tm) Engine has been successfully > integrated > as the key security component in Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network's eMedia > delivery solution. > Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network, Inc., (TSBN) is the provider of the Web's > > most advanced solutions for on-demand delivery of full-screen video and > audio, offering services that optimize network efficiency and dynamically > load-balance the transfer of content. The company is using SecureMedia's > patented Encryptonite Engine to protect digital content as it travels > through > its "video-enabled" networks. The Encryptonite Engine is optimized for > broadband media and provides TSBN with an encryption solution that is > extremely > fast, highly secure and cost-effective. It is used as the security > backbone > for TSBN's network, allowing complete end-to-end protection of media > content > from point of distribution to point of consumption. > "Our company has developed a complex set of infrastructure services > designed > to prepare existing and emerging networks for the next generation of > content > delivery, which is anticipated to be dominated by high-quality video and > audio transfer," said Scott Redmond, CEO of Tranz-Send Broadcasting > Network, > Inc. "We needed an advanced encryption solution that would not only meet > the stringent security requirements of the film studios and record labels, > > but one that was also extremely fast, immune to transmission errors and > packet losses, supported DVD equivalent 'trick-play' control, and provided > > intelligent key delivery. We chose SecureMedia because their technology > met these crucial requirements." > TSBN's proprietary technology addresses every need required for the > transfer > of high-resolution video over networks, including compression, encoding, > hosting and load-balanced distribution that ensures optimum network usage > and stability. The company's infrastructure services also provide > e-commerce > components such as user profiling and digital rights management (DRM). > SecureMedia's Encryptonite Engine is integrated as the key security > component > of the company's Tranz-Cast DRM solution. The Encryptonite Engine's > patented > Indexed Encryption uniquely encrypts each frame of video at 607 bit key > lengths and higher without having to transmit a key for each frame, thus > lessening storage and bandwidth costs. > "TSBN's system is designed to deliver full-screen, DVD-CD quality media > content that is delivered quickly and reliably to consumers, while > minimizing > network traffic and delivery costs," said Jack Oswald, CEO of SecureMedia. > > "These are precisely the goals around which we designed our encryption > solution-to allow network providers to securely protect media content > without > impacting system overhead costs or sacrificing quality of service." > SecureMedia's patented Encryptonite Engine represents a fundamental > breakthrough > in public key encryption technology. It is the only public key encryption > system that can operate securely and efficiently in broadband media > applications > and consumer devices. It is capable of encrypting audio and video streams > on the fly and decrypting them in real-time, using very little system > overhead. > The Encryptonite Engine is fast becoming the de facto encryption standard > for broadband media delivery and storage. > SecureMedia's Encryptonite Engine has been integrated into RealNetworks® > RealServer8Ô as the system's key security component. With more than 160 > million users and more than 85% of sites containing media content using > the Real format, RealNetworks is the recognized leader in media delivery > on the Internet. > SecureMedia has also partnered with Oak Technology, a leading provider > of solutions for the storage, capture and sharing of digital content. > SecureMedia's > real-time encryption capability adds one of the highest levels of > encryption > security and speed to Oak Technology's controller chip solutions, which > currently dominate the industry with more than 70% market share. > About SecureMedia > SecureMedia (), formerly RPK SecureMedia, > Inc., is the leading provider of high-performance encryption technology > for broadband content. Its embeddable technology enables extremely fast, > highly secure delivery and storage of media assets and high bandwidth > data. > The company has established partnerships with industry leaders, such as > RealNetworks (NASDAQ: RNWK), Intel (INTC), Oak Technology (OAKT), King > Biscuit Entertainment Group, InvisiMail Ltd., and Communicado/Satlink. > SecureMedia is headquartered in San Francisco, CA, and has offices in > Boston, > MA, Los Angeles, CA, and Auckland, NZ. Investors include Sony, > Macrovision, > Trans Cosmos, CB (Berkman) Capital LLP, and Bayview Investors, Ltd., an > affiliate of BancBoston Robertson Stephens. > About Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network, Inc. (TSBN) > TSBN delivers the Web's most advanced infrastructure for the delivery of > full-screen, on-demand video and audio solutions. Developed to help > content > providers capitalize on new revenue opportunities over the Internet, > Tranz-Send > uses proprietary software, hardware, and processes to deliver DVD-like > quality, web-based media to the end-user. Tranz-Send technology > ensures a top-quality user experience and simultaneously empowers content > providers to protect their property from illegal duplication and > distribution. > Integrated with industry-leading user profiling and e-commerce > technologies, > Tranz-Send Broadcasting Network is the only company to provide its > customers > with an optimized end-to-end video-on-demand solution. Visit > www.tranz-send.com > for more information. > # # # From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 06:34:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA05565 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 06:34:34 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id GAA05558 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 06:34:33 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:26:42 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:01:44 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:01:44 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Message-ID: <20001222090143.E5677@lemuria.org> References: <200012220129.OAA05809@mail.world-net.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from khockenb@stevens-tech.edu on Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 10:11:40PM -0500 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Kurt Hockenbury wrote: > ObDVD: Since I'm giving my brother some DVDs he requested for Christmas, I > feel another EFF donation to ease the conscience coming on. Time to get out > the checkbook. why not give him a CD with DeCSS to go along with them? DeCSS as xmas presents. :) -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 06:34:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA05572 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 06:34:36 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id GAA05569 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 06:34:35 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:26:42 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:04:53 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:04:53 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Message-ID: <20001222090452.F5677@lemuria.org> References: <20001222025920.15928.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001222025920.15928.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 06:59:20PM -0800 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Bryan Taylor wrote: > The countervailing pressure is that the price of PC is steadily > declining. sorry, it's not. a consumer-grade PC costs around 2.000 german marks today. it cost 2k DM last year, the year before and as long back as I can remember. my first PC, a 16 mhz 286 with 1 MB RAM did cost roughly 2k. the individual hardware pieces get cheaper. the total package, while changing it's contents, does not. however, margins in the hardware business ARE razor thin, so unless there's a real compellent reason, any new and more expensive hardware simply won't fly. but don't forget that we're talking about people who are quite good at CREATING reasons. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 06:34:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA05557 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 06:34:33 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id GAA05553 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 06:34:31 -0500 Received: from lemuria.org by mail.lemuria.org via rsmtp with bsmtp id for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:26:42 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Received: by lemuria.org via sendmail with stdio id for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:00:20 +0100 (MET) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1999-Nov-8) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:00:20 +0100 From: Tom Vogt To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Message-ID: <20001222090020.D5677@lemuria.org> References: ; <20001221165825.A1185@localhost> <3A42780A.16514.52BA61@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A42780A.16514.52BA61@localhost>; from sparky@suba.com on Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 09:37:14PM -0600 X-Privacy: If you can, please encrypt your mails - finger for key Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu sparky wrote: > I think we're missing an important point: the "copy protection" of > generic hard drives will not be protected by the DMCA. DeCSS is a > legal problem because it gets around copy protection on discs > which have copyrighted stuff on them. These hard drives - someone > correct me if I'm wrong - when we buy them, where's the > copyrighted stuff? Maybe they're not even formatted. they'll just put two bytes plus a copyright notice on them. pretty much the same way they did with CSS. -- "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." (John Gilmore) From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 10:48:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA07855 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 10:48:46 -0500 Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA07852 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 10:48:44 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17605 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 08:46:28 -0700 (MST) Received: from sessions.phx.primenet.com(206.132.239.114), claiming to be "heorot.lumbercartel.com" via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAI9aauI; Fri Dec 22 08:46:23 2000 Received: from frankenstein.lumbercartel.com (IDENT:dcs@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com [192.168.6.2]) by heorot.lumbercartel.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA03403 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 08:50:14 -0700 From: "D. C. Sessions" Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! ***** Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 08:50:12 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00122208501201.16599@frankenstein.lumbercartel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thursday 21 December 2000 15:26, Ron Gustavson wrote: # This has been inevitable ever since the Firewire # encryption effort was announced. The good news is # that it is totally untenable. They won't be able # to sell these drives to either the corporate sector or # their own industry. Without those markets, the new fast # drives should remain too expensive for the rest of us. # # A big backlash ought come when the spyware aspects of # the plan become known. Can you say DIVX? Bad comparison. Consumers rejected DIVX because it was a consumer offering. They're smarter this time: hide it in the guts of a technical product that's mainly bought by OEMs, and all you have to do is seduce the OEMs. OEMs care almost exclusively about only one thing: price. As long as the impact doesn't directly inconvenience the end-user (e.g., CSS) the market acceptance won't be adversely impacted. -- | The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. | | Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 14:13:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA10151 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:13:44 -0500 Received: from web514.mail.yahoo.com (web514.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.229]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA10148 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:13:43 -0500 Message-ID: <20001222191550.12243.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.26.123.36] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:15:50 PST Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:15:50 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Ashcroft nominated for US Attourney General To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu, jy@jya.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Looks like Mr. Ashcroft will be running the USDOJ: http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/22/bush.transition/index.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 15:23:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA10888 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:23:44 -0500 Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.49]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA10885 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:23:42 -0500 Received: from ppp.anonymizer.com (hsa106.pool011.at101.earthlink.net [216.249.82.106]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA05712 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:25:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001222122455.00c339e0@cyberpass.net> X-Sender: j.s.tyre@cyberpass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:25:42 -0800 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "James S. Tyre" Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Ashcroft nominated for US Attourney General In-Reply-To: <20001222191550.12243.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu At 11:15 AM 12/22/2000 -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: >Looks like Mr. Ashcroft will be running the USDOJ: Yes, we go from a stiff to someone who lost to a stiff. That's progress. ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 15:40:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11087 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:40:21 -0500 Received: from FCCI-GROUP.COM (mtaweb.customstaff.com [4.23.102.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA11084 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:40:20 -0500 Received: from FCCI-GRP-INS-Message_Server by FCCI-GROUP.COM with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:55:59 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.2.1 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:55:53 -0500 From: "Dean Sanchez" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Ashcroft nominated for US Attourney General Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Out of office Dec 26 & 27. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 15:56:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA11276 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:56:37 -0500 Received: from FCCI-GROUP.COM (mtaweb.customstaff.com [4.23.102.17]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA11273 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:56:36 -0500 Received: from FCCI-GRP-INS-Message_Server by FCCI-GROUP.COM with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:12:16 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.2.1 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:12:08 -0500 From: "Dean Sanchez" To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Ashcroft nominated for US Attourney General Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Out of office Dec 26 & 27. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 16:03:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11428 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:03:54 -0500 Received: from mail.inka.de (mail@quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11425 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:03:53 -0500 Received: from sites.inka.de (puric.inka.de [212.227.14.17]) by mail.inka.de with esmtp id 149ZO3-00078B-00; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 22:05:59 +0100 Received: from localhost by sites.inka.de with local id 149ZO4-0001hy-00; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 22:06:00 +0100 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 22:06:00 +0100 From: Sham Gardner To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Ashcroft nominated for US Attourney General Message-ID: <20001222220600.B17594@inka.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from dsanchez@FCCI-GROUP.COM on Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 04:12:08PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Dean Sanchez wrote: > Out of office Dec 26 & 27. This looks like another runaway autoresponder. Wendy, are you there? Sham -- http://sites.inka.de/risctaker/DeCSS/ Ignorance killed the cat, curiosity was framed. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 16:34:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11692 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:34:16 -0500 Received: from localhost (wseltzer@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11689 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:34:15 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: eon.law.harvard.edu: wseltzer owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:34:15 -0500 (EST) From: Wendy Seltzer X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Ashcroft nominated for US Attourney General In-Reply-To: <20001222220600.B17594@inka.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Sham Gardner wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Dean Sanchez wrote: > > Out of office Dec 26 & 27. > > This looks like another runaway autoresponder. Wendy, are you there? Killed it. Please, for anyone else planning a vacation, make sure that your autoresponders are set not to reply to lists (or, at minimum, to keep a database so they respond only once). Thanks, and happy holidays! --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 16:51:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11969 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:51:55 -0500 Received: from email.doorcounty.net (www.doorcountyoccasions.com [216.127.216.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11966 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:51:54 -0500 Received: from gabrielle [216.127.207.39] by email.doorcounty.net with ESMTP (SMTPD32-5.05) id AC8D737B050A; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:50:05 -0600 From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:53:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Message-ID: <3A4378EC.1579.1BE58C5@localhost> In-reply-to: <20001222090020.D5677@lemuria.org> References: <3A42780A.16514.52BA61@localhost>; from sparky@suba.com on Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 09:37:14PM -0600 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 22 Dec 2000, at 9:00, Tom Vogt wrote: > sparky wrote: > > I think we're missing an important point: the "copy protection" of > > generic hard drives will not be protected by the DMCA. DeCSS is a > > legal problem because it gets around copy protection on discs which > > have copyrighted stuff on them. These hard drives - someone correct > > me if I'm wrong - when we buy them, where's the copyrighted stuff? > > Maybe they're not even formatted. > > they'll just put two bytes plus a copyright notice on them. pretty > much the same way they did with CSS. Doesn't that strike you as frivolous? I'm not saying they wouldn't do it.. As is clear, they ARE insane.. But that would never stand up in court. You simply cannot have a technological measure to protect copyrighted material where there is no copyrighted material. Or looked at a different way, all the copyrighted material on the disk would belong to the purchaser (or the vast bulk of it).. And it is definitely permitted under the DMCA for a user to circumvent tech protection measures to get at info that belongs to that user. They simply don't have a leg to stand on under the DMCA. Hopefully they won't find some other leg. sparky > > > -- > "The net treats censorship as a malfunction and re-routes around it." > (John Gilmore) > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 17:03:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12156 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:03:24 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12153 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:03:23 -0500 Received: from ip79.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.10.79] helo=tiac.net) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 149aJe-0002wt-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:05:31 -0500 Message-ID: <3A43D1F9.45149B34@tiac.net> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:13:13 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001221143138.053b5100@cyberpass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Just a note on the Register article... > Although it hardly has a prominent media profile - yet - CPRM in hardware > is the most comprehensive mechanism for enforcing rights protection the > industry has seen, and is likely to be viewed by content producers as a > magic bullet. Its progress depends on whether its proponents can overcome > industry and consumer opposition. Which might be brewing right about ... > now. The companies behind this technology are not content producers. They are content parasites. Artist Julian Schnabel provides a short take: (requires free registration) I once made a painting called Circumnavigating the Sea of Shit (1979). I don't think people really understand the dynamics of what's going on most of the time, that there's a huge money-driven mechanism that controls things, that is driven by greed, basically, and that doesn't have anything to do with art. [ http://www.ifcrant.com/2000vol4/last_rant.html ] -- ________NO-∞-DO________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 17:59:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12661 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:59:14 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (root@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12658 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:59:13 -0500 Received: from hex.cs.umass.edu (IDENT:olc@hex.cs.umass.edu [128.119.243.169]) by hex.cs.umass.edu (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA23654 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 18:01:21 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 18:01:21 -0500 (EST) From: Ole Craig To: Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 12/21/00 at 22:11, 'twas brillig and Kurt Hockenbury scrobe: > On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Daniel Richards wrote: > > > 12/21/00 6:12:01 PM, Stephen L Johnson wrote: > > > > >Future Open Source system would be worse off then they are today. They will > > >shut out of every new media product or services that uses these CRPM devices. > > >I forsee a very bleak future. > > > > Auctally, once it's reverse engineered (and it will be) all it would do is > > make things like Linux and *BSD and such illegal. > > So, obviously, the thing to do is push Open Source OSes as far and fast as > possible, so as to make the installed base too big, loud, and rich to be > outlawed/ignored when these devices actually make it to market. > Actually, it appears that there may be some mote of sanity left amidst the crawling horrors of Redmond; one of the stories notes that Microsoft strongly opposes this development. After my first shocked and bitter expletives hit the room earlier today, one of my cow-orkers pointed out that RMS foresaw this several years ago. (www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html) Ole -- Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing Facility, UMass * for public key perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 17:58:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12651 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:58:59 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3E9BBB0E.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.14]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12648 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:58:58 -0500 Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EBFAA13815; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 23:58:21 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 23:58:21 +0100 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Message-ID: <20001222235821.A14072@lemuria.org> References: <3A42780A.16514.52BA61@localhost>; <20001222090020.D5677@lemuria.org> <3A4378EC.1579.1BE58C5@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A4378EC.1579.1BE58C5@localhost>; from sparky@suba.com on Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 03:53:16PM -0600 From: tom@unicorn.lemuria.org (Tom Vogt) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 03:53:16PM -0600, sparky wrote: > > they'll just put two bytes plus a copyright notice on them. pretty > > much the same way they did with CSS. > > Doesn't that strike you as frivolous? sure it does. so? the whole DVD cartel is frivolous. > would belong to the purchaser (or the vast bulk of it).. And it is > definitely permitted under the DMCA for a user to circumvent tech > protection measures to get at info that belongs to that user. it is? has been some time since I read the DMCA, but I wouldn't bet on that. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 22 23:39:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA15620 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 23:39:39 -0500 Received: from email.doorcounty.net (www.doorcountyoccasions.com [216.127.216.102]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA15617 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 23:39:37 -0500 Received: from gabrielle [216.127.207.70] by email.doorcounty.net with ESMTP (SMTPD32-5.05) id AC3D9B920084; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 22:38:21 -0600 From: "sparky" To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 22:41:24 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Message-ID: <3A43D894.17310.3340400@localhost> In-reply-to: <20001222235821.A14072@lemuria.org> References: <3A4378EC.1579.1BE58C5@localhost>; from sparky@suba.com on Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 03:53:16PM -0600 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On 22 Dec 2000, at 23:58, Tom Vogt wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 03:53:16PM -0600, sparky wrote: > > > they'll just put two bytes plus a copyright notice on them. pretty > > > much the same way they did with CSS. > > > > Doesn't that strike you as frivolous? > > sure it does. so? the whole DVD cartel is frivolous. > > > > would belong to the purchaser (or the vast bulk of it).. And it is > > definitely permitted under the DMCA for a user to circumvent tech > > protection measures to get at info that belongs to that user. > > it is? has been some time since I read the DMCA, but I wouldn't bet on > that. It's been a while for me too, but I'd be willing to make a gentleman's wager. :) In earnest, I do seem to recall there being an explicit exemption under the new law in the case of a person getting personal information out of a protected database. Don't remember if that's a "for example" in the wider field of "you may bust protection to get your own info" or just for databases containing your personal info. sp > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Dec 23 12:49:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA18980 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 12:49:59 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA18977 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 12:49:57 -0500 Received: from ip45.bedford3.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.11.45]) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 149spy-0004Gw-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 12:52:06 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 12:59:52 -0500 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id MAA18978 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 18:01:21 -0500 (EST), Ole Craig wrote: > After my first shocked and bitter expletives hit the room >earlier today, one of my cow-orkers pointed out that RMS foresaw this >several years ago. (www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html) > > Ole There's a form at dvdcca.org for requesting PDFs on the different initiatives. The hard drive spec is targeted at removable media, such as IBM microdrives and Compact flash memory. Still it seems naive to assume it wouldn't be applied to all hard drives if available. It seems to be an attempt to stuff the Internet back into a bottle. Microsoft's objections should be heeded. If MS Office had this type of protection from the start, it would be right up there battling Smartsuite for market share. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Dec 23 14:25:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA19439 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:25:30 -0500 Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA19436 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:25:30 -0500 Received: from mediaone.net (h002078d5b1ce.ne.mediaone.net [66.30.64.193]) by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA06115 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:27:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A44FCAB.3000100@mediaone.net> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:27:39 -0500 From: Sphere User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108 Netscape6/6.0 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? References: <20001222025920.15928.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> <20001222090452.F5677@lemuria.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Tom Vogt wrote: > Bryan Taylor wrote: > >> The countervailing pressure is that the price of PC is steadily >> declining. > > > sorry, it's not. a consumer-grade PC costs around 2.000 german marks today. > it cost 2k DM last year, the year before and as long back as I can > remember. my first PC, a 16 mhz 286 with 1 MB RAM did cost roughly 2k. > > the individual hardware pieces get cheaper. the total package, while > changing it's contents, does not. > > however, margins in the hardware business ARE razor thin, so unless there's > a real compellent reason, any new and more expensive hardware simply won't > fly. > but don't forget that we're talking about people who are quite good at > CREATING reasons. Actually, the hardware has gotten so far ahead of the software's ability to make use of it that "acceptable" PC prices have been falling all year long. First time I remember this happening. I don't see any signs of a killer app requiring the high-end machines coming along soon either. -- Sphere. In the tower light a lamp. One if they come by law. Two if they come by technology. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Sat Dec 23 15:25:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA19693 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:25:08 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA19690 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:25:06 -0500 Received: from ip145.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.10.145]) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 149vG8-000625-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:27:16 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:35:03 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20001222025920.15928.qmail@web511.mail.yahoo.com> <20001222090452.F5677@lemuria.org> <3A44FCAB.3000100@mediaone.net> In-Reply-To: <3A44FCAB.3000100@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id PAA19691 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:27:39 -0500, Sphere wrote: >Actually, the hardware has gotten >so far ahead of the software's >ability to make use of it that >"acceptable" PC prices have been >falling all year long. First >time I remember this happening. >I don't see any signs of a killer >app requiring the high-end machines >coming along soon either. Video compression is one. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Mon Dec 25 14:57:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA03832 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 14:57:54 -0500 Received: from emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (cc273095-a.hwrd1.md.home.com [24.3.46.177]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA03829 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 14:57:53 -0500 Received: (from jfb@localhost) by emperor.hwrd1.md.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA22987 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 15:00:08 -0500 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.6 on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 15:00:07 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Bauer To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Information Liberation Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I found this book "Information Liberation: Challenging the corruptions of information power" by Brian Martin on the web, I only read a little bit so far, but it looks interesting. You can find it here: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98il/index.html The 3rd chapter is probably most relevant to this group. Chapter titles: Power tends to corrupt Beyond mass media Against intellectual property Antisurveillance Free speech versus bureaucracy Defamation law and free speech The politics of research On the value of simple ideas Celebrity intellectuals Toward information liberation Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Dec 26 15:38:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA10063 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:38:10 -0500 Received: from europe.std.com (europe-e.std.com [192.74.137.10]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA10060 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:38:09 -0500 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-f.std.com [199.172.62.5]) by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24211 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:40:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from [24.218.56.92] (h000a2792745c.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.56.92]) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11911 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:39:24 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:39:18 -0500 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" Subject: [dvd-discuss] Fwd: from Intel RE: IBM&Intel push copy protection into ordinary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >Subject: fyi: IP: from Intel RE: IBM&Intel push copy protection into ordinary >To: cryptography@c2.net >Reply-To: Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com >From: Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 10:20:02 -0800 >Sender: owner-cryptography@c2.net > >------- Forwarded Message > >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 06:35:10 -0500 >To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com >From: Dave Farber >Subject: IP: from Intel RE: IBM&Intel push copy protection into ordinary > disk drives > > >>From: "Gelsinger, Patrick P" >>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu >> >>Dave - >> >>As a regular reader of your IP reader, I would apprecaite you diseminating a >>correction to your mailing on Dec 22. >> >>Content protection technology misinformation generates negative web-press >>coverage: >> >>An article on The Register website "Stealth plan puts copy protection into >>every hard drive" contains false information that the 4C's (Intel, IBM, MEI, >>Toshiba) Content Protection for Recordable Media (CPRM) is to be applied to >>all PC hard drives. It is misinterpreting a specification for use of CPRM >>with the Compact Flash media format (which supports either semiconductor >>flash memory or IBM microdrives) probably because Compact Flash uses the >>same command protocol interface as standard PC harddrives. The technology >>is neither intended nor licensed for use with PC harddrives and is optional >>even for the supported media types (flash memory and microdrives). John >>Gilmore, a noted privacy and consumer advocate, has picked up the article >>and further propagated the erroneous information and mentioned Intel >>"IBM&Intel push copy protection into ordinary disk drives". I have alerted >>public relations at Intel and are disseminating accurate information within >>Intel and among our industry contacts. >> >> Pat. > > > >For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/ > >------- End of Forwarded Message From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Dec 26 16:48:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA10620 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:48:52 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA10617 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:48:51 -0500 Received: from ip56.bedford16.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.90.56]) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 14B1zw-0007Tp-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:51:09 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] IBM spin cycle Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:59:06 -0500 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id QAA10618 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I've been having my way with the IBM Research article on CPRM at the Openlaw Annotation Master: http://eon.law.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/annotate/main.cgi?view=http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/magazine/2000/number_2/solutions200.html#two __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Dec 26 16:52:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA10765 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:52:24 -0500 Received: from osiris.978.org (qmailr@bluebox.ne.mediaone.net [24.168.164.38]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA10762 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:52:23 -0500 Received: (qmail 21248 invoked by uid 1000); 26 Dec 2000 21:54:42 -0000 Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:54:42 -0500 From: Brian Ristuccia To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] To Reply or Not To Reply... Message-ID: <20001226165441.K4445@osiris.978.org> Mail-Followup-To: brianr@osiris.978.org, dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from richardsbowers@hotmail.com on Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 08:51:44AM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Richard Bowers writes: > > The DMCA actually specifies the form of cease & desist letters that may be > supplied. They don't have to be paper, but they do need to supply an > almost-generic section referring to the DMCA, and stating "under penalty of > perjury", and so on. > > Oh, and I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet. I don't know that > I advise one way or the other on what to do with the email, other then > responding once with a note saying "Your letter doesn't conform to the > requirements of the DMCA. If this is a legitimate email, please reply with > the information required under the Act." I replied to their message that was sent in January of 2000. See http://osiris.978.org/~brianr/css/demand.txt My reply is at http://osiris.978.org/~brianr/css/draft-response.txt Since then they've sent me the generic followup form letters everyone else has received. I haven't been targeted for any special action, nor have they left me alone. I am, however, quoted in one of the filings in the CA case, but I beleive this occured before I sent my reply. Because replying to them has done nothing to benefit me, it's unlikely replying will be of any benefit to you. With no benefit to offset the risk of saying anything that might be used against you later on, I'd suggest just keeping quiet. I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't get any help from one when drafting my response to the MPAA's first letter - although a few did read it and all concluded it was about equally harmless to send or not send. Both choices being otherwise equal back in January, I think a professional would have erred in favor of not sending. Not only does that path require less work, but it's also always possible to claim that the letter or the response to it was lost if such a response was indeed justified and none was sent. You might want to do something if they're sending defamatory letters about you to someone else, like your ISP, employer, or university. I'm sure a competent lawyer can help you draft a "knock it off or I might sue you" letter. -- Brian Ristuccia brian@ristuccia.com bristucc@cs.uml.edu From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Tue Dec 26 20:48:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA12223 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:48:39 -0500 Received: from hall.mail.mindspring.net (hall.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.60]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA12220 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:48:37 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38lcjma.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.78.202]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA14417 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:50:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A494A04.6841B2C3@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:46:45 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I found this paper on the topic: (linked from http://www.t13.org/) ftp://fission.dt.wdc.com/pub/standards/x3t13/technical/e00152r0.pdf quotable quote: "Conclusion: it is about the license, not the cryptography" mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 27 09:52:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA16475 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:52:14 -0500 Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA16472 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:52:10 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38ld7c6.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.157.134]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA24971 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:54:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A4A01AD.73C7C514@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:50:22 -0500 From: Mickey McGown X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Copy protection of ordinary disk drives? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The 'media id' appears to already be in place as part of the 'identify device' for ATA-3 disks: =============================== a)Words 10-19: Serial number This field contains the serial number of the device. The contents of this field is an ASCII character string of twenty bytes. The device shall pad the character string with spaces (20h), if necessary, to ensure that the string is the proper length. The combination of Serial number (Words 10-19) and Model number (Words 27-46) shall be unique. ================================ Why would they need an additional media ID added to the spec? mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Wed Dec 27 22:43:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA22252 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 22:43:48 -0500 Received: from web515.mail.yahoo.com (web515.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.230]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA22249 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 22:43:46 -0500 Message-ID: <20001228034608.331.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.81.113.151] by web515.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 19:46:08 PST Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 19:46:08 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: [dvd-discuss] Yahoo argues Lack of Jurisdiction To: dvd-discuss MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu It appears that Pavlovich isn't the only one who wants to be protected against distant jurisdictions: http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/12/25/french.anti.racist.idg/index.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 28 03:21:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA24088 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 03:21:22 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA24085 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 03:21:21 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3E9BBB70.dip.t-dialin.net [62.155.187.112]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C9327AE9 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:21:57 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BB1C317517E; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:21:22 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:21:22 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Yahoo argues Lack of Jurisdiction Message-ID: <20001228092122.B7915@lemuria.org> References: <20001228034608.331.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001228034608.331.qmail@web515.mail.yahoo.com>; from bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com on Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 07:46:08PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 07:46:08PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > It appears that Pavlovich isn't the only one who wants to be protected against > distant jurisdictions: > > http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/12/25/french.anti.racist.idg/index.html yes, I already pointed that out in a forum on the telepolis website (www.heise.de/tp/). could we cite the decision of that court as a precedent or other kind of support? what about the exact other way around? is there a french guy in the CA case? could we maybe write a short amicus for the YAHOO case, pointing out the relationship between these decisions? -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 28 13:33:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA28813 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:33:57 -0500 Received: from web514.mail.yahoo.com (web514.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.104.229]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA28810 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:33:56 -0500 Message-ID: <20001228183620.25832.qmail@web514.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.26.123.36] by web514.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:36:20 PST Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:36:20 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Taylor Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Yahoo argues Lack of Jurisdiction To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu --- Tom wrote: > On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 07:46:08PM -0800, Bryan Taylor wrote: > > It appears that Pavlovich isn't the only one who wants to be protected > against > > distant jurisdictions: > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/12/25/french.anti.racist.idg/index.html > > yes, I already pointed that out in a forum on the telepolis website > (www.heise.de/tp/). could we cite the decision of that court as a > precedent or other kind of support? The Yahoo case is in Federal court in San Jose, so it might not be directly controlling, but I would think that it would be fair game to cite for its reasoning, and vice versa. > what about the exact other way around? is there a french guy in the CA > case? could we maybe write a short amicus for the YAHOO case, pointing > out the relationship between these decisions? I think this issue is a very important one, that might be worth weighin in for Openlaw. If so, however, it probably ought to be done on its own terms - not as a dvd-discuss action. On the merits, it seems obvious to me that a US enforcement action against someone speaking in a way that violates the laws of another country cannot be Constitutional. The US government cannot enforce a law of another country which it could not itself legally enact. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 28 22:45:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA04971 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 22:45:41 -0500 Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA04968 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 22:45:39 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38lc62i.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.24.82]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA29685 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 22:48:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A4C0879.454FCF55@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 22:43:53 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-4293951.html?tag=st.ne.1002.bgif.ni "aggressive promotion of used book sales...harm[s] authors and publishers" The beginnings of an argument for authors to limit use after initial access? This can't be a new issue. mickeym From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Thu Dec 28 22:53:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA05092 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 22:53:26 -0500 Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (johnson.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.177]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA05089 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 22:53:25 -0500 Received: from Jana-Server (user-38lc62i.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.24.82]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA21330 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 22:55:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A4C0A4A.C055AA@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 22:51:38 -0500 From: mickeym X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss Subject: RE:[dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu I should read Slashdot, too. They had this link to the text of the letter: http://www.authorsguild.org/pramazon1200.html > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-4293951.html?tag=st.ne.1002.bgif.ni > > "aggressive promotion of used book sales...harm[s] authors and > publishers" > > The beginnings of an argument for authors to limit use after initial > access? > > This can't be a new issue. > > mickeym > > > From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 29 03:22:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA06470 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:22:13 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA06467 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:22:11 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3EE2D5DA.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.218]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8771527AB9 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 09:22:36 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2268E17517E; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 09:22:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 09:22:02 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Message-ID: <20001229092202.A10278@lemuria.org> References: <3A4C0A4A.C055AA@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A4C0A4A.C055AA@mindspring.com>; from mickeym@mindspring.com on Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 10:51:38PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 10:51:38PM -0500, mickeym wrote: > I should read Slashdot, too. They had this link to the text of the > letter: > > http://www.authorsguild.org/pramazon1200.html > > "aggressive promotion of used book sales...harm[s] authors and > > publishers" > > > > The beginnings of an argument for authors to limit use after initial > > access? > > > > This can't be a new issue. it's not. publishers tried to stop used-book sales several times. I wonder whether the "guild" starts out as a lie already, i.e. isn't a guild of authors at all, but a front for the publishers. current bets are 10:1 for "yes". -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 29 11:24:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09191 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:24:36 -0500 Received: from eeyore.cc.uic.edu (eeyore.cc.uic.edu [128.248.171.51]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA09188 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:24:35 -0500 Received: from uic.edu (johns.cc.uic.edu [128.248.5.134]) by eeyore.cc.uic.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03617 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:27:01 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A4CBBF2.E456D8E@uic.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:29:39 -0600 From: John Schulien X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu The depressing thing about the slashdot discussion is the misconceptions about copyright law that people have. At least a half dozen people wrote to say that, in essence, the publishers had made a mistake by not using a "shrink-wrap" license, like on software, and, if they were to do so, then they would be able to legally prohibit resale of their books. I find this very discouraging. If young people don't understand what their rights are, then they will not stand up when the copyright industry goes to the government asking to rewrite the law to eliminate their rights. Even worse, people are saying things like: > If they want to sell new books under a license agreement > making it illegal to resell them then I'm willing to accept > that too - but not an imposition of a license agreement > after the sale has been made. GRR! - John From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 29 12:17:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA09528 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:17:48 -0500 Received: from osf1.gmu.edu (osf1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.13]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA09525 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:17:46 -0500 Received: from localhost (jerwin@localhost) by osf1.gmu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA31965 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:20:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:20:13 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy A Erwin To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales In-Reply-To: <20001229092202.A10278@lemuria.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Tom wrote: > On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 10:51:38PM -0500, mickeym wrote: > > I should read Slashdot, too. They had this link to the text of the > > letter: > > > > http://www.authorsguild.org/pramazon1200.html > > > "aggressive promotion of used book sales...harm[s] authors and > > > publishers" > > > The beginnings of an argument for authors to limit use after initial > > > access? > > > This can't be a new issue. > it's not. publishers tried to stop used-book sales several times. > I wonder whether the "guild" starts out as a lie already, i.e. isn't a > guild of authors at all, but a front for the publishers. current bets > are 10:1 for "yes". Supposedly, Amazon bought, on credit, the remainder stocks of several large book publishers. Since the publishers have essentially spent that money, it is in their best interest that Amazon not go belly up. On a tangent: Has anyone seen the Paramount DVD License? >From Shaft (2000) The contents of this video device are protected under Copyright and Intellectual Property Laws. The video device is licensed for non commercial private viewing in homes. Any distribution outside of the licensed territory copying transmission, public performance, alteration or reverse engineering is strictly prohibited and may result in criminal and or civil liability. All rights reserved. Jeremy From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 29 12:41:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA09998 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:41:58 -0500 Received: from relay21.smtp.psi.net (relay21.smtp.psi.net [38.8.22.2]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA09995 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:41:57 -0500 Received: from ip56.bedford2.ma.pub-ip.psi.net ([38.32.10.56]) by relay21.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 14C3Zn-000777-00 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:44:23 -0500 From: Ron Gustavson To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:52:30 -0500 Message-ID: References: <3A4C0A4A.C055AA@mindspring.com> <20001229092202.A10278@lemuria.org> In-Reply-To: <20001229092202.A10278@lemuria.org> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by eon.law.harvard.edu id MAA09996 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu >On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 10:51:38PM -0500, mickeym wrote: >> I should read Slashdot, too. They had this link to the text of the >> letter: >> >> http://www.authorsguild.org/pramazon1200.html > > >> > "aggressive promotion of used book sales...harm[s] authors and >> > publishers" >> > >> > The beginnings of an argument for authors to limit use after initial >> > access? I don't think so. From the letter: We believe the compromise is simple and straightforward: restrict the blue-box link to out-of-print and collectible books and list all used book offerings after all new versions of a title are listed. Our members want nothing more than a fair opportunity to earn royalties for their book sales whatever the sales outlet. We hope that Amazon will respect this very reasonable professional goal. I don't see anything wrong with their request. In fact, it may be viewed as support for used book sales in that it specifically removes them from this controversy about how Amazon operates. If used books are confused with new books, and licenses are confused with copyrights, then resolving any issue will be a muddy task. __________NO-∞-DO__________ From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 29 16:17:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA11892 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:17:35 -0500 Received: from mercury.clearway.com ([199.103.231.100]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA11889 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:17:35 -0500 Received: by MERCURY with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:19:28 -0500 Received: from linuxbuild.clearway.com ([199.103.231.172]) by mercury.clearway.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id ZXVHV54G; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:19:22 -0500 Received: by linuxbuild.clearway.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:19:32 -0500 From: Leland Ray To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:19:32 -0500 Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Message-ID: <20001229161932.A25072@clearway.com> References: <3A4C0A4A.C055AA@mindspring.com> <20001229092202.A10278@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from rongus@tiac.net on Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:52:30PM -0500 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:52:30PM -0500, Ron Gustavson wrote: > I don't see anything wrong with their request. In fact, it may be > viewed as support for used book sales in that it specifically removes > them from this controversy about how Amazon operates. Many many students in universities buy used textbooks, even when the new version of the book is still in print. The ability to buy the books used through an outlet like Amazon provides a valuable check on thier local bookstore. So I can't see the suggestion as outlined in the letter as reasonable. From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 29 18:40:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA12610 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:40:28 -0500 Received: from mail.onetouch.com (mail2.onetouch.com [205.180.182.5]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA12607 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:40:27 -0500 Received: by mail.onetouch.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:43:09 -0800 Message-ID: From: Richard Hartman To: "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:43:09 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Leland Ray [mailto:Ray@clearway.com] > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 1:20 PM > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales > > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:52:30PM -0500, Ron Gustavson wrote: > > I don't see anything wrong with their request. In fact, it may be > > viewed as support for used book sales in that it > specifically removes > > them from this controversy about how Amazon operates. > > Many many students in universities buy used textbooks, even when the > new version of the book is still in print. The ability to buy > the books > used through an outlet like Amazon provides a valuable check on thier > local bookstore. > > > So I can't see the suggestion as outlined in the letter as reasonable. > Well ... you may have a point if you are talking about textbooks. That market -expects- to have yearly turnover & resale of the books ... whether that happens locally (in & around each university) or globally (spreading the supply from many universities around) I don't think matters much. However, I do think that the author's request that new mainstream books (not textbooks) be protected from that kind of large-scale quick-turnover recycling (we're talking weeks here) is not unreasonable. If you want to buy a new book used, check your local used bookstores. They're still available ... it's just the scale of an operation such as Amazon selling the used copies of essentially new books can really change the dynamic of the market. Possibly to the point of implosion. I mean, if the authors can't get the kind of sales they expect in the first few months then they may have to find another line of work, eh? -- -Richard M. Hartman hartman@onetouch.com 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW! From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 29 21:50:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA13681 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 21:50:03 -0500 Received: from mail.lemuria.org (www.lemuria.org [62.197.4.112]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA13678 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 21:50:01 -0500 Received: from unicorn.lemuria.org (p3EE2D5F2.dip.t-dialin.net [62.226.213.242]) by mail.lemuria.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A3727AFB for ; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 03:50:42 +0100 (MET) Received: by unicorn.lemuria.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E12F217517E; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 03:50:10 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 03:50:10 +0100 From: Tom To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Message-ID: <20001230035010.C11524@lemuria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from hartman@onetouch.com on Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 03:43:09PM -0800 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 03:43:09PM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > However, I do think that the author's request that new mainstream books > (not textbooks) be protected from that kind of large-scale quick-turnover > recycling (we're talking weeks here) is not unreasonable. for what it's worth - I think the most important aspect is that it's a REQUEST. they didn't scream murder and fly in the thought police like certain other friends of ours have. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net -- From dvd-discuss-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu Fri Dec 29 22:01:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA13828 for dvd-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:01:07 -0500 Received: from rjmconsulting.com (root@ns.rjmconsulting.com [208.243.211.182]) by eon.law.harvard.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA13825 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:01:05 -0500 Received: (from rmiller@localhost) by rjmconsulting.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26085 for dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:15:53 -0800 Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:15:53 -0800 From: Russell Miller To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Amazon asked to curb used book sales Message-ID: <20001229201553.C9501@duskglow.com> References: <20001230035010.C11524@lemuria.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20001230035010.C11524@lemuria.org>; from tom@lemuria.org on Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 03:50:10AM +0100 Sender: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu True. But the real test come if/when it's denied. --Russell On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 03:50:10AM +0100, Tom wrote: > On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 03:43:09PM -0800, Richard Hartman wrote: > > However, I do think that the author's request that new mainstream books > > (not textbooks) be protected from that kind of large-scale quick-turnover > > recycling (we're talking weeks here) is not unreasonable. > > for what it's worth - I think the most important aspect is that it's a > REQUEST. they didn't scream murder and fly in the thought police like > certain other friends of ours have. > > > -- > -- http://www.lemuria.org > -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net > -- -- Russell (James) Miller - rmiller@duskglow.com - russell@know-where.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sites are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of my clients. http://www.duskglow.com http://www.singlegeek.com http://www.whathaveyoudone.org